FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#1237856 --- 12/05/10 01:22 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1237865 --- 12/05/10 01:46 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Nancy Pelosi is Using Government to Steal from Americans

Nancy Pelosi is either ignorant or one of the most deceitful people in government. Consider this statemement: "Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion dollars to the deficit. And the record and history shows and does not create jobs." Keeping the current tax rates does not "give" money to anyone. Taxation "takes" money from those who have earned the money. It's theft by government decree, and millions of people think it's OK. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if someone steals for them. Consider the following: If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need?

View Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler...to_rich_do_not!

Top
#1237871 --- 12/05/10 02:33 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
citydog Offline
Member

Registered: 08/29/10
Posts: 383
Loc: Ontario County
Originally Posted By: cwjga
... Keeping the current tax rates does not "give" money to anyone. Taxation "takes" money from those who have earned the money. It's theft by government decree, and millions of people think it's OK. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if someone steals for them. Consider the following: If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need?...

Based on the logic presented here (i.e., theft is wrong, taxes are theft, therefore taxes are wrong) no one should pay any taxes at all -- Federal, state, or local. Absurd? Of course.

Theft is the UNLAWFUL taking of property belonging to another. However, taxes are lawful by virtue of the fact that they were
instituted by elected representatives. To put your hypothetical "John" and his neighbors in a slightly different light, let's first understand that John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself. Those people are called "government." To take care of those things, the people who made up the government decided to require everyone who could afford it to give some of their income to the government. Among the things that the elected representatives decided to do was to provide some assistance to some of the citizens who needed help. Now that wasn't a unanimous decision, of course, since some of the elected representatives disagreed.
But it was nevertheless legal.

There is no place in the civilized world where people are not required to pay taxes in one form or another. You may disagree with the uses to which taxes are put, but to claim that taxes are the same as theft is silly.

You may also disagree that unemployment benefits help to keep the economy going (people without other income spend their unemployment benefits thereby creating a need for goods and services, aka the economy), but to say that cutting taxes will not add to the deficit is also silly. The Federal government has obligations to pay for a lot of stuff (some of which you may disagree with) but the obligations are there, nevertheless. And if we cut taxes for everyone, thereby reducing the income for the government, we have to pay for those obligations by borrowing more money. It's as simple as that.

Taxes are "theft?" Nonsense!
_________________________
Who let the dogs out

Top
#1237943 --- 12/05/10 08:11 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Nancy Pelosi is Using Government to Steal from Americans

Nancy Pelosi is either ignorant or one of the most deceitful people in government. Consider this statemement: "Giving $700 billion to the wealthiest people in America does add $700 billion dollars to the deficit. And the record and history shows and does not create jobs." Keeping the current tax rates does not "give" money to anyone. Taxation "takes" money from those who have earned the money. It's theft by government decree, and millions of people think it's OK. While most Americans would agree that stealing is wrong, they don’t seem to have a problem if someone steals for them. Consider the following: If John has a financial need, would it be right for him to rob his neighbors to supply that need? Most people would say no. Would it be right for John to get some of his friends to steal for him? Again, most people would say no. What if John convinces enough people to create a civil government that takes money from his neighbors to pay for things John and others need?

View Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GregHengler...to_rich_do_not!


I hope to convince the govt to take from some neighbors and give to others.

The truth is that the ceo of a bank does not work much harder, if harder at all, than lots of other people. If he does work harder he doesn't work 10,000 times harder. The basic republican argument is taht rich people 'earned' their money. They earn their money in a system that runs based on laws created by society - which is all of us. Those laws do things like... give monopoly control over a product to just one company. We argue that monopolies are bad, yet if someone invents Silly Bands for kids, he becomes a millionaire. There was a time that laws like that didn't exist.

If a bank CEO isn't working much harder (or possibly not even as hard) as an average person is, why is he making more money? The next argument is that he has some skill that is rare, so he gets more money for his rare skill. He is a math whiz, so the Supply of people with good math skills is low, and in a free market, the price someone will pay for that skill is higher than someone who cleans bathrooms.

This is the Republican argument, is it not?

The problem is that we all know a bank president or ceo isn't really working 10,000 times harder than we are, but he makes 10,000 times our pay. it also appears unfair that someone with a rare skill gets more money, because this is often based on the luck of your genetic draw in life (michael jordan's kid will have a much better chance at making money at basketball than my kid will) or, if you are religious, then the bank ceo has 'god given talents' that the rest of us don't ahve. Either way, why should someone with unlucky genes or given no special skill by God have to suffer while the lucky/favored by God individual gets to live a life of luxury?

And liberals aren't even saying that the bank CEO should make the same amount of money as a janitor, we are just saying people that do not benefit from our society is structured (where teachers and police officers make less than a guy who can put a basketball in a hoop) should not have to worry about the necessities... like, for example... health care.

We also think it is fair to tax the people who never have to worry about survival, or medical care, or shelter at a higher rate to help those at the bottom.

On the other hand, Republicans block tax cuts for the majority of the population if the super rich aren't included. Republicans are just greedy.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1237952 --- 12/05/10 09:07 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
Animal Lover Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/13/06
Posts: 1339
Loc: NY
Quote:
Greedy jerks? Not necessarily. My guess is that they're really clueless (or have forgotten) about what it's like to live on the margin, much less at the poverty level.


Do you really believe that? If they are that clueless than they are stupid too. I have a hard time being generous enough to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are "clueless" or don't remember.

Generosity/philanthropy is a character trait that some people have and understand and those that don't get it are greedy. Those greedy people would be considered jerks in most circles. You ever been stiffed by a friend who has the money to pay their share when you go out but allows everyone else pay more than their share to help pay their way? What do you call that guy or gal? I call them a greedy jerk. LOL.

Not everyone can be a Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan or as Zorn was discussing a banking CEO. Maybe they were "blessed" with abilities or maybe they got lucky...either way it doesn't hurt them to pay a higher percentage of taxes. A gallon of milk costs the same in this area whether you make $25 grand or $250 grand or a million. Same goes for a gallon of gas or the price of a basic phone line. But buying that gallon of milk for some means giving up something else. The wealthy person probably can't even tell you what a gallon of milk costs and do not care what a gallon of gas costs when they are filling up the Lexus. If they have to pay another 3-5% in their taxes they won't have to sacrifice anything really, and certainly not necessities.

Top
#1237954 --- 12/05/10 10:02 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
P Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 1720
Loc: Fingerlakes ny
That may not be entirely true. they may have to shortened the new yacht by five feet or downgrade to a 750 BMW ;\)
Seriously... they(GOP) didn't take long in showing their agenda....anti Democrat even at the taxpayers demise.


Edited by Papa4 (12/05/10 10:05 PM)
_________________________


Top
#1237985 --- 12/06/10 01:00 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: citydog]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 8255
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.
_________________________
01 - 20 - 2017

Top
#1238020 --- 12/06/10 05:00 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Animal Lover]
LeeAnnRagains Offline
Member

Registered: 04/23/10
Posts: 192
Loc: Kingfisher, OK
American Tax Payers are Taxed Enough Already! I should NOT be TAXED 50% of my income to finance another 180 yrs of; Corruption, Segregation and Preference for Women & "Minorities".

I have heard enough - during Thanksgiving - about the 565 Tribal Counsels trying to BLAME Christopher Columbus for every "crime" that has happened to them and all of the "stolen" land!

We are NOT "victims" - We are NOT Incompetent Domestic Dependent Indians of the DOI/BIA! They do NOT speak for us. They use - us & our children to perpetuate "Welfare as a Career" to increase federal funding.


We ARE American Citizens and the 565 Tribal Counsels should have NO CLAIM to our children, We should NOT have to ask permission from the 565 Tribal Counsels, DOI, BIA, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to; Improve, Lease & Sell our Own Land.



TITLE 25 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 72
§ 72. Abrogation of treaties
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/25/usc_sec_25_00000072----000-.html

Whenever the tribal organization of any Indian tribe is in actual hostility to the United States, the President is authorized, by proclamation, to declare all treaties with such tribe abrogated by such tribe if in his opinion the same can be done consistently with good faith and legal and national obligations. [/b]



The 564 Indian Tribal organizations have proven they are hostile toward their own members (American Citizens) and the United States (Continued illegal Segregation, illegal Separate but Equal, illegal tax evasion and FTC Anti-trust violations).

Abrogation of Treaties; CITE-
25 USC Sec. 72 02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 25 - INDIANS
CHAPTER 3 - AGREEMENTS WITH INDIANS
SUBCHAPTER I - TREATIES

-HEAD-
Sec. 72. Abrogation of treaties

-STATUTE-
Whenever the tribal organization of any Indian tribe is in actual
hostility to the United States, the President is authorized, by
proclamation, to declare all treaties with such tribe abrogated by
such tribe if in his opinion the same can be done consistently with
good faith and legal and national obligations.

-SOURCE-
(R.S. Sec. 2080.)

-COD-
CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 2080 derived from act July 5, 1862, ch. 135, Sec. 1, 12
Stat. 528.

-End-


***


I live in the United States of America - where I insist, expect & demand to have CHOICES for everything I want to buy and anything I can personally afford.

Private health insurance is my CHOICE and I will not settle for the Governments version of "health care". NO THANK YOU ;\)

The Feds should get out of MY/OUR way \:\)

I hope God will bless this effort for American Freedom, Equality & Unity.


***

Please send; an email, a fax or make a Phone Call to Tom Coburn in OKC. He is my State of Oklahoma Senator and is a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Even though I am no longer a Federally Recognized American Indian, I will always be American.

Please send; an email, a fax or make a Phone Call to Tom Coburn in OKC. Senator Coburn must help me to Petition President Obama for the Emancipation of these 1.9 million American Indian Citizens.

You can send an anonymous Post Card for Freedom to your States Elected Officials and NOT sign it - You are a concerned VOTER & you agree with these 3 points for Freedom & Equality.


***

A Historical Viewpoint is always BEST since it's supposed to be 20/20??? We should review how well Government Owned & Operated Health Care has helped; our Veterans & Troops and the Incompetent Domestic Dependent Federally Recognized Indians.


Our Veterans & Troops & their Families have never had enough Government Health Care to SAVE or IMPROVE their LIVES. Especially after a Combat Related Injury. An 80 yr old WW2 Veteran must drive 4 hours one way to see his doctor and hope to be seen in less than 6 hours of sitting then drive the 4 hours home.


But - IF - they had served 1 Term in the U.S. Congress they would have the best PRIVATE health care our TAX dollars will pay 'til the DAY THEY DIE!!!!


Federally Recognized Reservation health care for Indians is actually better than that is for our Vets & Troops. All of the Hospitals & Clinic, Doctors, nurses...etc are DELIVERED to within 10 miles of their homes on the Rez. Okay - maybe they have to be one of the first 10 people on Tuesday to see the Dentist - but - They don't care - IT IS FREE!!!


In 1830 Congress declared WAR against the American Indians with the Indian Removal Act = 180 yrs ago. They were POW's then and the Military provided "health care" for these Prisoners. During these last 150 yrs the 565 Tribal Counsels have learned how to extort better state of the art facilities for all their members & potential members at TAX PAYER EXPENSE.

AND it has only taken these last 100 yrs for the Tribes to decrease 100% UN-employment to a mere 18% UN-employed today.


***Todd Kruse article confirms - IF, the Government owns & operates all aspects of our lives - it may NOT be entirely successfull. Oh well - I'm NOT paying for the mistakes of our Govt.? Who is paying for it? How long have we've been paying for it?

http://insideriowa.com/index.cfm?nodeID=18894&audienceID=1&action=display&newsID=9005

40 Acres & a Mule...The trust is a little known government program that manages nearly $3.5 billion in assets for the Indian/Native Americans in the USA. By “manage” I mean the trust sends out checks when they are not paralyzed by corruption and/or gross incompetence – I leave that determination to the Government Accountability Office.

When I first read Howard’s email regarding this “Second Emancipation Proclamation” my immediate response was – “now that is a great idea, empower these people and reduce government at the same time” – of course I was being optimistic assuming the Indian Trust would be phased out with the money distributed to those emancipated.

Now that 147 years have passed since President Lincoln’s proclamation declared black slaves free it seems rather appropriate that America’s first black president would use the power of his office to declare these modern day slaves to a government check to be free citizens via the phase out of the Indian Trust.

Granted some Insider Iowa readers might argue with me that Indian/Native Americans interned on reservation lands waiting for their government check to be delivered is vastly different from the American plantation system of the 1860s thus this is not some form of modern day slavery. Really? Are the reservation lands (those without thriving casinos) in the USA islands of prosperity with low crime rates and excellent health care statistics or is this where we find very high rates of unemployment, violence, and a range of health problems including diabetes, alcoholism, and obesity?

If the Indian Trust is a successful model then I thank God my family emigrated from Germany so we are not part of the trust.


***

Unfortunately - every Tax Payer that has ever lived, Tax Payers today and our children will continue to PAY for: Corruption, Segregation and Preference for the 565 Federally Recognized Tribes and their members and potential members to reap the benefits of Government Health Care. AND there are 300 more "Tribes" petitioning for Federal Recognition - TODAY.

My Ancestors, My Family and MY Great Great Grandchildren, Thanks you ;\)
LeeAnnRagains.com



Top
#1238064 --- 12/06/10 12:58 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: sands]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.


That was one of those tax breaks we all got under Obama. Oh wait we did not all get it. Only the people that did what Obama wanted them to do got the tax break and the rest of us paid for it.

Top
#1238077 --- 12/06/10 02:12 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.


That was one of those tax breaks we all got under Obama. Oh wait we did not all get it. Only the people that did what Obama wanted them to do got the tax break and the rest of us paid for it.


How about your mortgage interest I helped pay for, or school taxes, or the exemptions you get for having children or the lower tax rate for being married? Should I keep going?

Top
#1238120 --- 12/06/10 04:46 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Originally Posted By: Zorn
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?


Do you even remotely understand how that tax system worked, or do you really think they paid 90% of their income to the government?
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1238168 --- 12/06/10 09:14 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Greymane]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Originally Posted By: Zorn
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?


Do you even remotely understand how that tax system worked, or do you really think they paid 90% of their income to the government?


They paid 90% for what they made in the highest income tax bracket. That is exactly what I said.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

That was for over $400K, but even at $100K a year the tax was 72% and $20K was 38%. So a person making $400K a year was paying... maybe 60% of their *entire* income to the government. (actually I was looking at the 1960s sorry)

The point is, did the rich people leave the US? Did it crush economic growth? It didn't cause unemployment, unemployment was super low at that time.

Im not arguing for those tax rates again (unless the govt started providing big services like free college tuition, health care, day care, etc) but I think it shows the argument that a small tax increase for the top tax brackets would cause economic problems is just more republican propaganda that you guys suck up like a bunch of sycophantic fools.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238169 --- 12/06/10 09:19 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Chosenspot
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: citydog
John and his neighbors chose some people to take care of the things that were better done by a collective group rather than everyone fending for him or herself.




Like if your neighbor wants a new skylight in his house, it's your job to pay for it through the federal tax credit.


That was one of those tax breaks we all got under Obama. Oh wait we did not all get it. Only the people that did what Obama wanted them to do got the tax break and the rest of us paid for it.


How about your mortgage interest I helped pay for, or school taxes, or the exemptions you get for having children or the lower tax rate for being married? Should I keep going?


Nope, I agree, except that I am not sure if I helped pay yours or you helped me. So let's just pay our own. That is why there should be one tax rate,so the more you make the more you pay, and congress should stop the social engineering.



Edited by cwjga (12/06/10 09:26 PM)

Top
#1238171 --- 12/06/10 09:28 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 12660
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Zorn
Originally Posted By: Greymane
Originally Posted By: Zorn
because the highest income tax bracket in the 1950s was 90% and people got along just fine?


Do you even remotely understand how that tax system worked, or do you really think they paid 90% of their income to the government?


They paid 90% for what they made in the highest income tax bracket. That is exactly what I said.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

That was for over $400K, but even at $100K a year the tax was 72% and $20K was 38%. So a person making $400K a year was paying... maybe 60% of their *entire* income to the government. (actually I was looking at the 1960s sorry)

The point is, did the rich people leave the US? Did it crush economic growth? It didn't cause unemployment, unemployment was super low at that time.

Im not arguing for those tax rates again (unless the govt started providing big services like free college tuition, health care, day care, etc) but I think it shows the argument that a small tax increase for the top tax brackets would cause economic problems is just more republican propaganda that you guys suck up like a bunch of sycophantic fools.





Right, it will just cause more government spending. Oops, my bad, you approve of government spending more.

Top
#1238172 --- 12/06/10 09:35 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: cwjga]
Chosenspot Offline
Member

Registered: 01/05/10
Posts: 137
Loc: Penn Yan, New York
Originally Posted By: cwjga

Nope, I agree, except that I am not sure if I helped pay yours or you helped me. So let's just pay our own. That is why there should be one tax rate,so the more you make the more you pay, and congress should stop the social engineering.



I totally agree with you on that.

Top
#1238260 --- 12/07/10 10:52 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Chosenspot]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
The flat tax will mean rich people pay less, not more. Still researching the 'fair tax', but the Flat Tax would mean rich people pay even less than they do today, because there is ONLY an income tax, and no capital gains tax at all.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238275 --- 12/07/10 11:46 AM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25141
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Why should you have to pay tax on something you've already had the taxes paid on?

Capital Gains Tax
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1238279 --- 12/07/10 12:04 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Ranger]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
Capital Gainst tax is a tax on the *profit* you gain from selling an asset. So if you buy a house for $100K you pay tax on it, but if you sell it for $200K you pay capital gains tax on the profit you made, not on the $100K. This is the way I understand it.

So you aren't paying tax twice.
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238281 --- 12/07/10 12:06 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
Zorn Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/06/06
Posts: 1376
Loc: ny
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/20...-their-benefits

Republicans are AWESOME. They are holding the tax cuts hostage unless the rich get their tax cuts too, totaling $70B per year.

They refused to pass a bill that would give unemployment benefit extensions unless there was some way to pay for them - no more deb you know. Total per year... $60B.

So we can go into debt for rich tax cuts for $70b per year, but not pay for unemployment benefits at $60b per year. Am I the only one who thinks the top 2% of the country could lose their tax cuts and use that money to help people without jobs?
_________________________
"I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security". - Tea Party Member

Top
#1238284 --- 12/07/10 12:22 PM Re: Republicans add $70 billion to annual deficit. [Re: Zorn]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/10/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
I get it, Zorn. The problem is that many people vote for representatives who don't represent their interests, and THEY don't get it.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >