50% Of Americans Are Parasites AND They VOTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Oddball]

Oh, another thought I had while reading this: Pork in Congress is obnoxious. My first impression on a repeal of the 17th is that pork would get worse. That would be a significant contributor to the con side of the scale for me. Any arguments against or supporting that?

Most of what has been called "pork" and "earmarks" is directed spending of monies that would be going to the states in block grants anyways....This is how politicians pay off favored supporters and build monuments to themselves.

It's when they get carried away and bust the budget, which happens all the time, that this practice becomes even more problematic.

See, I am against any earmarks/pork. Theoretically, congressional politicians should be experts on administration, appropriations, and laws; not on most of the subject matter associated with specific grant approvals.

The federal government has agencies containing experts in almost any field - health, education, defense, agriculture, etc. All congress should be charged with is appropriating monies to those general fields based on the county's current and future needs. Let those experts in the agencies decide specifically how their appropriated budget should be spent. For example, DDHS might decide that autism and influenaza get more monies from their chunk, and they would know best, not Barney Frank or Michelle Bachmann. DoD may decide that a large percentage of their chunk will be spent on better remote IR imaging as a priority need for national defense, not some congressman who has a large sensor developer in his/her state. I hope that makes sense.

No argument here....With the exception as to whether those federal agencies should even exist.

I'm just pointing out the facts, sir.

 

[Si modo]

Most of what has been called "pork" and "earmarks" is directed spending of monies that would be going to the states in block grants anyways....This is how politicians pay off favored supporters and build monuments to themselves.

It's when they get carried away and bust the budget, which happens all the time, that this practice becomes even more problematic.

See, I am against any earmarks/pork. Theoretically, congressional politicians should be experts on administration, appropriations, and laws; not on most of the subject matter associated with specific grant approvals.

The federal government has agencies containing experts in almost any field - health, education, defense, agriculture, etc. All congress should be charged with is appropriating monies to those general fields based on the county's current and future needs. Let those experts in the agencies decide specifically how their appropriated budget should be spent. For example, DDHS might decide that autism and influenaza get more monies from their chunk, and they would know best, not Barney Frank or Michelle Bachmann. DoD may decide that a large percentage of their chunk will be spent on better remote IR imaging as a priority need for national defense, not some congressman who has a large sensor developer in his/her state. I hope that makes sense.

No argument here....With the exception as to whether those federal agencies should even exist. ...

Yes, addressing that would open up a whole other can of worms. So, I'm going to assume that these agencies are a given (baby steps to reform, so to speak). I'm wondering if a 17th Amendment appeal would reduce pork, increase pork, or have little effect on it. My first impression is that it would increase it or at least keep pork the same.

So, in my analysis and with all else remaining constant, I'm trying to see how the pork problem weighs in on this idea.

.... I'm just pointing out the facts, sir.

LOL.

 

[Contumacious]

Ive always felt that in order to vote, you should have to display some minimum understanding of who you are voting for and why!!!!!

Welfare state politicians won't have any of that - their motto is the dumber the better, the poor votes and are willing to give demagogue politicians all the power they need to keep them poor.


.

 

[jillian]

Welfare state politicians won't have any of that

you mean the pols from Mississippi? Alabama?

Be specific....

and where's that link again?

still waiting....

 

[edthecynic]

higher taxes could bring them in to the income tax system...so they do have something at stake...in addition to this all of these people are paying SS taxes and medicare taxes. Their SS tax surplus has been USED by these politicians to PAY for what those higher taxed wealthy federal income tax payers, should have paid for...so the wealthiest have stolen from the poorest.

everyone has reason to watch who they vote for...and many, do not understand this importance of being an educated and informed citizen, no matter your class or net financial worth.

Care, what in the hell are you talking about?

What is it exactly that the wealthy are to have stolen from the poor? BE SPECIFIC...

Well PompousInfantilus, specifically, the SS SURPLUS!!!!

Bush took the SS Surplus, collected from American wage earners making under $100,000 and REDISTRIBUTED it mostly to incomes OVER $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who don't even pay SS taxes by using an "across the board" income tax rate cut to rebate surplus taxes collected using payroll tax rates.

Redistribution of wealth from American wage earners to Capital Gains Tycoons is the kind of "redistribution of wealth" America hating CON$ love.

CON$ are so gullible, all Bush had to say was "across the board" and they figured it had to be fair.

The fact that that the SS Surplus was collected at payroll tax rates which had a cap of around $1000,000 and not at Income tx rates and therefore it is grossly unfair to rebate any of the SS Surplus to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who paid not one penny into the SS Surplus because Cap Cains are exempt from Payroll taxes, goes completely over the small-minded CON$ heads.

That's why one of many reasons I say Bush's tax cuts should be replaced when they expier, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with cuts in payroll taxes.

Payroll tax cuts reduce the cost of American labor and reward most those businesses that employ the most Americans and not businesses that profited from cutting labor costs by outsourcing the most American jobs, as Bush's redistribution of wealth tax cuts did.

 

[Contumacious]

Why are these people all parasites if they take their proper and legal income tax deductions THAT ALL OTHER TAX PAYERS of HIGHER income TAKE AS WELL and take advantage of as well, to reduce their own taxes owed?
.

Pay attention:

"The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?"


.

 

[Care4all]

Why are these people all parasites if they take their proper and legal income tax deductions THAT ALL OTHER TAX PAYERS of HIGHER income TAKE AS WELL and take advantage of as well, to reduce their own taxes owed?
.

Pay attention:

"The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?"


.

setting aside the 15 million who do not file at all WHICH ARE PRIMARILY SOCIAL SECURITY SENIORS (silly!)....

Those that work and make an income and file their income taxes, yet do not owe any income tax, do not owe any income tax because their personal income does not go above deductions from tax that our internal revenue service gives to EVERYONE. They are not skirting around the system or getting ANYTHING AT ALL that the WEALTHIEST were NOT GIVEN....got that?

The wealthy received the SAME DEDUCTIONS that the poorest got, and THEY TOO do NOT have to pay any taxes on this portion of their income... got that?

Just because the poorest did not make more than the amount that is deductible is not their fault for Christ's sake, and just because the wealthiest did make more money than the deductible amounts, of which they did get taxed on is NOT the poorest's fault for Christ's sake!

Those who make less and who took legal deductions for themselves and their family that the irs makes you take, are taking no more deductions for themselves and family than the wealthiest get as a tax deduction for themselves and their family.

Are you saying our personal deductions given to all of us should NOT be given under the IRS code and we ALL should pay taxes on every dime we make, and not be allowed deductions to feed ourselves etc, because this is basically what the personal deduction and deduction for dependents is for, so that none of us will be supposedly taxed on the simple necessities to live.

Care

 

[edthecynic]

Pay attention:

"The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. .

Pay attention:

That has been exposed as a LIE by the CBO data I provided a link to and literally gave you the page number and Table number you requested, before you even requested it, yet you STILL PLAY DUMB!!!!

No matter how many times you parrot the GOP Hate-Run media's lie it will never be true.

 

[Contumacious]

Why are these people all parasites if they take their proper and legal income tax deductions THAT ALL OTHER TAX PAYERS of HIGHER income TAKE AS WELL and take advantage of as well, to reduce their own taxes owed?
.

Pay attention:

"The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?"


.

setting aside the 15 million who do not file at all WHICH ARE PRIMARILY SOCIAL SECURITY SENIORS (silly!)....

Those that work and make an income and file their income taxes, yet do not owe any income tax, do not owe any income tax because their personal income does not go above deductions from tax that our internal revenue service gives to EVERYONE. They are not skirting around the system or getting ANYTHING AT ALL that the WEALTHIEST were NOT GIVEN....got that?

The wealthy received the SAME DEDUCTIONS that the poorest got, and THEY TOO do NOT have to pay any taxes on this portion of their income... got that?

Just because the poorest did not make more than the amount that is deductible is not their fault for Christ's sake, and just because the wealthiest did make more money than the deductible amounts, of which they did get taxed on is NOT the poorest's fault for Christ's sake!

Those who make less and who took legal deductions for themselves and their family that the irs makes you take, are taking no more deductions for themselves and family than the wealthiest get as a tax deduction for themselves and their family.

Are you saying our personal deductions given to all of us should NOT be given under the IRS code and we ALL should pay taxes on every dime we make, and not be allowed deductions to feed ourselves etc, because this is basically what the personal deduction and deduction for dependents is for, so that none of us will be supposedly taxed on the simple necessities to live.

Care

Look, be that as it may those people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?



.

 

[Care4all]

Pay attention:

"The proposed tax increases that the White House and Congress are proposing will probably pass. According to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, during 2006, roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, had no federal tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns. Adding to this figure are 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all. Roughly 121 million Americans -- or 41 percent of the U.S. population -- are completely outside the federal income tax system. These people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?"


.

setting aside the 15 million who do not file at all WHICH ARE PRIMARILY SOCIAL SECURITY SENIORS (silly!)....

Those that work and make an income and file their income taxes, yet do not owe any income tax, do not owe any income tax because their personal income does not go above deductions from tax that our internal revenue service gives to EVERYONE. They are not skirting around the system or getting ANYTHING AT ALL that the WEALTHIEST were NOT GIVEN....got that?

The wealthy received the SAME DEDUCTIONS that the poorest got, and THEY TOO do NOT have to pay any taxes on this portion of their income... got that?

Just because the poorest did not make more than the amount that is deductible is not their fault for Christ's sake, and just because the wealthiest did make more money than the deductible amounts, of which they did get taxed on is NOT the poorest's fault for Christ's sake!

Those who make less and who took legal deductions for themselves and their family that the irs makes you take, are taking no more deductions for themselves and family than the wealthiest get as a tax deduction for themselves and their family.

Are you saying our personal deductions given to all of us should NOT be given under the IRS code and we ALL should pay taxes on every dime we make, and not be allowed deductions to feed ourselves etc, because this is basically what the personal deduction and deduction for dependents is for, so that none of us will be supposedly taxed on the simple necessities to live.

Care

Look, be that as it may those people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?



.

higher taxes can eventually affect them, but to be honest with you...i have NEVER voted for a politician because of taxes...i have always reviewed their stances that affected us in other ways of great importance to me, like going to war or not, military spending, health care, bank bailouts and things that matter....

it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether you support a republican who SAYS he is conservative and will kill spending so he can cut your taxes or a dem who says he wont....the only difference is that the Dem is honest about it and the repub lies about it....the repubs spent like drunken sailors under bush, while taking SS surplus money to give tax breaks....that's a good reason why the gvt is in the crapola hole it is in now....

so, higher taxes don't scare me like the boogy man because neither side is any better than the other, but policy does!

Care

 

[Contumacious]

setting aside the 15 million who do not file at all WHICH ARE PRIMARILY SOCIAL SECURITY SENIORS (silly!)....

Those that work and make an income and file their income taxes, yet do not owe any income tax, do not owe any income tax because their personal income does not go above deductions from tax that our internal revenue service gives to EVERYONE. They are not skirting around the system or getting ANYTHING AT ALL that the WEALTHIEST were NOT GIVEN....got that?

The wealthy received the SAME DEDUCTIONS that the poorest got, and THEY TOO do NOT have to pay any taxes on this portion of their income... got that?

Just because the poorest did not make more than the amount that is deductible is not their fault for Christ's sake, and just because the wealthiest did make more money than the deductible amounts, of which they did get taxed on is NOT the poorest's fault for Christ's sake!

Those who make less and who took legal deductions for themselves and their family that the irs makes you take, are taking no more deductions for themselves and family than the wealthiest get as a tax deduction for themselves and their family.

Are you saying our personal deductions given to all of us should NOT be given under the IRS code and we ALL should pay taxes on every dime we make, and not be allowed deductions to feed ourselves etc, because this is basically what the personal deduction and deduction for dependents is for, so that none of us will be supposedly taxed on the simple necessities to live.

Care

Look, be that as it may those people represent a natural constituency for big-spending politicians. Since they have no federal income tax obligation, what do they care about higher taxes or tax cuts?



.

higher taxes can eventually affect them, but to be honest with you...i have NEVER voted for a politician because of taxes...i have always reviewed their stances that affected us in other ways of great importance to me, like going to war or not, military spending, health care, bank bailouts and things that matter....

it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether you support a republican who SAYS he is conservative and will kill spending so he can cut your taxes or a dem who says he wont....the only difference is that the Dem is honest about it and the repub lies about it....the repubs spent like drunken sailors under bush, while taking SS surplus money to give tax breaks....that's a good reason why the gvt is in the crapola hole it is in now....

so, higher taxes don't scare me like the boogy man because neither side is any better than the other, but policy does!

Care

I do not vote for the demopublicans. I vote Libertarian.


.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Walter Williams OPINION is solid rock reliable... Aside from his Ph.D in economics... he is a man of impecable reason.

no...he's someone you agree with who's telling you what you want to hear.

ROFL... Mercy... you've now had two solid gold opprtunities to specify any element of William's argument with which you disagree and you've opted to NOT DO SO and instead advance the usual litanny of fallacious drivel; which you hope distracts from your intellectual failure.

It's worth noting that the above noted imbecile had only gone so far as to attack his name; and demonstrates her inability to address his argument, through her intentional avoidance of that argument.

As opposed to the above-referenced proven nutbar who thinks anyone who disagrees with him isn't American?

Isn't it cool how this idiot is wholly INCAPABLE of addressing the argument?

I would have been pleased to address the "tax foundaton" and it's purported 'study" if I knew what it was. But the post was misleading and didn't link to it.

So you're saying that you would have advanced fallacious irrelevance towards the foundation and the study... ?

ROFL...

But I think I'll pass on your laissez faire capitalist BS. I don't care for Dickensian nightmares.

You'll pass on it, because you've no means to debate it.

But hey... it does prove, in large measure, Williams' case... This idiot has no BUSINESS being allowed within 10 MILES of a voting booth.

You're a hoot and a hollar...insane...but a hoot and a hollar nonetheless. Perhaps Moscow would be a better place for you. The politburo never liked dissent either. Maybe you and Putin can resurrect the good ole USSR. dasvidanya, comrade.

ROFL... Dissent? Idiocy doesn't equate to or rise to the level of... dissent.











Dumbass.

 

[edthecynic]

Walter Williams OPINION is solid rock reliable... Aside from his Ph.D in economics... he is a man of impecable reason.

no...he's someone you agree with who's telling you what you want to hear.

ROFL... Mercy... you've now had two solid gold opprtunities to specify any element of William's argument with which you disagree and you've opted to NOT DO SO and instead advance the usual litanny of fallacious drivel; which you hope distracts from your intellectual failure.

Oh, this is just precious!!!

The link to the CBO numbers that expose Williams' lie has been posted multiple times in this thread and this fool STILL plays dumb and fully expects to be taken seriously

 

[Contumacious]

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

by Andrew P. Napolitano

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution.