Obamas "Jobs Bill" is DOA as it should be!!!!!!! Unfu***** believeable

[Foxfyre]

I have been speaking only of income and payroll taxes.

If you want to add in every tax that people pay then we're probably pushing close to 50% of people's income going to taxes.

I've read its closer to 40%.

Oh so 40% of income confiscated is OK with you?

Or is it only OK when it's not your money?

Counting up the city, county, state, and federal taxes and fees that are generally assessed, it is very easy to pay 50% or more of your income to government, most especially if you are self employed. And it is that middle group--the self-employed business owner who typically creates most of the new jobs in the country--who will be hit the hardest by Obamacare, Cap & Trade, other onerous and unnecessary regulations, and the proposed new taxes our Fearless Leader wants RIGHT NOW (but will paid for by unspecified spending cuts spread over the next ten years.)

I tell you, I really do laugh to keep from crying or screaming. His Arrogance and his devoted entourage not only are clueless and incompetent or truly evil--it has to be one or the other--but they play us all for fools. They think we believe them no matter how much they contradict themselves or have failed to produce results with the same stuff in the past.

 

[Maple]

Its been anounced that his bill is proposed to be paid through TAX INCREASES 400 billion dollars worth of tax increases on anyone making over 200k a year. Essentially eliminating deductions for ....

healthcare
charity
mortgage
state and local taxes (essentially taxing you twice if this passes)

And raising gas and oil taxes (as if the damn gas wasnt expensive enough as it is)


In early 2009 when the democrats controlled BOTH houses they tried and failed to pass these increases in taxes to pay for Obamacare. Now they plan to try again and blame the gop.


All this doublespeak about taxes is making me dizzy. These very increases were also mentioned as a way to decrease our debt. Obama and his minyons seem to think tax increases are the solution to every problem. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT CUTTING SPENDING

And now word that Bank Of America is planning on firing 30,000 people in the next couple of years. So yea, lets raise all these taxes and see how much further down the rabbit hole we can fall.

The GOP better stand firm!!!

COME ON 2012

Tax Hikes to Pay for Obama's Jobs Plan - Fox News Video - Fox News

Is there a Democrat alive that will present his plan to the congress?? This is nothing more than doubling down on Stimulus 1 which failed, I call it stimulus 2 or the son of Stimulus 1.

 

[Maple]

I've read its closer to 40%.

Oh so 40% of income confiscated is OK with you?

Or is it only OK when it's not your money?

Counting up the city, county, state, and federal taxes and fees that are generally assessed, it is very easy to pay 50% or more of your income to government, most especially if you are self employed. And it is that middle group--the self-employed business owner who typically creates most of the new jobs in the country--who will be hit the hardest by Obamacare, Cap & Trade, other onerous and unnecessary regulations, and the proposed new taxes our Fearless Leader wants RIGHT NOW (but will paid for by unspecified spending cuts spread over the next ten years.)

I tell you, I really do laugh to keep from crying or screaming. His Arrogance and his devoted entourage not only are clueless and incompetent or truly evil--it has to be one or the other--but they play us all for fools. They think we believe them no matter how much they contradict themselves or have failed to produce results with the same stuff in the past.

I don't think they are playing us for fools anymore, they just lost an election in New York where the Democrats out number the Republicans 3-1, it's the first time since 1923 that a Republican held that seat. Right now the dems are losing sleep and chewing their nails. They know their pink slip is coming on Nov 12, 2012.

 

[Maple]

I guess we need to eliminate homestead exemptions for property taxes, too then, right?

I have been speaking only of income and payroll taxes.

If you want to add in every tax that people pay then we're probably pushing close to 50% of people's income going to taxes.

I've read its closer to 40%.

You are aware that 40% means 40 cents on every dollar earned, that means if you earn a dollar you only get to keep, save, spend and invest 60 cents because that's all that's left after the government takes their share.

 

[Foxfyre]

There was a teenager in the audience who asked a question at the last Republican "Tea Party" debate. I think he asked it of Huntsman: "How much of my income should I be allowed to keep?" (Or something very close to that.)

In my opinion he didn't get a straight answer from Huntman. Didn't really get an answer, period.

I wouldn't have blinked before replying: "You should be able to keep every penny that is not absolutely necessary to fund the Constitutional requirements of the Federal government and what the people ask of their more local governments. And if we were operating under the protection of rights and the free market economy envisioned by the Founders, you should be able to keep close to 90% or more of what you earn.

In my opinion, if God can get by with 10% to govern a really great world, surely government can get by with 10% to secure our rights.

We need to get back to the mentality of how much we shall allocate to government rather than how much will government allow us to have.

 

[Jarhead]

I have been speaking only of income and payroll taxes.

If you want to add in every tax that people pay then we're probably pushing close to 50% of people's income going to taxes.

I've read its closer to 40%.

You are aware that 40% means 40 cents on every dollar earned, that means if you earn a dollar you only get to keep, save, spend and invest 60 cents because that's all that's left after the government takes their share.

better interpreted this way....

Your first 146 days of the year go to the government. That brings you to late May before the money you earn is yours to do with as you please.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh so 40% of income confiscated is OK with you?

Or is it only OK when it's not your money?

I pay taxes.

I think you should pay more.

OK. Thought noted.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

By managing my portfolio I am predicting the future. For example I dumped a ton of real estate and bank stocks before the bubble burst because I saw it coming.

So the majority of the market I guess wasn't "managing their portfolio"


Is there anyway to tell if someone is "managing their portfolio" B4 an actual market turn - or can you only reliably make those kinds of "predictions" after they happen?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have been speaking only of income and payroll taxes.

If you want to add in every tax that people pay then we're probably pushing close to 50% of people's income going to taxes.

I've read its closer to 40%.

You are aware that 40% means 40 cents on every dollar earned, that means if you earn a dollar you only get to keep, save, spend and invest 60 cents because that's all that's left after the government takes their share.

The government does stuff with my money. I wouldn't be able to get my car out of my driveway in the morning without government spending, and neither would you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

By managing my portfolio I am predicting the future. For example I dumped a ton of real estate and bank stocks before the bubble burst because I saw it coming.

So the majority of the market I guess wasn't "managing their portfolio"


Is there anyway to tell if someone is "managing their portfolio" B4 an actual market turn - or can you only reliably make those kinds of "predictions" after they happen?

Yes you look at their trades before a market turn and see if their strategy was advantageous or not. If it was then they did indeed predict the future.

One thing i learned is that a guaranteed return is nothing but a guaranteed loss. So when the government tells you that it will protect you with a guarantee then you can be damned sure you're going to be losing money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've read its closer to 40%.

You are aware that 40% means 40 cents on every dollar earned, that means if you earn a dollar you only get to keep, save, spend and invest 60 cents because that's all that's left after the government takes their share.

The government does stuff with my money. I wouldn't be able to get my car out of my driveway in the morning without government spending, and neither would you.

The same old hackneyed roads argument.

In fact I would be able to get my 4x4 out of my driveway road or no road.

But we pay for roads not out of income taxes but out of use taxes placed on gas and vehicles as it should be.

Those that use government services the most should pay the most. I drive a lot less than I used to hence i buy less gas and pay less taxes and tolls that are supposed to be earmarked for roads.

I also have a private well and septic system but I pay out of my local taxes for a waste treatment plant that I don't use.

I have no children but I pay for schools and I also do not get a rug rat deduction on my income taxes so i am in effect subsidizing someone else's rug rats.

So you see some of us pay for much more than we actually get from the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've read its closer to 40%.

You are aware that 40% means 40 cents on every dollar earned, that means if you earn a dollar you only get to keep, save, spend and invest 60 cents because that's all that's left after the government takes their share.

The government does stuff with my money. I wouldn't be able to get my car out of my driveway in the morning without government spending, and neither would you.

They do stuff with about 30 cents of the tax dollar you hand over to them. The rest is swallowed up in the enormous bureaucracy that government has become. And don't think they do all necessary 'stuff' with the other 30 percent either.

Here's just ten 'small' examples out of all the 'stuff' the government did with our stimulus money. How many of these things would you have voluntarily contributed to:

1. $554,763 for the Forest Service to Replace Windows in an empty Visitor Center at Amboy, WA. The Visitor's Center was closed in 2007 with no intention to reopen it. Private sector jobs created: two for a day's work.


2. $762,372 to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte for “Dance Draw” – to develop interaction youtube like interactive dance software. Public or private sector jobs created: zero.

3. $1.9 million for Ants Talk. Taxpayers Listen at San Francisco, CA for the California Academy of Sciences to send reserachers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east Afrida to capture, photograph, and analyze ants. Jobs created and percentage of money used to stimulate local U.S. economy. Zero. The photographs will be available for the public to see though.

4. $89,298 to replace a five-year-old perfectly good sidewalk in Boynton, OK with a new sidewalk. Supposedly it was to bring the sidewalk into compliance with federal guidelines--are you comfortable that there ARE federal guidelines for sidewalks in Boynton OK???? The people are scratching their heads though because this sidewalk fronts no homes or businesses and leads directly into a ditch. The job produced one week's work.

To do the job, the Feds hired Glover & Associates who had been fined and barred by the State of Oklahoma for using illegal building materials. The same firm has received a total of $4.7 milllion for stimulus money jobs. Why? They are union. Other contractors who bid for the work were not.

No money to repair dangerous conditions at a Boynton elementary school however.

5. $712,883 to Northwestern University at Evanston IL for research in hopes of creating a 'joke machine" that will use the internet jokes being e-mailed around to everybody to put out something funny on demand. Private sector jobs created. Zero.

6. $762,373 to a Georgia Tech professor of music to study improvised music.

7. $350,000 to the FCC to help people hook up digital converter boxes necessary to accommodate the federal government's recent mandate for everybody to switch to digital TV. (The hookup requires plugging four cables into the proper receptacles. Even Mr. Foxfyre and I figured out how to do it from printed instructions and had it done in five minutes.) Private sector jobs created. Zero.

8. $253,123 to North Carolina State University Insect Museum for a new bug storage cabinet. Private sector jobs created: zero.

9. $294,958 to Winston-Salem NC to promote yoga to reduce menopausal hot flashes experienced by women. Private sector jobs created: uncertain but I bet it wasn't very damn many.

10. $296,385 to Cornell University to study the history of 'dog domestication'. Private sector jobs created: zero.
______________________________

Now I don't know how long it takes you to earn enough to pay even $10,000 let alone $100,000 or a million in taxes, but when I was working, it took me a long time. And the government just thumbs its nose at us who were expecting jobs to be created and the economy jump started with that money.

Do you feel the government used your money with the same respect you would have used it? The same respect for your labor, risks, wear and tear, and hopes and dreams that you have for the money you earn?

Is it asking too much for those we elect to represent us to treat our money with the same repect we would? And not lie to us about their intentions when they take it from us?

 

[Bfgrn]

There was a teenager in the audience who asked a question at the last Republican "Tea Party" debate. I think he asked it of Huntsman: "How much of my income should I be allowed to keep?" (Or something very close to that.)

In my opinion he didn't get a straight answer from Huntman. Didn't really get an answer, period.

I wouldn't have blinked before replying: "You should be able to keep every penny that is not absolutely necessary to fund the Constitutional requirements of the Federal government and what the people ask of their more local governments. And if we were operating under the protection of rights and the free market economy envisioned by the Founders, you should be able to keep close to 90% or more of what you earn.

In my opinion, if God can get by with 10% to govern a really great world, surely government can get by with 10% to secure our rights.

We need to get back to the mentality of how much we shall allocate to government rather than how much will government allow us to have.

HERE is our founder's 'free market economy...

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.

Ever hear of the saying, actions speak louder than words? So HOW they actually governed is how THEY actually interpreted the documents they authored.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Eighteenth-century laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.


The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Corporate Personhood-Demeaning Our Bill of Rights - Reclaim Democracy.org

Thomas Jefferson Feared an Aristocracy of Corporations



"For the general operations of manufacturer, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manner and spirit of a people which preserve a public vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Foxfyre]

Taking things out of context and rewrapping them in liberal interpretation is not a good or honest use of history.

Rebuttal to Bfgm's argument:

It is true that there were bitter disputes over particular policies during the Founding era, such as the paying of the national debt, the existence of a national bank, and whether to subsidize domestic manufactures, and these differences seemed tremendously important in the 1790s. But in spite of these quarrels, there was a background consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow. John Nelson’s verdict on the 1790s is sound: “[W]hen the causes of the slow dissolution of consensus among America’s ruling elites after ratification of the Constitution are detailed, the evidence points to specific disagreements over programmatic issues and not fundamental schisms over the essential role of government.”[1]

The danger is that by concentrating on these and other Founding-era contests, we will fail to see (as the Founders themselves often failed to see) their agreement on the three main policies that, taken together, provide the necessary protection of property rights: the legal right to own and use property in land and other goods; the right to sell or give property to others on terms of one’s own choosing (market freedom); and government support of sound money. Their battles were fought over the best means to those ends and over such subordinate questions as whether and how large-scale manufacturing should be encouraged.
Property Rights and Free Markets: Economic Principles of America's Founders

Those blinded by partisanship or ideology too often focus on whatever minutiae supports their thesis and ignore the larger context that provides a more honest picture. Of course the Founders disagreed, argued, debated, and deliberated over every issue to arrive at the policy that would best fit the larger concept on which they were all agreed. There is nothing sinister about that but rather speaks to the integrity of men who wanted get it right in the best interests of a new nation.

 

[saveliberty]

Your history lesson totally avoided the fact the only taxes were tarriffs in that time. It wasn't until much later that wars brought about income tax. As a result of no taxes on corporations and individuals, money was simply transferred from a business name to private and then given for political purposes. Try a bit more honesty please.

 

[Foxfyre]

If that was directed to me you will need to refer to whatever comment you think I was dishonest about.

 

[saveliberty]

If that was directed to me you will need to refer to whatever comment you think I was dishonest about.

No, it was not directed at you. You just posted before mine was entered. I would think you could see I was in agreement with your post.

 

[Bfgrn]

Taking things out of context and rewrapping them in liberal interpretation is not a good or honest use of history.

Rebuttal to Bfgm's argument:

It is true that there were bitter disputes over particular policies during the Founding era, such as the paying of the national debt, the existence of a national bank, and whether to subsidize domestic manufactures, and these differences seemed tremendously important in the 1790s. But in spite of these quarrels, there was a background consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow. John Nelson’s verdict on the 1790s is sound: “[W]hen the causes of the slow dissolution of consensus among America’s ruling elites after ratification of the Constitution are detailed, the evidence points to specific disagreements over programmatic issues and not fundamental schisms over the essential role of government.”[1]

The danger is that by concentrating on these and other Founding-era contests, we will fail to see (as the Founders themselves often failed to see) their agreement on the three main policies that, taken together, provide the necessary protection of property rights: the legal right to own and use property in land and other goods; the right to sell or give property to others on terms of one’s own choosing (market freedom); and government support of sound money. Their battles were fought over the best means to those ends and over such subordinate questions as whether and how large-scale manufacturing should be encouraged.
Property Rights and Free Markets: Economic Principles of America's Founders

Those blinded by partisanship or ideology too often focus on whatever minutiae supports their thesis and ignore the larger context that provides a more honest picture. Of course the Founders disagreed, argued, debated, and deliberated over every issue to arrive at the policy that would best fit the larger concept on which they were all agreed. There is nothing sinister about that but rather speaks to the integrity of men who wanted get it right in the best interests of a new nation.

Thank you for providing the best history corporations can buy.

But, here is your problem. Your post does NOTHING to dispel the FACTS our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations. They ran a government controlled economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taking things out of context and rewrapping them in liberal interpretation is not a good or honest use of history.

Rebuttal to Bfgm's argument:

It is true that there were bitter disputes over particular policies during the Founding era, such as the paying of the national debt, the existence of a national bank, and whether to subsidize domestic manufactures, and these differences seemed tremendously important in the 1790s. But in spite of these quarrels, there was a background consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow. John Nelson’s verdict on the 1790s is sound: “[W]hen the causes of the slow dissolution of consensus among America’s ruling elites after ratification of the Constitution are detailed, the evidence points to specific disagreements over programmatic issues and not fundamental schisms over the essential role of government.”[1]

The danger is that by concentrating on these and other Founding-era contests, we will fail to see (as the Founders themselves often failed to see) their agreement on the three main policies that, taken together, provide the necessary protection of property rights: the legal right to own and use property in land and other goods; the right to sell or give property to others on terms of one’s own choosing (market freedom); and government support of sound money. Their battles were fought over the best means to those ends and over such subordinate questions as whether and how large-scale manufacturing should be encouraged.
Property Rights and Free Markets: Economic Principles of America's Founders

Those blinded by partisanship or ideology too often focus on whatever minutiae supports their thesis and ignore the larger context that provides a more honest picture. Of course the Founders disagreed, argued, debated, and deliberated over every issue to arrive at the policy that would best fit the larger concept on which they were all agreed. There is nothing sinister about that but rather speaks to the integrity of men who wanted get it right in the best interests of a new nation.

Thank you for providing the best history corporations can buy.

But, here is your problem. Your post does NOTHING to dispel the FACTS our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations. They ran a government controlled economy.

Rebutt my source if you can. I can be pretty damn sure their research and information is better than yours.

There were precious few corporations for the Founding Fathers to regulate. Their regulation, however, was limited to regulating international and interstate trade to ensure that no rights of the people were infringed. Now perhaps you can find something different from that which isn't in a radical leftwing blog who seem to LOVE to promote certain concepts and distort what the Founders were all about.

I point to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution necessary to secure the rights of the people while facilitating honest trade between the states and other nations. It was NEVER intended to give the federal government more power than was absolutely necessary to do that.

Section 8 of Article 1 lists the enumerated powers of the Congress. The clause of this section, the "commerce clause," which grants the Congress the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States," has, in the 20th cent., been used as a strong argument for the expansion of government power. Since the historic case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the commerce clause has been the battleground over which much of the struggle for and against increased federal regulation of private enterprise has been fought. Until the late 1930s Congress exercised its powers under the clause solely with reference to transportation. But after a series of dramatic reversals by the Supreme Court, Congress began to enter areas that had previously been controlled only by the states. The commerce clause is now the source of important peacetime powers of the national government and an important basis for the judicial review of state actions.
Read more: United States Constitution: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

In the modern Big Government era of the liberal, the federal government has seized more and more power to regulate to the detriment of U.S. commerce and industry. Fortunately, there is now a growing movement to reverse that trend and restore something more in keeping with what the Founders promoted.

 

[The T]

Taking things out of context and rewrapping them in liberal interpretation is not a good or honest use of history.

Rebuttal to Bfgm's argument:



Those blinded by partisanship or ideology too often focus on whatever minutiae supports their thesis and ignore the larger context that provides a more honest picture. Of course the Founders disagreed, argued, debated, and deliberated over every issue to arrive at the policy that would best fit the larger concept on which they were all agreed. There is nothing sinister about that but rather speaks to the integrity of men who wanted get it right in the best interests of a new nation.

Thank you for providing the best history corporations can buy.

But, here is your problem. Your post does NOTHING to dispel the FACTS our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations. They ran a government controlled economy.

Rebutt my source if you can. I can be pretty damn sure their research and information is better than yours.

There were precious few corporations for the Founding Fathers to regulate. Their regulation, however, was limited to regulating international and interstate trade to ensure that no rights of the people were infringed. Now perhaps you can find something different from that which isn't in a radical leftwing blog who seem to LOVE to promote certain concepts and distort what the Founders were all about.

I point to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution necessary to secure the rights of the people while facilitating honest trade between the states and other nations. It was NEVER intended to give the federal government more power than was absolutely necessary to do that.

Section 8 of Article 1 lists the enumerated powers of the Congress. The clause of this section, the "commerce clause," which grants the Congress the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States," has, in the 20th cent., been used as a strong argument for the expansion of government power. Since the historic case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the commerce clause has been the battleground over which much of the struggle for and against increased federal regulation of private enterprise has been fought. Until the late 1930s Congress exercised its powers under the clause solely with reference to transportation. But after a series of dramatic reversals by the Supreme Court, Congress began to enter areas that had previously been controlled only by the states. The commerce clause is now the source of important peacetime powers of the national government and an important basis for the judicial review of state actions.
Read more: United States Constitution: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

In the modern Big Government era of the liberal, the federal government has seized more and more power to regulate to the detriment of U.S. commerce and industry. Fortunately, there is now a growing movement to reverse that trend and restore something more in keeping with what the Founders promoted.

Dead on. Life, Liberty, Persuit of happiness (property). Exactly the premise of the founders toward the individual.