[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[PMZ]

The system I suggest WAS the Founders system. And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it. Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use. What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

BTW, your Lincoln quote is very timely. It's nearly impossible for me to understand how the Republican Party got from his profound thinking to the current state of cult delusion. I guess that being bought by business interests is a large part of the explanation.

 

[kaz]

What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.

Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.

Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument. Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know. Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...

I love it when conservatives are speechless. Or, pointless.

Ouch! You called me a conservative!?! I'm going to cry now at your relentless onslaught.



Sorry man, I was trying to cry. Really, I was...

 

[PMZ]

"Oh god, I don't want to be President."

No worries, mate.

The "mate" is a she.

For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.

Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

BTW, your Lincoln quote is very timely. It's nearly impossible for me to understand how the Republican Party got from his profound thinking to the current state of cult delusion. I guess that being bought by business interests is a large part of the explanation.

Profound? ROFL You haven't even figured out that you are not talking to republicans yet. The only thing profound around here is how much like a stump you are.

 

[PMZ]

Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument. Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know. Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...

I love it when conservatives are speechless. Or, pointless.

Ouch! You called me a conservative!?! I'm going to cry now at your relentless onslaught.



Sorry man, I was trying to cry. Really, I was...

I guess that once you get to pointless, you can't stop.

 

[PMZ]

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

BTW, your Lincoln quote is very timely. It's nearly impossible for me to understand how the Republican Party got from his profound thinking to the current state of cult delusion. I guess that being bought by business interests is a large part of the explanation.

Profound? ROFL

Speaking of pointless........

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox for president! Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first. The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over. Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

Fair / uniform.. Not sure how that can be achieved. Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties. Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent. At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.

I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board. I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery. And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.

Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor. They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it. Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.

The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.

I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government. We do that at the state and local level. I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level. But whatever the tax it must be uniform. We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Oh god, I don't want to be President."

No worries, mate.

The "mate" is a she.

For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.

Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it. Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.

Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot. I can't say the same for his wife or Obama. I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day. Obama? I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President? OMG

 

[kaz]

"Oh god, I don't want to be President."

No worries, mate.

The "mate" is a she.

For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.

Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

You are trying to say he balanced the budget, not that he paid the bills. He didn't reduce the debt by any measure, which is what paying our unpaid bills would mean. However, beyond that your Clinton argument is so deliciously ironic to my point, will get back to that in a sec.

Question 1: How did a President who can't pass a budget balance the budget? The Congress, who was Republican and could balance the budget would have had to do that.

Question 2: Say we ignore the facts and give Clinton credit. If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?

The answer to both is the irony I referred to. Government is lying to you. The government you want to give dictatorial powers who we deal with. That is why you must beg the question to get there, facts aren't going to do the job...

 

[PMZ]

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

Fair / uniform.. Not sure how that can be achieved. Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties. Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent. At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.

I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board. I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery. And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.

Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor. They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it. Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.

The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.

I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government. We do that at the state and local level. I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level. But whatever the tax it must be uniform. We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.

"The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people."

We hire and fire the people in government. That's all of the power that we need. And that's why you will never get your dream of a weak government owned by we, the people and a strong business community, owned by the wealthy, overrunning the people.

 

[PMZ]

The "mate" is a she.



Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

You are trying to say he balanced the budget, not that he paid the bills. He didn't reduce the debt by any measure, which is what paying our unpaid bills would mean. However, beyond that your Clinton argument is so deliciously ironic to my point, will get back to that in a sec.

Question 1: How did a President who can't pass a budget balance the budget? The Congress, who was Republican and could balance the budget would have had to do that.

Question 2: Say we ignore the facts and give Clinton credit. If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?

The answer to both is the irony I referred to. Government is lying to you. The government you want to give dictatorial powers who we deal with. That is why you must beg the question to get there, facts aren't going to do the job...

First of all, you repeating the lies that came from Republican 24/7/365 advertising does not make them true, any more than the lies told by MB advertising make you powerful and respected.

Congress passes budgets and Republicans have shut down Congress.

We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.

 

[RKMBrown]

A budget that has to borrow trillions of dollars is not really a budget.

 

[freedombecki]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

That would be viewed as an additional pet rock tax to the existing taxes on income, properties, imports, exports, and profits by many politicians who want Americans to be vassals to the system they already rule.

If you meant it to be the only tax, the present road to higher taxes was paved with ideas by bright minds were usurped by power-hungry monsters that want to control every aspect of American life by mining every scrap of information they can by any which means they can in order to procure the wealth of those that earned it and paid taxes on it already so they can reap the benefits of the American people without having to wait in line for health care like they have planned for the working class like us.

Thanks for your good idea, though, Mr. Brunswick. But having lived a lifetime watching the dogfight between the administration and the congress over who shall have the most money to spend, a sales tax would be viewed as their silver lining to higher taxes on the rest of America while they exploit loopholes they leave to slip their wealth through before anyone knows what happened.

I only have three words for our present government: drunk on power.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "mate" is a she.

Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it. Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.

Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot. I can't say the same for his wife or Obama. I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day. Obama? I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President? OMG

Clinton didn't willingly balance the budget. He went kicking and screaming through the process and finally signed onto it. Sort of like the welfare reform (that allowed the budget to be balanced) that he vetoed three times before he finally acquiesced to public opinion and signed the legislation.

Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has done some great research on this stuff over the years, both for his radio show, for his books and columns he has written, and his television show:

Youtube montage of clinton on the budget - Bing Videos



It IS true that the debt clock slowed significantly during the brief period that we did have a 'balanced' budget and had we kept that amazing group of Congressmen, including about 30 conservative Democrats who helped make it happen, we might have started righting the ship. But alas, most term limited themselves out, were replaced by more statists in both parties, and we remain in danger of capsizing under the weight of our own government greed.

Until we can all agree on and rise up and demand that total fairness be established in the system, meaning everybody, rich and poor, pays the same percentage, and demand that government stay within the bounds of the revenues it receives, it will only get worse.

 

[PMZ]

The "mate" is a she.



Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it. Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.

Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot. I can't say the same for his wife or Obama. I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day. Obama? I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President? OMG

It was innovators who invented computers and the Internet who did it.

A patriot is one that supports his country. President Obama has rebuilt America from the wreckage of the Bush Administration. You are the one that wants to tear it down again.

More Republican media Newspeak from you.

 

[PMZ]

Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.

News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it. Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.

Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot. I can't say the same for his wife or Obama. I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day. Obama? I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President? OMG

Clinton didn't willingly balance the budget. He went kicking and screaming through the process and finally signed onto it. Sort of like the welfare reform (that allowed the budget to be balanced) that he vetoed three times before he finally acquiesced to public opinion and signed the legislation.

Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has done some great research on this stuff over the years, both for his radio show, for his books and columns he has written, and his television show:

Youtube montage of clinton on the budget - Bing Videos



It IS true that the debt clock slowed significantly during the brief period that we did have a 'balanced' budget and had we kept that amazing group of Congressmen, including about 30 conservative Democrats who helped make it happen, we might have started righting the ship. But alas, most term limited themselves out, were replaced by more statists in both parties, and we remain in danger of capsizing under the weight of our own government greed.

Until we can all agree on and rise up and demand that total fairness be established in the system, meaning everybody, rich and poor, pays the same percentage, and demand that government stay within the bounds of the revenues it receives, it will only get worse.

"Fairness" possibly occurs in the next life, not this one. We're about passing on to our children a powerful, successful, progressive country as our parents passed on to us. That requires problem solving, something that Republicans have a decided aversion to, due to their focus on weakening the government and country.

 

[kaz]

We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.

If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

 

[Foxfyre]

We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.

If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

You have to give them, Congress and Clinton, props for the effort though Kaz. And depending on whose charts and graphs you look at, the debt clock did almost stop when we were running surplusses for the first time, WAY ahead of schedule by the way than expected--see that montage of Clinton comments on the budget I posted a few posts ago.

But you are correct that to say that those surpluses were real surpluses does require a few smoke and mirror techniques.

The Clinton era surplus numbers look something like this:

1998 - $69.2 billion surplus
1999 - $125.6 billion surplus
2000 - $236.4 billion surplus
2001 - $127.3 billion surplus

Let's take one year to focus on - 2000. The "official" surplus number for that year was $236.4 billion. So the national debt must have declined that year, right?

Wrong.

Let's take a look at the numbers.

The total national debt on October 1st, 1999 was:

$5,540,570,493,226.32

The total national debt on September 30th, 2000 was:

$5,656,270,901,633.43

That's an INCREASE of over $100 billion, despite the fact that the country posted a surplus.

So what gives?

There are two things that happened here:

1) The "on-budget" surplus was actually much smaller than the number that included both the "on-budget" and "off-budget" numbers, which is the number that is widely reported by the media.

2) Any excess revenues from the Social Security trust funds are automatically invested in government-issued debt:

"Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States."
Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years?

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh god, I don't want to be President. But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect. And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more. And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.

Fair / uniform.. Not sure how that can be achieved. Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties. Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent. At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.

I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board. I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery. And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.

Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor. They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it. Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.

The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.

I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government. We do that at the state and local level. I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level. But whatever the tax it must be uniform. We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.

Just because someone is retired, does not excuse them from paying their own way. Pretending they should get everything for free after a certain age? Why? Why just the elderly? Why do we force women to have to pay taxes? Why children? Why black people? Why don't we just make rich white men between the ages of 25 and 60 pay taxes and everyone else get an exemption. You want to be really fair? How about giving me a rebate with interest for the AMT tax I had to pay that would not count if taxed at my current salary?

 

[Foxfyre]

Fair / uniform.. Not sure how that can be achieved. Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties. Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent. At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.

I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board. I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery. And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.

Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor. They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it. Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.

The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.

I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government. We do that at the state and local level. I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level. But whatever the tax it must be uniform. We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.

Just because someone is retired, does not excuse them for paying their own way. Pretending they should get everything for free after a certain age? Why?

Who said anything about them not paying their own way? I am retired and I haven't taken a dime from the federal government ever except for those stupid rebates they made everybody get. I paid a HUGE amount of money into social security and medicare and so far have not drawn anywhere near as much as I paid in.

And I paid taxes on every dime of my earnings--more taxes than most because I was self employed for a lot of years--and I paid tax twice on my social security benefits for several years until I fully retired. Most of our retirement is in Roth accounts so we have already paid income taxes on that.

So to have to pay 20% in federal income taxes in order to spend the money that has already been taxed is doubly hard on retirees and simply can't pass the fair play test.