Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No tax. No exemption. If there is going to be a tax, it will has to be a small consumption tax like 5%.
The breakdown of the 5%:
3% go to local town and county
1.5% go to state
0.5% go to Federal
The money should left to the local community decide how to spend it, not the Federal government who is run by a handful of people.
Only a tiny fraction of the electorate would be ready to go along with cutting gov't by an order of magnitude as you suggest. Polling does show support for cutting gov't, but not by this much. Why not take advantage of the public support and cut a little, instead of making a proposal that will never be accepted?
With the argument no taxation without representation should that be spun around to no vote if not paying income tax ?
Since Romney suggests the 47% are nothing but bludgers maybe he would be more comfortable if only real Americans ie those who pay income tax having the privilege of the vote.
If not paying Federal income tax disqualified people from voting, no one at all would have voted before 1861.
On Neal Cavuto last night, as well as elsewhere on Fox, they played the so-called "controversial" clip in context and in it's entirety. When hearing the complete statement, everyone agreed there was really nothing wrong with what he said. He simply stated that there are about 47% that would not vote for him no matter what, and that (paraphrasing) that a certain number of people think of themselves as victims, which Obama has made dependent on government, and they would not likely vote for him. Clearly, he was not talking about retired people on Social Security, or anyone else in those categories that the left is trying to claim he disparaged.
Once again the desparate Democrats, the radical leftist propagandists are using anything they can, such as out of context statements, and twisting the meaning to make Romney's words mean something other than they meant in their proper context.
They had to do that to deflect attention away from Obama's DISASTROUS debacle of the murder of the Libyan Ambassador and the protests against the U.S. in several other countries.
And the idiotic Obama base has fallen for it.
Quote:
This was such a 'yawner' when you heard the statement in context.
Moreover, he was absolutely correct!
Those on Fox that commented, including Judge Andrew Napolitano, wished he would say these things in stronger terms, and publically. The message needs to be that we have too many people dependent on government, and that government has created a 'victim' mentality. America has always been about lifting people out of poverty. That is what capitalism does best.
I couldn't have agreed more with Romney's statement.
With the argument no taxation without representation should that be spun around to no vote if not paying income tax ?
Since Romney suggests the 47% are nothing but bludgers maybe he would be more comfortable if only real Americans ie those who pay income tax having the privilege of the vote.
BWAAAHAHAHAAHAHAA. Obamba made LESS money in total that Mittens paid in taxes.
In fact Mittens gave more to charity, than Obamba, Joe foot in mouth Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi AND Hillary Clinton combined. Actually, in looking at just 1 year of his tax returns, he gave more to charity, than the 5 mentioned above did in SEVERAL years combined.
Says a lot about their character, doesn't it. Oh that's right, they don't believe in charity, they think the government should take the money away from people and give it to the people THEY think should have it!
Charity contributions and church tithes are taxdeductible. So why shouldn't they give large?? Just sayin...
Bush isn't the president. Bush hasn't sat on a stagnant economy for 3.5 years. The albatross is around Obama's neck. Re-elect Obama. Make him wear the albatross he created for another 4 years. After that, no one will vote for a Dem for at least a generation.
Quote:
and after three years you are already calling for another big spending neo-con to be put in.
With the argument no taxation without representation should that be spun around to no vote if not paying income tax ?
Since Romney suggests the 47% are nothing but bludgers maybe he would be more comfortable if only real Americans ie those who pay income tax having the privilege of the vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
