Paying "Their Fair Share" [Archive] - Sean Hannity Discussion

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:13 pm

the only fair tax... one which i support.....

take all spending for the year, divide by the number of people over the age of 18 and have everyone pay the exact same amount of tax to cover that years spending, plus some to pay down the debt......

Vaard,

LOL nice Hog Huey. Why not have everyone pay the same % of what they make for the year???????????

That is far more fair that the Pile of stinking steaming crap your shoveling.

But the reality is Dems and Liberals are afraid of having everyone pay their fair share.

Why??????????????????????????????????????

Because once more people had to they would start demanding that the Federal Government spend less.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:15 pm

since that is just a continuation of bush and republican fiscal policy, you should be supporting it......

LOL so your saying its ok for Obama to do this because Bush did it???????????????

But I thought a vote for Obama was a vote for change???????????????

Does that mean Obama lied????????????

:mrgreen:I mean if all he is going to do is continue Bush's policies didn't he lie???????????

tjkamp

October 22nd, 2009, 5:17 pm

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:18 pm

LOL so your saying its ok for Obama to do this because Bush did it???????????????

But I thought a vote for Obama was a vote for change???????????????

Does that mean Obama lied????????????

:mrgreen:I mean if all he is going to do is continue Bush's policies didn't he lie???????????

no, i am saying that since republicans supoprted bush doing it, they shoudl be supporting obama doing it......

i myself am against both doing it........

and yes, of course obama lied.... what politician doesnt?

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:18 pm

True. Because people who don't have skin in the game don't give a crap how much money the government wastes.

Same thing with healthcare. Why would anybody bother to negotiate fees when someone else is paying the bill?

Exactly. If someone is paying for my hotel and air fare I am not going to negotiate the prices paid.

I volunteer for Habitat 4 Humanity. ALL PERSONS that recieve homes from H4H have to put in Hundreds of hours of sweat equity in the home they are getting.

So far H4H has a 98% rate. Crime, vandalism and gangs are virtually non existant in H4H communities.

Why??????????????

Because when you work for something your rarely willing to see it destroyed without a fight.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:20 pm

Actually I like the comsumption based tax... raise the taxes on goods and services.. and eliminate income tax. You want a big screen.. you pay 15% tax... a bmw? Pay 20% tax.. and so on... dont wanna pay tax? dont buy any..

why punish people who make money?

everyone that lives in america that is over 18 shoud pay an equal share of all the spending......

anything else punishes people for their success or for having money......

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:23 pm

no, i am saying that since republicans supoprted bush doing it, they shoudl be supporting obama doing it......

i myself am against both doing it........

and yes, of course obama lied.... what politician doesnt?

Few Republicans supported Bush doing it. IN fact many Republicans turned openly critical of Bush because he was doing it.

Note Bush did not get re elected in 2004 because of his fiscal policies but because of his stance on the war.

It was his fiscal policies that eventually eroded any and all support for him despit his stance on the war.

Again Obama Supporters voted for Obama beacause they demanded change. Not lieing would be a part of that change.

So apparently Obama Supporters were lieing to themselves if they are now going to excuse his lies because ALL Politicians do it. Thats as lame as you at the age of 12 stating but everyone is doing it. As your mom should have told you back then.

If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you follow them?????????????

Republicans turned their backs on McCain in 2008 because they were not afraid of demanding something better from their politicians.

Are Dems now afraid to demand something better from Obama?

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:24 pm

Vaard,

LOL nice Hog Huey. Why not have everyone pay the same % of what they make for the year???????????

That is far more fair that the Pile of stinking steaming crap your shoveling.

But the reality is Dems and Liberals are afraid of having everyone pay their fair share.

Why??????????????????????????????????????

Because once more people had to they would start demanding that the Federal Government spend less.

because that is blatantly unConstitutional. The only federal authority to tax directly is based on aportionment. Take the expense bill and divide it by all people over 18. Viola, tax revolt and immediate halting of wasteful spending.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:25 pm

LOL so your saying its ok for Obama to do this because Bush did it???????????????

But I thought a vote for Obama was a vote for change???????????????

Does that mean Obama lied????????????

:mrgreen:I mean if all he is going to do is continue Bush's policies didn't he lie???????????

yup, he lied. Shocking I know. More shocking, Bush policies are now unsupportable.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:26 pm

why punish people who make money?

everyone that lives in america that is over 18 shoud pay an equal share of all the spending......

anything else punishes people for their success or for having money......

:naughty::liar:Again shovelling the stinking steaming pile of Hog Huey. You know that a person making $20,000 a year cannot pay the same dollar amount that a person making $1 Million a year.

But at the same time how is it fair to make a guy making $1 million a year pay the majority of all taxes???????????????

Having everyone pay the same % is far more fair and balanced. Why are you afraid of it.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:26 pm

Actually I like the comsumption based tax... raise the taxes on goods and services.. and eliminate income tax. You want a big screen.. you pay 15% tax... a bmw? Pay 20% tax.. and so on... dont wanna pay tax? dont buy any..

how about we just eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. The consumption tax just legitimized the theft of the last century.

With Clinton's first term budget we could break even AFTER eliminating the income tax.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:27 pm

Few Republicans supported Bush doing it. IN fact many Republicans turned openly critical of Bush because he was doing it.

Note Bush did not get re elected in 2004 because of his fiscal policies but because of his stance on the war.

It was his fiscal policies that eventually eroded any and all support for him despit his stance on the war.

Again Obama Supporters voted for Obama beacause they demanded change. Not lieing would be a part of that change.

So apparently Obama Supporters were lieing to themselves if they are now going to excuse his lies because ALL Politicians do it. Thats as lame as you at the age of 12 stating but everyone is doing it. As your mom should have told you back then.

If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you follow them?????????????

Republicans turned their backs on McCain in 2008 because they were not afraid of demanding something better from their politicians.

Are Dems now afraid to demand something better from Obama?

yeah, they didnt support him, they just re elected him...... great reasoning.... we dont support bush being a socialists, but we will vote for him again because he is doing so crappy in the war.......

i oppose bush and obama, so not sure what the cliff remark has to do with anything.....

yeah, i am sure that after 8 years of obama, that the dems will turn on the party and let a republican be elected so we can start the cycle all over again.....

Jim50

October 22nd, 2009, 5:28 pm

I know its a little off topic, but the whole issue with Social Security going broke would be fixed if everyone had to pay into that the same. Why is there a cap at $106,800? If people making above that had to pay 6.2% on their entire income, the same way people below that pay 6.2% on their entire income, it would immediately solve most of the shortcomings of SS. We should add this to the pot if we are talking about "paying their fair share".

That might make sense if there wasn't also a cap on how much you can get from Social Security when you retire.

Jim50

October 22nd, 2009, 5:29 pm

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:30 pm

Vaard,

LOL nice Hog Huey. Why not have everyone pay the same % of what they make for the year???????????

That is far more fair that the Pile of stinking steaming crap your shoveling.

But the reality is Dems and Liberals are afraid of having everyone pay their fair share.

Why??????????????????????????????????????

Because once more people had to they would start demanding that the Federal Government spend less.

how is that hog heuy?

sure, i understand your desire as a liberal to punish the rich and successful because they make more, but with my plan at least everyone pays the same exact amount, which means it is fair for everyone.......

you talk abour everyone paying their fair share and talk about making rich people pay more just because they make more money......

steaming pile of crap indeed......

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:30 pm

yup, he lied. Shocking I know. More shocking, Bush policies are now unsupportable.

So are Obamas policies. But yet Obama keeps spending more and more despite not being able to support them.

And it amazes me how many Liberals are willing to over look Obama's lies.

Keep in mind McCain lost because Republicans were not willing to overlook the lies anymore.

Why are those that voted for obama so willing to do so????????????

That says alot not only about Obama but those that voted for him.

kaydahl

October 22nd, 2009, 5:30 pm

I know its a little off topic, but the whole issue with Social Security going broke would be fixed if everyone had to pay into that the same. Why is there a cap at $106,800? If people making above that had to pay 6.2% on their entire income, the same way people below that pay 6.2% on their entire income, it would immediately solve most of the shortcomings of SS. We should add this to the pot if we are talking about "paying their fair share".

Social security is not a welfare program. The wealthy pay in more, and get bigger checks after retirement.

The ss shortcomings are not as you characterize them. They are due to the fact that the excess money that has been paid in is not sitting in cash waiting to be paid out.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:30 pm

yeah, they didnt support him, they just re elected him...... great reasoning.... we dont support bush being a socialists, but we will vote for him again because he is doing so crappy in the war.......

i oppose bush and obama, so not sure what the cliff remark has to do with anything.....

yeah, i am sure that after 8 years of obama, that the dems will turn on the party and let a republican be elected so we can start the cycle all over again.....

and the Republicans that "didn't support Bush policies (whatever that means)" will nominate and support someone else just like him lol. Comical I know.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:31 pm

I see your point... which puts most people at a crossroads. How much is to much for a working person to pay?

If spending for one year was 1 trillion
And we have about 200 million(roughly) working people.. thats about 5000 per person... well what if that person only made 5k? what if they on made 10k? no they are paying 50% of their earning.. whil someone who made 250k is only paying 2%??

sucks being poor......

if people are forced to pay for spending instead of financing thru debt or punishing the rich for being successful, they might actually be interested in reducing spending by the government......

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:32 pm

I see your point... which puts most people at a crossroads. How much is to much for a working person to pay?

If spending for one year was 1 trillion
And we have about 200 million(roughly) working people.. thats about 5000 per person... well what if that person only made 5k? what if they on made 10k? no they are paying 50% of their earning.. whil someone who made 250k is only paying 2%??

the argument about fairness is exactly why rich people get taxed at a higher rate. I mean, 20k for someone making 200k is far less painful that 2k is for someone only making 20k. Therefore the person making 200k pays 75k and the guy making 20k pays nothing.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:33 pm

So are Obamas policies. But yet Obama keeps spending more and more despite not being able to support them.

And it amazes me how many Liberals are willing to over look Obama's lies.

Keep in mind McCain lost because Republicans were not willing to overlook the lies anymore.

Why are those that voted for obama so willing to do so????????????

That says alot not only about Obama but those that voted for him.

hey, republicans believed the lies for 8 years.......

and now you expect dems to reject dem lies after a couple months?

too funny......

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:33 pm

because that is blatantly unConstitutional. The only federal authority to tax directly is based on aportionment. Take the expense bill and divide it by all people over 18. Viola, tax revolt and immediate halting of wasteful spending.

Not quite b v Crips. A sales tax taxing you on what you spend is based entirely on Aportionment. And not illegal.

But I do love your weak attempt at spin just Vaard is trying. You know as well as I that you split the cost of the National debt evenly among all Americans the poorer americans could not pay their amount.

The fair thing would be to go by percentages and a percentage based on how much you spend not earn would do exactly that.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:34 pm

the argument about fairness is exactly why rich people get taxed at a higher rate. I mean, 20k for someone making 200k is far less painful that 2k is for someone only making 20k. Therefore the person making 200k pays 75k and the guy making 20k pays nothing.

how is punishing the person for being successful considered fair?

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:34 pm

So are Obamas policies. But yet Obama keeps spending more and more despite not being able to support them.

And it amazes me how many Liberals are willing to over look Obama's lies.

Keep in mind McCain lost because Republicans were not willing to overlook the lies anymore.

Why are those that voted for obama so willing to do so????????????

That says alot not only about Obama but those that voted for him.

Because they are idiots maybe? I don't care about them, just like I don't care about Republicans claiming they didn't support Bush policies after voting for him twice and McCain after that.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:35 pm

Not quite b v Crips. A sales tax taxing you on what you spend is based entirely on Aportionment. And not illegal.

But I do love your weak attempt at spin just Vaard is trying. You know as well as I that you split the cost of the National debt evenly among all Americans the poorer americans could not pay their amount.

The fair thing would be to go by percentages and a percentage based on how much you spend not earn would do exactly that.

trying reading...... i didnt say debt, i said spending for the year.......

take all the spending for the year, divide by the number of people over 18 in america and have each pay the same amount.... plus a little throw in for the debt......

try reading what i write instead of just making up things in your head to argue against......

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:36 pm

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:36 pm

how is that hog heuy?

sure, i understand your desire as a liberal to punish the rich and successful because they make more, but with my plan at least everyone pays the same exact amount, which means it is fair for everyone.......

you talk abour everyone paying their fair share and talk about making rich people pay more just because they make more money......

steaming pile of crap indeed......

:)):)) Wow Vaard you have sunk to your lowest level of debate yet. So be it.

You know I do not want to punish the rich. You want to scare the middle class because we all know the middle class could not afford their share in your plan.

I do want everyone to pay their fair share. And a tax based on % is indeed the fair way to go.

Twist and spin my words and crawl in the mud and hog huey all you want. That still does not change what I am saying.

kaydahl

October 22nd, 2009, 5:37 pm

how is that hog heuy?

sure, i understand your desire as a liberal to punish the rich and successful because they make more, but with my plan at least everyone pays the same exact amount, which means it is fair for everyone.......

you talk abour everyone paying their fair share and talk about making rich people pay more just because they make more money......

steaming pile of crap indeed......

Take the US census estimate of 230.2 million over the age of 18.
Take the Obama 2010 proposed spending 3.55 trillion.
Every person over 18 needs to pay around $15,400.

I suppose that would be one way to put pressure on Congress to reduce spending.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:38 pm

hey, republicans believed the lies for 8 years.......

and now you expect dems to reject dem lies after a couple months?

too funny......

No Republicans did not believe the lies for 8 years. The 2006 Congressional Democratic Victories proves what you state is wrong.

Too funny. :mrgreen:

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:38 pm

Not quite b v Crips. A sales tax taxing you on what you spend is based entirely on Aportionment. And not illegal.

But I do love your weak attempt at spin just Vaard is trying. You know as well as I that you split the cost of the National debt evenly among all Americans the poorer americans could not pay their amount.

The fair thing would be to go by percentages and a percentage based on how much you spend not earn would do exactly that.

I said DIRECT. A sales tax isn't direct, so it's not even relevant to the conversation.

In case you didn't notice, 20k out of 200k isn't nearly as damaging to an income as 2k is out of 20k. Your attempts a fairness are illogical.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:38 pm

:)):)) Wow Vaard you have sunk to your lowest level of debate yet. So be it.

You know I do not want to punish the rich. You want to scare the middle class because we all know the middle class could not afford their share in your plan.

I do want everyone to pay their fair share. And a tax based on % is indeed the fair way to go.

Twist and spin my words and crawl in the mud and hog huey all you want. That still does not change what I am saying.

oh, you want everyone to pay their fair share, just as long as the rich pay more......

this must be that conservative view of "each according to his need, each according to his ability".....

you are the one who has sunk to a new low by trying to push socialism as some sort of conservative value......

i dont need to twist, you are very clear that you are saying that rich should pay more in taxes because they make more money which in your view is considered "fair".......

Manager

October 22nd, 2009, 5:39 pm

Actually I like the comsumption based tax... raise the taxes on goods and services.. and eliminate income tax. You want a big screen.. you pay 15% tax... a bmw? Pay 20% tax.. and so on... dont wanna pay tax? dont buy any..

You will never see a lib eliminate a tax.

I am sure a VAT or national tax is in the making but it will be on top of all our other taxes...

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:40 pm

In a cynical, heartless kinda way... I see your point! But in the real world that WOULD NOT FLY.... not even one bit..

the poor would stay poor and the rich would continue to get rich.. no difference than our system now.. cept that each end of the spectrum would move faster in opposite directions.

that's the whole freakin point. In the real world, when this tax debt became due, government spending would stop on a dime, and all citizens would start paying attention to waste. Republicans and Democrats couldn't hide.

Oh, and btw, this is the only Constitutional way to do it.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:40 pm

No Republicans did not believe the lies for 8 years. The 2006 Congressional Democratic Victories proves what you state is wrong.

Too funny. :mrgreen:

in that case, they believed them for 10 years if you want to throw in congressional elections into the mix...... 1996-2006.....

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:41 pm

No Republicans did not believe the lies for 8 years. The 2006 Congressional Democratic Victories proves what you state is wrong.

Too funny. :mrgreen:

so much so they nominated the most similar candidate to Bush out of the whole grouping. lol, THAT is too funny.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:41 pm

Well thats not "fair" either. Well yea me worker making 20k is paying the same percentage as him worker making 100k.

I pay 3k

He pays 15k

I feel the hurt more than him worker... im only left with 17k, him worker has 85k...

BUT it does make the most sense to me.. I am just play devils advocate

Eighties baby,

I agree entirely. And I doubt it would ever happen. But Vaard is trying to scare all into saying heck no I do not support that.

The reality is that the fair thing is to have everyone pay some of what is owed. and the practical way would be to have all pay the same percentage.

Keep in mind that people like Vaard and Dems like to use fear to keep the system as it is and not to correct or fix it.

The question that should be asked is why do they want to keep it as is???????????

kaydahl

October 22nd, 2009, 5:42 pm

Because they are idiots maybe? I don't care about them, just like I don't care about Republicans claiming they didn't support Bush policies after voting for him twice and McCain after that.

I am guilty. An unfortunate necessity given the options Gore, Kerry, Obama.

Guvnah

October 22nd, 2009, 5:42 pm

A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:43 pm

trying reading...... i didnt say debt, i said spending for the year.......

take all the spending for the year, divide by the number of people over 18 in america and have each pay the same amount.... plus a little throw in for the debt......

try reading what i write instead of just making up things in your head to argue against......

:)):)) It does not matter if you said debt or spending for the year. Either way you know this would scare people enough to say heck no we will not go for this.

Thats what you want. You want the system to stay as is so that you can use supposed entitlements and attacking the rich to keep the poorer members of society on your side.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:45 pm

:)):)) It does not matter if you said debt or spending for the year. Either way you know this would scare people enough to say heck no we will not go for this.

Thats what you want. You want the system to stay as is so that you can use supposed entitlements and attacking the rich to keep the poorer members of society on your side.

no, i want them to realize just exactly how much our government is costing them.......

you are the one that wnats to keep the entitlements by using debt to finance spending.......

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:46 pm

so much so they nominated the most similar candidate to Bush out of the whole grouping. lol, THAT is too funny.

To get nominated you do not need a majority vote. All you need is to get more votes than all other candidates. At one point the Republicans had 8 candidates in the pool.

Keep in mind Obama got the DNC nomination and he never EVER got the majority.

In fact Hillary had 1 million more votes for her than Obama did. But yet he got the nomination.

LOL now thats too funny.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:48 pm

Vaard, I dont get the whole "punishing" argument. I believe "feeling the pain" is all subjective.

So is someone who is making 1mil a year going cry and quit working because that get taxed at 39% instead of 25%??

Someone making 15k getting taxed at 15%.. will feel the pain... FAR MORE than the millionaire getting taxed at 40%, 50%, 60%...

so the millionare should have to pay more money because he made more money?

and the poor shoudl have to pay less because they make less?

that is the whole basis of communism.. each according to his ability, each according to his need.......

and after the first 15k bill, there wont be another, the demand for spending cuts will be so loud and clear that congress wont have a choice.......

the problem is that people dont want to pay for the services they recieve, they want to make those who have made more money to pay or to just put on credit and make future generations pay for it......

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:48 pm

Vaard, I dont get the whole "punishing" argument. I believe "feeling the pain" is all subjective.

So is someone who is making 1mil a year going cry and quit working because that get taxed at 39% instead of 25%??

Someone making 15k getting taxed at 15%.. will feel the pain... FAR MORE than the millionaire getting taxed at 40%, 50%, 60%...

exactly why we have been hookdwinked into a progressive tax system. People like Shrek don't understand the basic concept that a millionare can afford 500 grand in taxes far easier than a minimum wage worker can afford even a thousand.

Problem is, this system has driven our expenses up, and ironically made the rich even richer in comparison to the poor.

Guvnah

October 22nd, 2009, 5:50 pm

2007 figures showed the bottom 50% of income earners paid 3% of all income taxes. That means that the top 50% pay a whopping 97%.

Now, who's not paying their "fair" share?

To be fair, how much of the total income earned in 2007 was earned by the bottom 50%?

If the bottom 50% earned only 3% of all income in 2007, then 3% of the income taxes would be their fair share. I don't know the numbers. I'm just asking. I suspect that their share of income taxes was still disproportionately low, but probably not as disproportionate as 97-3. (My guess would be that the bottom 50% of earners earned about 25% of all income in 2007. I'm curious to know the real numbers.)

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:50 pm

:)):)) It does not matter if you said debt or spending for the year. Either way you know this would scare people enough to say heck no we will not go for this.

Thats what you want. You want the system to stay as is so that you can use supposed entitlements and attacking the rich to keep the poorer members of society on your side.

haha you are so far off it's not even funny. Vaard wants all citizens to know what is being spent and the only way to do that is to evenly divide, in a Constitutional manner, the cost of our government.

You can play tax percentage doctor every 8 years and continue to watch the federal budget grow.

Imperialparadox

October 22nd, 2009, 5:50 pm

no, i want them to realize just exactly how much our government is costing them.......

you are the one that wnats to keep the entitlements by using debt to finance spending.......

I find it utterly hilarious that you have 'conservatives' arguing against what is an ultimate expression of fiscal conservative ideology.

Bravo sir, bravo! :clap:

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:52 pm

no, i want them to realize just exactly how much our government is costing them.......

you are the one that wnats to keep the entitlements by using debt to finance spending.......

Nope I have not. I am getting tired of you stating I have said things I have not. I want spending to stop.

And get this, you start charging all tax on everything you buy and stop taking it out of weekly paychecks people will start screaming to stop deficit spending.

Keep in mind Vaard. from the moment Income tax was first collected in 1916 all the way to 1943 income tax was never taken out of your pay check it was deducted from your yearly income and no matter whom you were and how much you made if you paid income tax you paid all of what was owed on April 15th every year.

In 1943, COngress voted to enact Payroll tax deductions to get the money faster and pay for the war.

Why does this matter?

Oh that would be because between 1916 and 1943 taxes nation wide went of 7%. From 1943 to 2000 taxes went up 153%.

Why the big difference??????????

Because from 1916 having to write that check and mail it in every April made the tax payer very aware of what he was paying and thus resisted any and all attempts to raise taxes.

But after 1943 people began to only care about the amount they got on their payroll check and not the amount deducted.

Now spin this if you wish. But you truly want to end spending then you would be asking for the Weekly payroll tax deduction to be stopped by Congress. You willing to do that????????????????

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:53 pm

I find it utterly hilarious that you have 'conservatives' arguing against what is an ultimate expression of fiscal conservative ideology.

Bravo sir, bravo! :clap:

fish in a barrel......

most of these "conservatives" arent really conservatives, they are just republicans who are even more socialists than the dems they call socialists.......

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:54 pm

To get nominated you do not need a majority vote. All you need is to get more votes than all other candidates. At one point the Republicans had 8 candidates in the pool.

Keep in mind Obama got the DNC nomination and he never EVER got the majority.

In fact Hillary had 1 million more votes for her than Obama did. But yet he got the nomination.

LOL now thats too funny.

How do you think this possibly contradicts my point? McCain received the most votes of all 8 candidates, and he was the closest candidate to Bush policy of the bunch. Therefore Republicans support Bush policies. It's pertty simple.

Dem primaries are completely different than the Republicans and aren't relevant to the discussion.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:54 pm

Nope I have not. I am getting tired of you stating I have said things I have not.

yeah, annoying isnt it?

Thats what you want. You want the system to stay as is so that you can use supposed entitlements and attacking the rich to keep the poorer members of society on your side.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:55 pm

I find it utterly hilarious that you have 'conservatives' arguing against what is an ultimate expression of fiscal conservative ideology.

Bravo sir, bravo! :clap:

All you prove is that your easily duped.

Telling all that all whether poor or rich have to pay the same $ amount, even if they all did not spend the same is stupid at best, and only said to scare people in saying heck now.

Having everyone pay the same % is indeed far smarter and the ultimate expression in Fiscal Conservation.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 5:55 pm

yeah, annoying isnt it?

I stand behind what I state. I am not putting words in your mouth.

Why do you insist that all pay the same $ amount knowing most Americans could not do so?

What point woud that serve?

Yes that is my interpretation of what you are saying. But I have asked many times here to clarify what you are saying and you have not done so to date.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:56 pm

Nope I have not. I am getting tired of you stating I have said things I have not. I want spending to stop.

And get this, you start charging all tax on everything you buy and stop taking it out of weekly paychecks people will start screaming to stop deficit spending.

Keep in mind Vaard. from the moment Income tax was first collected in 1916 all the way to 1943 income tax was never taken out of your pay check it was deducted from your yearly income and no matter whom you were and how much you made if you paid income tax you paid all of what was owed on April 15th every year.

In 1943, COngress voted to enact Payroll tax deductions to get the money faster and pay for the war.

Why does this matter?

Oh that would be because between 1916 and 1943 taxes nation wide went of 7%. From 1943 to 2000 taxes went up 153%.

Why the big difference??????????

Because from 1916 having to write that check and mail it in every April made the tax payer very aware of what he was paying and thus resisted any and all attempts to raise taxes.

But after 1943 people began to only care about the amount they got on their payroll check and not the amount deducted.

Now spin this if you wish. But you truly want to end spending then you would be asking for the Weekly payroll tax deduction to be stopped by Congress. You willing to do that????????????????

you might want to do some more research on the history of taxes in america......

"no matter whom you were and how much you made if you paid income tax"

too funny.....

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:57 pm

If you are implying that I have been doing so.

implying? i am outright saying that is what you are doing.. its what you always do...

you try to tell people their position then demand they defend themselves against the position you created for them.......

i call it "shrekking" you do it so often.....

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 5:58 pm

All you prove is that your easily duped.

Telling all that all whether poor or rich have to pay the same $ amount, even if they all did not spend the same is stupid at best, and only said to scare people in saying heck now.

Having everyone pay the same % is indeed far smarter and the ultimate expression in Fiscal Conservation.

consumer spending has NOTHING to do with the federal budget. Every single person benefits from social structure, and as such should be charged by the head an aportioned (Constitutional manner) fee for such services.

Vaard

October 22nd, 2009, 5:58 pm

I stand behind what I state. I am not putting words in your mouth.

Why do you insist that all pay the same $ amount knowing most Americans could not do so?

What point woud that serve?

Yes that is my interpretation of what you are saying. But I have asked many times here to clarify what you are saying and you have not done so to date.

yeah, you are not putting words in my mouth, you are just telling me what i am saying......

completely different.....

:rolleyes:

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:01 pm

How do you think this possibly contradicts my point? McCain received the most votes of all 8 candidates, and he was the closest candidate to Bush policy of the bunch. Therefore Republicans support Bush policies. It's pertty simple.

Dem primaries are completely different than the Republicans and aren't relevant to the discussion.

He recieved the most yes. But he never recieved a majority of Republican votes. Since he never recieved a majority it means that the majority of Republicans did not support him.

Now if he had won the presidency your point would be proven. But he did not win the Presidencey.

The Dems primaries are structered differently but the outcome is the same. Again a candidate without the majority of votes got the Dem Nomination.

By what you state since Obama did not get the majority of votes to win the Dem Nomination, Most dems did not support Obama. But the election states otherwise.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:03 pm

yeah, you are not putting words in my mouth, you are just telling me what i am saying......

completely different.....

:rolleyes:

No I am offering my opinion of what you are stating and asking you to clarify what you state.

The fact that you have thus far refused to clarify you position, even here in your response to me, only proves my point.

Why are you so scared to clarify what you state?????????????

harumph

October 22nd, 2009, 6:03 pm

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:05 pm

implying? i am outright saying that is what you are doing.. its what you always do...

you try to tell people their position then demand they defend themselves against the position you created for them.......

i call it "shrekking" you do it so often.....

:mrgreen: You called me a liberal as well. Why should I believe anything of what you state.

I am not telling you your position. I am telling everyone else what you are doing and why your demanding all pay the same $ amount.

That is what your doing?????? Right????????????????

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:07 pm

consumer spending has NOTHING to do with the federal budget. Every single person benefits from social structure, and as such should be charged by the head an aportioned (Constitutional manner) fee for such services.

B v crips,

I was not talking of consumer spending. I was talking of the use of taxpayer dollars. You know as well as I that that the poorer you are the more in Tax payer dollars you use right?

But yet you seem to say that you want the rich to pay far more even though they use those services far less.

Jim50

October 22nd, 2009, 6:07 pm

To be fair, how much of the total income earned in 2007 was earned by the bottom 50%?

If the bottom 50% earned only 3% of all income in 2007, then 3% of the income taxes would be their fair share. I don't know the numbers. I'm just asking. I suspect that their share of income taxes was still disproportionately low, but probably not as disproportionate as 97-3. (My guess would be that the bottom 50% of earners earned about 25% of all income in 2007. I'm curious to know the real numbers.)

Top 1% pay more than botton 95%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/24955.html

And here http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html they will tell you that the adjusted gross income of the top 50% is $1,473,267 (million) and the bottom is $317,849 (million). Which puts the bottom 50%'s AGI is about 21% of the total.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 6:18 pm

He recieved the most yes. But he never recieved a majority of Republican votes. Since he never recieved a majority it means that the majority of Republicans did not support him.

Now if he had won the presidency your point would be proven. But he did not win the Presidencey.

The Dems primaries are structered differently but the outcome is the same. Again a candidate without the majority of votes got the Dem Nomination.

By what you state since Obama did not get the majority of votes to win the Dem Nomination, Most dems did not support Obama. But the election states otherwise.

haha so MOST Republicans didn't support McCain in the general election?

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 6:19 pm

No I am offering my opinion of what you are stating and asking you to clarify what you state.

The fact that you have thus far refused to clarify you position, even here in your response to me, only proves my point.

Why are you so scared to clarify what you state?????????????

he clarified not two posts after your insinuation.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 6:21 pm

B v crips,

I was not talking of consumer spending. I was talking of the use of taxpayer dollars. You know as well as I that that the poorer you are the more in Tax payer dollars you use right?

But yet you seem to say that you want the rich to pay far more even though they use those services far less.

how do you know they use less? They don't use electricity, water, highways, police, fire, schools etc?

Just because they don't use welfare doesn't mean they don't use social services.

An aportioned amount directly charged is exactly how the Constitution is designed.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:23 pm

But if you stop and think maybe this benefits both parties...

ok upper 95% or what that number is paying most of the taxes.
The bottom 5% use the most services that are funded by our tax dollars
If it were not for that, the poor would but way poorer.. thus less consumers... and the producers would feel more strain on there revenue.. and not only that but the social issues would skyrocket... crime would increase.. homelessness.. etc.

Not quite eighties baby. Before the government starting providing welfare, Charities Nation wide did the job providing most if not all and sometimes even more services than the Federal government now pays for.

You seem to think that the federal government has always provided Welfare, but they have not. The first 150 years this nation was in existance they did not. And crime did not increase, homelessness was not out of control and children were not starving in the streets.

If you state children were back then. I can point to the fact that they are now despite all of the governmental programs out there. Especially children of drug addicts.

SO the Government has not ended any of those social issues you state would rise.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:25 pm

how do you know they use less? They don't use electricity, water, highways, police, fire, schools etc?

Just because they don't use welfare doesn't mean they don't use social services.

An aportioned amount directly charged is exactly how the Constitution is designed.

Electricity water, Highways and police fire and schools are paid for by all taxpayers and can be used by all tax payers.

But they are not social services.

Note Public services such as Highways, police, fire and the like are provided for by the US Constitution.

Welfare such as food stamps. Housing allowances and the like are not. And things the rich are not using but are darn sure paying for.

Those are social services.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:27 pm

he clarified not two posts after your insinuation.

Since you choose to debate this for Vaard care to give the post # where he did? I do not even know what Post I first made the insinuation in, but if you do please post it.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 6:29 pm

haha so MOST Republicans didn't support McCain in the general election?

No they did not. That is exactly my point. And why did they not support McCain???????????

Because they did not want a duplication of Bush. :mrgreen:

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 6:48 pm

Electricity water, Highways and police fire and schools are paid for by all taxpayers and can be used by all tax payers.

But they are not social services.

Note Public services such as Highways, police, fire and the like are provided for by the US Constitution.

Welfare such as food stamps. Housing allowances and the like are not. And things the rich are not using but are darn sure paying for.

Those are social services.

I see, so everything I listed isn't funded by taxpayers? Or they are and aren't being used by the rich? Or maybe you mean entitlement programs aren't funded by taxpayers.

It doesn't matter if I make 1 million per year, once I lose my job I qualify for unemployment benefits.

Jim50

October 22nd, 2009, 6:48 pm

No they did not. That is exactly my point. And why did they not support McCain???????????

Because they did not want a duplication of Bush. :mrgreen:

Or is it because McLame kept "reaching across the asile" to the Socialists too much. You don't compromise with Socialists. You destroy them.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 6:49 pm

Since you choose to debate this for Vaard care to give the post # where he did? I do not even know what Post I first made the insinuation in, but if you do please post it.

I posted immediately after he did, exactly what he meant, even though you tried to make a different claim.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 6:49 pm

No they did not. That is exactly my point. And why did they not support McCain???????????

Because they did not want a duplication of Bush. :mrgreen:

I see, so the majorty of registered Republican voters DID NOT vote for McCain. Please tell me you don't believe that.

cj234

October 22nd, 2009, 6:53 pm

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 6:54 pm

Originally Posted by bloods vs crips View Post
how do you know they use less? They don't use electricity, water, highways, police, fire, schools etc?

Just because they don't use welfare doesn't mean they don't use social services.

An aportioned amount directly charged is exactly how the Constitution is designed.

Infrastructure is not a social service......electricity is a commmodity that is produced. Water is a resource.....and highways, police, fire and schools fall under infrastructure.

Social services is that which is provided to those who cannot/will not provide for themselves.

Jim50

October 22nd, 2009, 6:58 pm

Infrastructure is not a social service......electricity is a commmodity that is produced. Water is a resource.....and highways, police, fire and schools fall under infrastructure.

Social services is that which is provided to those who cannot/will not provide for themselves.

The government has passed some Truth in Labeling laws. So you need to change "Social services" into what it really is ... "Parasite services".

croupier101

October 22nd, 2009, 6:59 pm

No they did not. That is exactly my point. And why did they not support McCain???????????

You did though right?

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:03 pm

Infrastructure is not a social service......electricity is a commmodity that is produced. Water is a resource.....and highways, police, fire and schools fall under infrastructure.

Social services is that which is provided to those who cannot/will not provide for themselves.

So police don't offer a service to society? Public transport isn't a service offered to society?

I think you mean to say entitlement programs.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 7:04 pm

I see, so the majorty of registered Republican voters DID NOT vote for McCain. Please tell me you don't believe that.

Maybe not a majority but enough.

Do you know how many Registered Dems there are in the US?

72 Million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Do you know how many Registered Republicans there are in the US?

54 Million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Obama got 69 million 500 thousand votes in the 2008 election.

McCain got 59 Million votes. for a total of 129 Million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Note even if all Republicans voted for McCain he still got 5 million more votes than there are registered republicans.

Keep in mind only 80 of all registered voters voted.

The stats prove my point and do not prove yours.

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 7:05 pm

remember....the govt thinks its THEIR $$$$$$

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 7:05 pm

I posted immediately after he did, exactly what he meant, even though you tried to make a different claim.

Good then you know the post number in which he did it. Again please post it. I cannot find it.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:08 pm

Maybe not a majority but enough.

Do you know how many Registered Dems there are in the US?

72 Million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Do you know how many Registered Republicans there are in the US?

54 Million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Obama got 69 million 500 thousand votes in the 2008 election.

McCain got 59 Million votes. for a total of 129 Million votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Note even if all Republicans voted for McCain he still got 5 million more votes than there are registered republicans.

Keep in mind only 80 of all registered voters voted.

The stats prove my point and do not prove yours.

this is basic math. A majority of registered Republicans voted for McCain. Unless it's your position that somehow McCain gathered over 30 million votes from non Republicans lol.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 7:09 pm

I see, so everything I listed isn't funded by taxpayers? Or they are and aren't being used by the rich? Or maybe you mean entitlement programs aren't funded by taxpayers.

It doesn't matter if I make 1 million per year, once I lose my job I qualify for unemployment benefits.

Yes everything listed is funded by taxpayers. But not all of them are entitlement programs.

The Police fire, public utilities and the like are not entitlement programs.

As to you being eligable for unemployment even if you make 1 million. Of course your right. But note All employers have to pay into unemployment as part of the taxes they pay. Even if you make a million.

:mrgreen:

Unless your a contract employee and then if you are. You yourself pay the unemploment you later collect.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:09 pm

good then you know the post number in which he did it. Again please post it. I cannot find it.

53, 54, 59

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:10 pm

Yes everything listed is funded by taxpayers. But not all of them are entitlement programs.

The Police fire, public utilities and the like are not entitlement programs.

As to you being eligable for unemployment even if you make 1 million. Of course your right. But note All employers have to pay into unemployment as part of the taxes they pay. Even if you make a million.

:mrgreen:

Unless your a contract employee and then if you are. You yourself pay the unemploment you later collect.

seriously? I am the one who differentiated between social services and entitlement programs, not you.

Fire, police, etc are social services. You said they were not.

I said they were not entitlement programs, those are meant for people in financial need, and even wealthy people can qualify in some cases.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 7:12 pm

this is basic math. A majority of registered Republicans voted for McCain. Unless it's your position that somehow McCain gathered over 30 million votes from non Republicans lol.

I proved that he gathered 5 million non million votes without batting an eye.

According to the stats Obama had less votes than their are registered Dems. McCain had 5 Million more, than there are registered Republicans.

And only 80 % of all voters voted.

The chances are that not all 54 Million Republicans voted for McCain.

Thus if McCain could get 5 Million non Republicans to vote for him why would couldnt he get 30 million???????????????????

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 7:14 pm

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 7:21 pm

53, 54, 59

Thanks. but get this. Vaard proves my point by saying this in post 54.

no, i want them to realize just exactly how much our government is costing them.......

you are the one that wnats to keep the entitlements by using debt to finance spending.......

He stated originally that he wanted each American to pay their fair share. Knowing full well that most Americans cannot pay the same amount.

Thus he proves my point. He is only saying what he is too scare Americans. I only offer a differing opinion of why he wants to scare them. He says he wants to scare them so that they know how much the government is costing them.

I merely state he wants to scare them to keep everything as is.

Note he then goes on to say this.

you are the one that wnats to keep the entitlements by using debt to finance spending.......

I never ever made that claim. So he openly is putting words in my mouth in the same post where he proudly admits he wants to scare Americans.

:mrgreen: Thanks.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:21 pm

I proved that he gathered 5 million non million votes without batting an eye.

According to the stats Obama had less votes than their are registered Dems. McCain had 5 Million more, than there are registered Republicans.

And only 80 % of all voters voted.

The chances are that not all 54 Million Republicans voted for McCain.

Thus if McCain could get 5 Million non Republicans to vote for him why would couldnt he get 30 million???????????????????

One because polling indicates that Indy's supported Obama more than McCain, and that there wouldn't be enough for McCain to get 30 even if ALL of them voted for him.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:24 pm

Thanks. but get this. Vaard proves my point by saying this in post 54.

He stated originally that he wanted each American to pay their fair share. Knowing full well that most Americans cannot pay the same amount.

Thus he proves my point. He is only saying what he is too scare Americans. I only offer a differing opinion of why he wants to scare them. He says he wants to scare them so that they know how much the government is costing them.

I merely state he wants to scare them to keep everything as is. Which is ridiculous, because everything he posts indicates the exact opposite of such. He makes it more than obvious that he doesn't support the current system and/or current spending, which is why he didn't support McCain/Obama.

Note he then goes on to say this.

I never ever made that claim. So he openly is putting words in my mouth in the same post where he proudly admits he wants to scare Americans. Ironic that he made a claim about your belief after you just did the same. Even more ironic is that you actually DID support more of the same with your vote and don't even realize it.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:25 pm

:)) I never said that police fire and the like are Social Services. I am only stating that they are not entitlement programs.

Note that I believe that Social programs =Entitlement programs.
Police, Fire and the like are muninciple programs and not social there is a difference.

I noted that LONG ago, which I why you didn't follow along.

Fire, police etc. offer services to society, therefore they are, by definition, social services. Unless you think they aren't services offered to society, even if this doesn't make sense, it would fit your argument better.

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 7:27 pm

So police don't offer a service to society? Public transport isn't a service offered to society?

I think you mean to say entitlement programs.

My point was abundantly clear.....there are differences and thus the difference in terminology. But hey, free country....just keep making stuff up.

I know you see the difference. It may not help your argument, but I'd rather be honest about the meaning of things and why they differ.

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 7:33 pm

seriously? I am the one who differentiated between social services and entitlement programs, not you.

Fire, police, etc are social services. You said they were not.

I said they were not entitlement programs, those are meant for people in financial need, and even wealthy people can qualify in some cases.

Please, for the sake of debate.....get it right!

Main Entry: in·fra·struc·ture
Pronunciation: \ˈin-frə-ˌstrək-chər, -(ˌ)frä-\
Function: noun
Date: 1927

1 : the underlying foundation or basic framework (as of a system or organization)
2 : the permanent installations required for military purposes
3 : the system of public works of a country, state, or region; also : the resources (as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity

— in·fra·struc·tur·al \-ˌstrək-chə-rəl, -ˌstrək-shrəl\ adjective

Main Entry: social service
Function: noun
Date: 1851

: an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or disadvantaged)

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 7:34 pm

i noted that long ago, which i why you didn't follow along.

Fire, police etc. Offer services to society, therefore they are, by definition, social services. Unless you think they aren't services offered to society, even if this doesn't make sense, it would fit your argument better.

no they are not!

see above....

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 7:36 pm

Originally Posted by shrek View Post
I never said that police fire and the like are Social Services. I am only stating that they are not entitlement programs.

Note that I believe that Social programs =Entitlement programs.
Police, Fire and the like are muninciple programs and not social there is a difference.

You are correct....and there is a reason they are not the same. I posted the definitions of the two so he will maybe relent a bit.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:38 pm

My point was abundantly clear.....there are differences and thus the difference in terminology. But hey, free country....just keep making stuff up.

I know you see the difference. It may not help your argument, but I'd rather be honest about the meaning of things and why they differ.

If you can't see the difference between entitlement programs and social services I can't help you.

Fire, police etc are social services. Welfare is an entitlement program.

EDIT: Now I see your hang up. I'm not talking about "social services" in the sense that you are. Grammatically, any service that is afforded to society by tax payers funds is a social service. Whether or not it falls under the "Social Service" department doesn't change the fact they they are services provided to society by taxpayer dollars, services that all taxpayers use.

I don't even remember why this was brought up in the first place, feel free to consider yourself the winner.

mpark

October 22nd, 2009, 7:41 pm

Both sides have valid points in the argument. Yes, a tax based on how much you make isn't fair as the rich end up paying both a greater percent as well as a larger amount of money, whereas the poorer pay little if any. That by definition isn't fair. But conservatives are missing the point. It's not supposed to be fair. Life isn't fair. Our country needs money to run itself and the truth is that the poor can't pay for it.

Like what was noted earlier, if you set taxes at a flat 10% or 15% based on what you earn, the rich still would be rich and would still be paying more. Where you have to specify fairness though, is do you think it isn't fair that the rich pay a greater percent, or is it because they pay more. Because the two are completely different. If you set taxes at a flat 10 or 15 like what was suggested, the rich won't really feel it because they are already paying a lot more right now. The poor though, will be destroyed.

Take someone who only makes 20k a year. @ 15% he'll be losing $3,000 dollars a year. That may not seem like a lot to those of you who are making upwards of 100k but it's the difference between putting food on the table, clothing your children and not. Thats what you forget.

Sure, someone could tighten their wallets and get by. But they would be living paycheck to paycheck with no chance at saving or bettering themselves. Conservatives want to do away with social programs that the rich who don't use pay for. So, Financial Aid would be gone. Now this person can't afford to send himself to school and better his life. Also gone would be any state assistance for food if he has children. His wife's state assisted birth control which they get because they can't afford to have any more children would be gone too. Now I admit that these are just examples and their appropriateness or lack thereof isn't within the scope of this debate but I thought It'd be appropriate just to mention some of the things that upper-middle class people don't have to think about when they talk about cutting worthless social programs.

In addition to my points above, another reason that the poor are taxed less is because it's in the economy's and the countries best interest to keep money in their pockets. The poor can't get ahead or better themselves if they have to choose between the basic necessities of life and going to school. Yes, I admit that there are plenty of welfare moms and baby factories that only do it because they can get extra money, that is why I believe that there should be more stringent caps and conditions on continued collection of govt welfare. What I don't think is that the whole system should be scrapped and thrown out just because a few angry rich people are ****ed off about paying for it.

The rich will always pay more and it's not fair, because as I said before, It's not supposed to be.

ChaosControl

October 22nd, 2009, 7:44 pm

Well we do need to have no deficit, so until that is achieved "their fair share" is whatever it takes to have a balanced budget. Since the poor simply have no money to pay for it, obviously it falls to the rich. So if you want to continue financing a giant military and tons of wars, you're going to have to tax the rich to fund it, same idea if you want to have a ton of social safety nets or welfare state.

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 7:45 pm

1/2 the nation wants no part of working for a living and demands that the rest of us support them.
thats why we are 12+ trill in debt..

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 7:47 pm

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

the USA is at
From apathy to dependence.

withoutfeathers

October 22nd, 2009, 7:48 pm

the only fair tax... one which i support.....

take all spending for the year, divide by the number of people over the age of 18 and have everyone pay the exact same amount of tax to cover that years spending, plus some to pay down the debt......I never thought that I would live to see the day that I wrote these words: Vaard, you and I are in total agreement.

Because I have a tinge of socialism in my otherwise pragmatic soul, I would be willing to see a single, standard exemption (for everyone) to lift the burden a bit on those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

BTW, I just did the calculation. There are about 200,000,000 Americans 18 and over. Exempting the bottom 20% leaves 160,000,000. Estimating the budget at about $2 trillion plus a $400 billion for debt reduction, we would all be paying about $15,000 per year until the debt is paid off.

ChaosControl

October 22nd, 2009, 7:50 pm

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:50 pm

1/2 the nation wants no part of working for a living and demands that the rest of us support them.
thats why we are 12+ trill in debt..

1/2 of the nation is working, just not at good paying jobs.

And blaming this on our debt is ridiculous. When Clinton was in office we had nearly the exact same breakdown in work/taxes, yet less than half our debt.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:51 pm

I never thought that I would live to see the day that I wrote these words: Vaard, you and I are in total agreement.

Because I have a tinge of socialism in my otherwise pragmatic soul, I would be willing to see a single, standard exemption (for everyone) to lift the burden a bit on those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

BTW, I just did the calculation. There are about 200,000,000 Americans 18 and over. Exempting the bottom 20% leaves 160,000,000. Estimating the budget at about $2 trillion plus a $400 billion for debt reduction, we would all be paying about $15,000 per year until the debt is paid off.

except the budget is $4T

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 7:51 pm

If you can't see the difference between entitlement programs and social services I can't help you.

Fire, police etc are social services. Welfare is an entitlement program.

EDIT: Now I see your hang up. I'm not talking about "social services" in the sense that you are. Grammatically, any service that is afforded to society by tax payers funds is a social service. Whether or not it falls under the "Social Service" department doesn't change the fact they they are services provided to society by taxpayer dollars, services that all taxpayers use.

I don't even remember why this was brought up in the first place, feel free to consider yourself the winner.

For the sake of debate! What you are doing is confusing to people and there is a good reason for it. It seems you are trying to bundle these "services" when they are defined differently for a purpose.....they ARE different.

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 7:54 pm

1/2 of the nation is working, just not at good paying jobs.

And blaming this on our debt is ridiculous. When Clinton was in office we had nearly the exact same breakdown in work/taxes, yet less than half our debt.

the nation has grown lazier since the clinton times.
dont worry..there will come a time when we cant borrow/tax/print anymore.
then you will hear real whining from the dregs of society.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:54 pm

For the sake of debate! What you are doing is confusing to people and there is a good reason for it. It seems you are trying to bundle these "services" when they are defined differently for a purpose.....they ARE different.

for the sake of debate, you may want to revisit the beginning of this topic. Orinigally we weren't bundling the words "social services" together. We were talking about services that taxpayers dollars afford. Shrek said the rich don't use them.

Unless you consider entitlement programs to be the only services provided, the rich most certainly use services.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 7:55 pm

the nation has grown lazier since the clinton times.
dont worry..there will come a time when we cant borrow/tax/print anymore.
then you will hear real whining from the dregs of society.

Please prove how society has gotten lazier since Clinton times?

Obummer

October 22nd, 2009, 7:59 pm

So what is "fair share"?

I mean 45% of taxpayers either pay zero taxes or get tax credits.
They are paying ZERO or getting money back.

How is someone who pays nothing "paying their fair share"?

Obama's argument is that the 'rich' (IE the rich and middle class) can pay more so they are not "paying their fair share" while the rest of the country pays nothing.

Sounds to me like Obama has this all backwards. Someone paying something is paying more of their fair share than someone paying nothing.

withoutfeathers

October 22nd, 2009, 8:00 pm

except the budget is $4TWow! You're right about that. Don't pay attention to these things for a few years and they go completely out of hand!

Bluesgtr44

October 22nd, 2009, 8:05 pm

for the sake of debate, you may want to revisit the beginning of this topic. Orinigally we weren't bundling the words "social services" together. We were talking about services that taxpayers dollars afford. Shrek said the rich don't use them.

Unless you consider entitlement programs to be the only services provided, the rich most certainly use services.

Again, the devil is in the detail. The purpose for infrastructure is to not only provide a service, but protect the overall. I can see the purpose for a fire dept. based on a tax structure as to the service it provides the community overall......this is not the same for social services that only provide for those who (supposedly) need it. Big difference to me!

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 8:06 pm

Please prove how society has gotten lazier since Clinton times?

12+ trill in debt is a great measuring tool.

Always Independent

October 22nd, 2009, 8:11 pm

"They were for Bush's policies, before they were against them."

Apparently they like having President Bush for a third term, just don't call them on it though, you migth get called a racist, bigot, nazi, (insert favorite liberal buzzword of the day), etc...

opsyscw

October 22nd, 2009, 8:22 pm

Obummer

October 22nd, 2009, 8:23 pm

Not only that but they might not vote for those who are making them pay taxes and might even look at how their money is being wasted.

^This

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 8:24 pm

Again, the devil is in the detail. The purpose for infrastructure is to not only provide a service, but protect the overall. I can see the purpose for a fire dept. based on a tax structure as to the service it provides the community overall......this is not the same for social services that only provide for those who (supposedly) need it. Big difference to me!

I can see the argument that the phrase "social services" are those entitlement programs. We somehow got to that phrase over many pages of debate.

We started with simply discussing taxpayers services, which obviously includes anything afforded to aid society.

In any case, it's all predicated on the argument that progressive tax isn't fair, that aportioned (Constitutional) tax isn't fair, and that only a flat tax is. Nevermind the fact that a millionare has no problem paying a few hundred thousand and staying rich, while a poverty stricken family may not be able to afford 2k.

The idiocy of using the term "fair" is that isn't completely debateable. It's precisely why the founders mandated an apoprtioned share, because it removes slippery slopes like this.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 8:27 pm

12+ trill in debt is a great measuring tool.

that, in no way, demonstrates that our society has gotten lazier in the last decade.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 8:28 pm

deportalllibs

October 22nd, 2009, 8:31 pm

So what is "fair share"?

I mean 45% of taxpayers either pay zero taxes or get tax credits.

The top 5% of earners should pay 100% of all taxes so that the other 95% can sit around on their fat asses. Its only fair.

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 8:32 pm

The top 5% of earners should pay 100% of all taxes so that the other 95% can sit around on their fat asses. Its only fair.

do they get recliners?

deportalllibs

October 22nd, 2009, 8:32 pm

12+ trill in debt is a great measuring tool.

12 trillion and the poor are still lazy...I mean poor

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 8:32 pm

that, in no way, demonstrates that our society has gotten lazier in the last decade.

yeah right.

deportalllibs

October 22nd, 2009, 8:35 pm

do they get recliners?

Yes funded out of Obama's cash for votes stash

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 8:36 pm

Yes funded out of Obama's cash for votes stash

I heard that interview..
that is why we are 12+ trill in the hole..
the avg obamabot is clueless and a dreg upon society.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 8:41 pm

One because polling indicates that Indy's supported Obama more than McCain, and that there wouldn't be enough for McCain to get 30 even if ALL of them voted for him.

Care to give the links showing what you state? 69 million people voted for Obama 3 million less than are registered Dems. 59 Million people voted for McCain 5 million more than are registered Republicans.

Unless those 3 million dems that did not vote Obama all voted for McCain, which I find highly unlikely, it looks like Indy's did indeed vote for McCain.

deportalllibs

October 22nd, 2009, 8:47 pm

I heard that interview..
that is why we are 12+ trill in the hole..
the avg obamabot is clueless and a dreg upon society.

The answer is...no amount of OUR money will ever be enough to satisfy the liberal spending spree because spending makes them 'feel good'. The only solution is to vote them out of office.

deportalllibs

October 22nd, 2009, 8:48 pm

Care to give the links showing what you state? 69 million people voted for Obama 3 million less than are registered Dems. 59 Million people voted for McCain 5 million more than are registered Republicans.

Unless those 3 million dems that did not vote Obama all voted for McCain, which I find highly unlikely, it looks like Indy's did indeed vote for McCain.

Awe you went and spoiled the liberals fantasy with facts. :((

spearmaster

October 22nd, 2009, 8:49 pm

Obama and the Democrats keep pulling out this timeless line as an argument to raise taxes (I mean fees) on the so called rich.

What does Obama mean when he said its time for everyone to "pay their fair share"?

45% of Americans pay no taxes or get a tax credit. When is the president going to have them "pay their fair share"?

Obama wants you to pay your "fair share" so he can pay off his cronies with your tax dollars.

spearmaster

October 22nd, 2009, 8:50 pm

you need to focus what you are outraged about otherwise you will get repubs in this thread sayign that dems want everyone to pay taxes and some that will say that dems want less people to pay their taxes......

I think the op might be mad about their tax dollars going to waste.

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 8:53 pm

Care to give the links showing what you state? 69 million people voted for Obama 3 million less than are registered Dems. 59 Million people voted for McCain 5 million more than are registered Republicans.

Unless those 3 million dems that did not vote Obama all voted for McCain, which I find highly unlikely, it looks like Indy's did indeed vote for McCain.

there were only 28 million "others" registered. We know they basically split this number, which means the vast majority of Republican voters did, in fact, vote for McCain.

darknessesedge

October 22nd, 2009, 8:53 pm

The answer is...no amount of OUR money will ever be enough to satisfy the liberal spending spree because spending makes them 'feel good'. The only solution is to vote them out of office.

its reperations under the guise of hope and change..

bloods vs crips

October 22nd, 2009, 8:53 pm

Awe you went and spoiled the liberals fantasy with facts. :((

I'm not a liberal, and his numbers are way off.

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 8:55 pm

Which is ridiculous, because everything he posts indicates the exact opposite of such. He makes it more than obvious that he doesn't support the current system and/or current spending, which is why he didn't support McCain/Obama.

Ironic that he made a claim about your belief after you just did the same. Even more ironic is that you actually DID support more of the same with your vote and don't even realize it.

Ah yes I love all of his ideas on how to change the current system........

Whats that????????????????????? Oh yes he gives no ideas on how to change the system. All he has suggested in this thread is having all pay the same amount. Which by no means is a viable way to change the existing system.

Note that he made a claim about my belief far before Post 54. He had called my beliefs liberal. In post #26, he said this.

sure, i understand your desire as a liberal to punish the rich and successful because they make more, but with my plan at least everyone pays the same exact amount, which means it is fair for everyone.......

He said this in post #44

oh, you want everyone to pay their fair share, just as long as the rich pay more......

this must be that conservative view of "each according to his need, each according to his ability".....

you are the one who has sunk to a new low by trying to push socialism as some sort of conservative value......

Yes I posted my opinion of why Vaard was doing what he did, but I never called him a liberal conservative or anything else. Nor did I try to state he was trying to push conservativism on anyone. Yes I called what he was shovelling Hog Houey but I still stand behind it.

He does not truly believe in having all Americans pay the same amount.

As to my vote. Yes I voted for McCain but not because he was Bush V 2.0. I voted for him in the general after voting for a more conservative candidate in the primaries, because I agreed with McCain's platform than I did with Obama's.

May I ask why did you vote for Obama????????? Was it because you thought McCain was to conservative?????????? And do not even try stating you did not vote Obama or that your vote is your private matter. :rolleyes:

shrek

October 22nd, 2009, 9:14 pm

there were only 28 million "others" registered. We know they basically split this number, which means the vast majority of Republican voters did, in fact, vote for McCain.

Again care to post links????????????????? YOu keep making claims without backing them up.

But even then if 14 million Independents voted for him and we know at least some Dems voted for him because Dems said so. Then there is a good chance the majority of those that voted McCain were not indeed Republican.

I do not know. I am willing to admit I am wrong. But you have not given any evidence to state I am.

So far all evidence would suggest that I am right, alot of Republicans even if not a majority stayed home and did not support McCain.

Guvnah

October 22nd, 2009, 9:50 pm

there were only 28 million "others" registered. We know they basically split this number, which means the vast majority of Republican voters did, in fact, vote for McCain.

Why does this rathole matter?

Will it change the fairness of our income tax system?

Will it get the "right" to pay more of their "fair share"?

I don't know many Repubs who voted for Obama. Given that all the third parties combined didn't get much of a share of the overall vote, of course, most repubs who voted, voted for McCain.

He would be doing much of the same stuff Obama is doing on the economic front. I really fail to see why it requires pages and pages of nit-picking to discuss this...

Obummer

October 22nd, 2009, 10:12 pm

The point is this idea that the target of Obama's comments regarding paying "their fair share" are 100% misguided as 75% of the population pays 15% o the total tax bill coupled with the fact that 45% of the population doesn't even pay a penny in taxes or gets money back.

Everyone should pay something and have skin in the game.

Guvnah

October 23rd, 2009, 12:28 am

Interesting.

This site was raised in another thread:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I don't bring it here to discuss the growing debt, but to point out some of the other boxes on the page.

Notice that the debt and the GDP are about the same.

Notice that the "debt per taxpayer" is larger than the "GDP per worker".

That means there are more workers than taxpayers.

Meaning there are workers who do not pay taxes.

Just another way to look at the topic of this thread.

Vaard

October 23rd, 2009, 9:09 am

Ya know what I mean when I say I've vaarded? ;)

that you finally started thinking......

Vaard

October 23rd, 2009, 9:10 am

shrek

October 23rd, 2009, 10:26 am

so now the "conservative" argument is that people who recieve the most government services should pay less taxes and the people who recieve less government services should pay more taxes.......

each accosring to his need and each according to his ability is now a "conservative" reasoning......

:)) Not at all. 10% of 2 Million is $200,000 10% of $20,000 is $2,000

No matter what someone paying 10% or $200,000 is paying more than the person paying $2,000

I apologize, I did not realize you truly are math deficient. :mrgreen:

But now that I know that I will keep that in mind as I debate you.

Vaard

October 23rd, 2009, 10:32 am

:)) Not at all. 10% of 2 Million is $200,000 10% of $20,000 is $2,000

No matter what someone paying 10% or $200,000 is paying more than the person paying $2,000

I apologize, I did not realize you truly are math deficient. :mrgreen:

But now that I know that I will keep that in mind as I debate you.

is the rich person paying more in taes or no?

if one perosn pays 2k and the oehte rpays 20k, you consider that to be the same amount of money?

math deficient indeed......

the only way your math works is if you are making each pay accoring to their abilility and need......

shrek

October 23rd, 2009, 11:38 am

is the rich person paying more in taes or no?

if one perosn pays 2k and the oehte rpays 20k, you consider that to be the same amount of money?

math deficient indeed......

the only way your math works is if you are making each pay accoring to their abilility and need......

Yes the rich person is paying more in actual dollars. 2K is not the same amount as 20K. BUt both represent 10% of what the two different persons earn.

I want each person to pay a percentage of what they earn. What they earn is not tied to ability or need. Many people are able and should earn more but do not. And there are many that need far more than they earn but do not.

Guvnah

October 23rd, 2009, 6:16 pm

The word you guys are hunting for is "proportional".

Glad I could help!

pennysworth56

October 24th, 2009, 2:11 pm

Obama and the Democrats keep pulling out this timeless line as an argument to raise taxes (I mean fees) on the so called rich.

What does Obama mean when he said its time for everyone to "pay their fair share"?

45% of Americans pay no taxes or get a tax credit. When is the president going to have them "pay their fair share"?

If Obama and gang wanted everyone to pay their fair share of taxes they would push for the fair tax then everyone would be.
All it is a redisturbation of wealth.
penny

DRS

October 24th, 2009, 2:15 pm

what he means is to steal money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not

You mean like thos CEOs and other execs who took big bonuses while running their companies into the ground and then money was taken from those who work hard for a living to fix their mistakes?

DRS

October 24th, 2009, 2:18 pm

2007 figures showed the bottom 50% of income earners paid 3% of all income taxes. That means that the top 50% pay a whopping 97%.

Now, who's not paying their "fair" share?

Yet they had enough money to still be very rich and those who were at the bottom got to stay there.

So paying more did not hurt them then I guess

kaydahl

October 24th, 2009, 2:42 pm

You mean like thos CEOs and other execs who took big bonuses while running their companies into the ground and then money was taken from those who work hard for a living to fix their mistakes?

Despite your faulty logic which ignores the legal validity of a private contract no matter how irrational it may appear in retrospect....I enjoyed reading this admission that the bailouts hurt the little guy.

DRS

October 24th, 2009, 3:10 pm

Despite your faulty logic which ignores the legal validity of a private contract no matter how irrational it may appear in retrospect....I enjoyed reading this admission that the bailouts hurt the little guy.

Bailouts were only a good idea because if the companies had failed all those people would have ended up on gvernment programs anyways

So a lot of welfare checks while people look for jobs or one big welfare check and try to keep some existing jobs

And this also gives the gov a chance to recoup some money from those who have been getting obscene wages and bonuses

XBlacklashX

October 24th, 2009, 3:48 pm

Would you rather be poor and get your taxes back or be very wealthy and pay out taxes you won't miss? Both situations aren't ideal and I'd much rather be wealthy getting jacked by the government for taxes than poor and barely living check to check.

kaydahl

October 24th, 2009, 3:55 pm

Bailouts were only a good idea because if the companies had failed all those people would have ended up on gvernment programs anyways

So a lot of welfare checks while people look for jobs or one big welfare check and try to keep some existing jobs

And this also gives the gov a chance to recoup some money from those who have been getting obscene wages and bonuses

You attempt to wiggle out of your statement that bailouts hurt the little guy with the claim that the bailouts are providing welfare/jobs?

The government cannot "recoup" money that never belonged to it in the first place.