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.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,843,743 times
Reputation: 670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
If I wanted to hear babbling, I'd go sit next to some brook. Illegals are out there every day doing the hard work of making every place in America a little bit better place to live. The Republicans aren't. Having just trashed the place, they carp, they whine, and they lie. They do everything they can to oppose the people who are trying to get America back to being a little bit better place just for partisan spite. No plans...no ideas...no integrity. Just gutter-level trash-talk. Who needs it? Who needs them? If we are going to start deporting people, it's these useless, pointless Republicans who need to go first...
no, I think we were both right. no one takes you seriously.
If we are going to start deporting people, it's these useless,..
In Arizona, we are deporting literally, busloads of Illegal Immigrants daily.
The other day - a drop house was busted - with over 40 illegals inside. They are being deported and the coyotes are in jail.
A roll over accident north of Phoenix last evening resulted in 6 illegals being arrested (after they were treated for injuries) and turned over to ICE.
So, we will keep deporting the Illegal Immigrants -
Framers were pretty clear. They enumerated common defence and general welfare as powers within an undifferentiated series of powers. They were aware of the phrase "for the purpose of" and deliberately chose not to include it.
There is no such power, and there never was. Liberal freaks regularly abuse Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 by taking the purpose of the power and pretending that it is the power, when anyone with a brain can clearly see the power is the power to tax. Clearly this excludes you since you cannot comprehend what "for" means.
What would be the purpose of having a US Constitution when, using your twisted logic, Congress can do whatever they please "for the Common Defense and General Welfare?" They would have unlimited power to do anything and everything, without restriction. I realize you may want a federal government with unlimited powers, but once again that is not reality. Reality is the US Constitution was created specifically to limit the federal government's powers, not to grant them limitless power. So you keep smoking whatever it is that inspires your delusions, the rest of us will stay rooted in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
So you wouldn't mind causing tens of millions of the elderly, the diabaled, and orphans to starve in the streets? Wonderful...
Spin more lies while you are at it. Just like your lies about how cutting the growth of MediCare/MedicAid by half in 1995 would throw grandma into the street and starve all those poor children. We're still laughing about those moronic lies.
The liberal freaks have warped and distorted the US Constitution to suit their own Marxist agenda since 1933. I'm merely trying to get us back on the track the Founding Fathers intended and restore the federal government to a constitutional government which it obviously has abandoned.
The plain truth of the matter is anyone who thinks those who make more than they should be taxed more are obviously suffering from a low self-esteem and a complete lack of ambition. They realize that they are a pathetic excuse for a human being and they know that they will never be better than they are right now, and that is why they want to punish those who are more successful than they. Hatred, envy, and jealousy are strong motivators for liberal freaks.
Increasing taxes on business owners will only cause price increases of the products and services they provide.
Who will pay the tax?
You, when you buy any product or service.
Workers will also pay the tax in the form of stagnant wages (no raises or increases in benefits).
When will we learn?
A tax on one is a tax on all.
It's nice to see at least someone on this board understands the 3rd law of mechanics. But, you'll never convince them that the rules won't change no matter how many times they click their heels and say it isn't so. I call it the Kool-aid conundrum.
Newtons 3rd law.
Karma
What goes around comes around
These are pretty much the same thing supported by actual fact but for some reason many people think they can stick their hand in someone else's pocket without consequence.
They just don't get that every single increase in operating expense is passed right to the consumer. In fact, the consumer will actually pay more for the tax and give more profit to the producer! Companies find out about tax increases months and sometimes even years in advance but it only takes them a few seconds to raise their prices. If they can't raise prices because of the competition, they'll outsource and a few more jobs will swim across the Pacific.
When my son was four he was reading and came across the word "vital". He asked for the meaning and I told him it was something you needed to function. He then asked, "You mean like the brain?" I thought about that one for a second and then replied, "Apparently not in some cases."
We currently have a progressive income tax structure. Marginal rates (the amount of tax you pay on the next dollar you earn) increase the more dollars you make. Under a flat tax, all dollars received, from first to last, would be taxed at the same rate. As noted earlier, in 2004, the top 1% of income earners paid an average tax rate (tax paid divided by taxable income) of 21.5%. For the 33 million taxpayers between the 50% and 75% marks (taxable income of roughly $30K to $60K), the average rate in 2004 was 7.5%. Any single flat tax rate would presumably be in between the two, and the implications of that are pretty clear: it's a decrease for the higher guys and an increase for the lower guys. This, of course, is an oversimplification. You'd have to examine the full range of provisions in any flat-tax proposal before saying what its actual effects were. But having done just that re a number of proposals over the years, I can say that I have never seen one that didn't end up shifting burden downward.
Increasing taxes on business owners will only cause price increases of the products and services they provide.
Who will pay the tax?
You, when you buy any product or service.
Workers will also pay the tax in the form of stagnant wages (no raises or increases in benefits).
When will we learn?
A tax on one is a tax on all.
Obama himself said just the other day, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" when speaking of the cost of health care coverage for everyone. It will have to be paid for, and not just by the so-called rich. We will ALL be paying for it, one way or another - either in actual out of pocket cost, higher produce prices, or in reduced benefits.
This topic has been covered in the not-too-distant past... but I'd be happy to reiterate my point of view.
While I don't know enough to suggest specific tax rates, I agree with the more progressive tax rate that MattDen suggests.
A flat tax sounds convenient in theory... but most supporters presumably want the rate to be lower than the highest tax rate. That would effectively raise the tax rate on the lower-class and reduce the services that the middle-class would receive for their money. Only the upper-class would benefit from a flat tax. And yes, I maintain my bias that the upper-class would sooner hoard their tax savings within their own homes or communities rather than let it "trickle down" in the form of job opportunities or charitable contributions that would benefit the rest of society.
The final irony will be when most of those downsized IRS workers are rehired to handle the newly complex tax forms created by the states to handle to the shortfall in tax revenue.
Charitable contributions are down 20%, and we know the wealthy contribute the lion's share. Why would they suddenly withhold charitable giving if they had more money available.
"Trickle down" is a term that has been bastardized by the left, but trickle-down is exactly how the economy works, like it or not. The point you people always miss is when you stick it to poor people, the effect really does trickle down to the hourly workers. The rich spend and benefit the average worker.
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.
We're still laughing about those moronic lies. 
