How Do You Define Freedom?

[Charles Stucker]

The 'welfare' states (like NY) would fail and the hardworking states (like TX) would prosper.

New York pays more in taxes to the federal government than it takes out. Texas, on the other hand takes more federal money it pays in. Texas is free to go at any time.

Sure NY is doing great, that's why the state fears bankruptcy and has such high tax rates that people are leaving for other states. States like Texas which have fewer taxes and no outstanding state debt.

Sure Texas is free to go, that's why all the constitutional scholars around USMB insist that White vs Texas proves no state can EVER secede.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Ohh like eminent domain for corporate gain?Be it a hotel, mall or football stadium./QUOTE]

AMEN! We're fighting one right now, and sadly, losing.

Ratner Wins Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Appeal (Updated) - New York News - Runnin' Scared

Ratner is a greedy asshole sumabitch. One of my friends will lose her apartment if this goes through.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Charles Stucker: I'm so sorry, did I offend your lazy liberal tax and spend sensibilities?

Not at all, Charles. I see that you simply cannot defend your position. Step along, son.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that no state can (or will be permitted) to secede. Please, Charles Stucker, offer something relevant for a change.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Charles Stucker: I'm so sorry, did I offend your lazy liberal tax and spend sensibilities?

Not at all, Charles. I see that you simply cannot defend your position. Step along, son.

Id say he rubbed your nose in it pretty throughly. Step more carefully in the future.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Sure NY is doing great, that's why the state fears bankruptcy and has such high tax rates that people are leaving for other states.

New York was really hard hit by the collapse of the economy. We lost 200,000+ jobs in the financial sector alone. In the outer boroughs, the predatory lending by lenders was insane. Yes, taxes are higher here than in some places, but if your industry is here and you want to go to the top, here is where you need to be. Regardless of New York state's financial issues, you can't refute that New York pays in far more federal dollars than it takes out and Texas uses more federal dollars than it pays in. You cannot thus call New York a "welfare" state and you cannot call Texas a "working" state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas has always been a "welfare" state, taking in more fed dollars than it sends to tax dollars to D.C. It is a very friendly "corporate welfare" state. It has always been so.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Wow looks like JS is a liar.
Anyone surprised?

Federal Spending and Taxing by State Compared with Total Discretionary Spending, 2004

New York
Federal Tax Burden ($ millions) $152,260 Federal Expenditures Received ($ millions, actual)$143,903 Adjusted Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid0.79
Texas
Federal Tax Burden ($ millions)$128,636 Federal Expenditures Received ($ millions, actual) $141,858Adjusted Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid 0.94

The Tax Foundation - Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your figures are backwards, Fitnah. Go look again, and look at what they really mean. What an idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow looks like JS is a liar.
Anyone surprised?

Federal Spending and Taxing by State Compared with Total Discretionary Spending, 2004

New York
Federal Tax Burden ($ millions) $152,260 Federal Expenditures Received ($ millions, actual)$143,903 Adjusted Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid0.79
Texas
Federal Tax Burden ($ millions)$128,636 Federal Expenditures Received ($ millions, actual) $141,858Adjusted Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid 0.94

The Tax Foundation - Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?

Well actually Texas does appear to receive a larger share of federal spending than some but that is mostly because of Texas's prominence as a major Gulf seaport, is home to a huge lion's share of the nation's energy production, NASA is there as well as many other critical military installations.

It should be of interest to everybody that New Mexico, my home state, leads the pack in federal spending versus taxes paid mostly because of having three large military bases in a relatively sparsely populated state and two national labs here but also because of higher-than-average welfare spending too. But it should also be noted that New Mexico, a beautiful state rich in history and cultural aesthetics, remains one of the poorest states in the union at or near the bottom of most social indicators--wages, education, social services, etc. while ranking high in negative categories - crime, drug use, alcoholism etc.

Perhaps if the federal government spent less and encouraged prosperity more, New Mexico would be more on a par with other states in the desirable categories?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Wow looks like JS is a liar.
Anyone surprised?

Federal Spending and Taxing by State Compared with Total Discretionary Spending, 2004

New York
Federal Tax Burden ($ millions) $152,260 Federal Expenditures Received ($ millions, actual)$143,903 Adjusted Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid0.79
Texas
Federal Tax Burden ($ millions)$128,636 Federal Expenditures Received ($ millions, actual) $141,858Adjusted Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid 0.94

The Tax Foundation - Why Do Some States Feast on Federal Spending, Not Others?

Well actually Texas does appear to receive a larger share of federal spending than some but that is mostly because of Texas's prominence as a major Gulf seaport, is home to a huge lion's share of the nation's energy production, NASA is there as well as many other critical military installations.

It should be of interest to everybody that New Mexico, my home state, leads the pack in federal spending versus taxes paid mostly because of having three large military bases in a relatively sparsely populated state and two national labs here but also because of higher-than-average welfare spending too. But it should also be noted that New Mexico, a beautiful state rich in history and cultural aesthetics, remains one of the poorest states in the union at or near the bottom of most social indicators--wages, education, social services, etc. while ranking high in negative categories - crime, drug use, alcoholism etc.

Perhaps if the federal government spent less and encouraged prosperity more, New Mexico would be more on a par with other states in the desirable categories?

The information shows Texas receives less than it gives it is a DONOR not a WELFARE STATE.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Texas is a Donor State
Texas taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Texas citizens received approximately $0.94 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 35th nationally and represents a slight decrease from 1995, when Texas received $0.95 per dollar of federal taxes paid (ranking them 37th nationally). Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending they received per dollar of federal taxation paid were as follows: New Mexico ($2.03), Oklahoma ($1.36), Arkansas ($1.41), and Louisiana ($1.78).

The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/60.html

 

[manifold]

How do you define freedom?

I don't know how to define it, I just know that it costs a buck 'o five.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The world is pre-Katrina, post-Katrina, Fitnah. Post the figures for 2006 through 2010, since it is your assertion. I don't think you are going to be very happy about what you find out.

 

[code1211]

Tyranny in a democracy only occurs when the rights of the minority are violated. No such violations are occuring right now. The minority participated in the constitutional process, they lost the election, and now they will abide the just and constitutional process of the majority making the rules. The American electorate simply will not accept government-inspired fear and tax cuts for the rich as acceptable majority programs anymore. Until the minority comes up with reasonable and acceptable alternatives, the minority will remain exactly that.

And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Right now, less than half of the citizens in the USA pay Federal income taxes. Less than half. If this majority that wants to "tax the rich" continues, the "rich" will either leave or be dissolved by usury taxes.

What will the majority do at that point?

"Tyranny of the majority" is not a little phrase that I coined. It comes to us from the Founding Fathers and perhaps before. It is one of the bases for the Bill of Rights and for the Representative Republic that we have rather than the pure democracy envisioned by some.

Luckily for the minority, there are enough people like you, Jake, to guarentee that the majority will change radically soon. The Independants who abandoned the Republicans for the last two elections are seeing that the new boss is even more stupid than the old one.

The bar was set high on that one, but these jokers cleared it in street shoes.

Arrogant impudance is not a good combination in a ruling party. It is what it is and it is what we have.

Tax cuts for the rich. I suppose we could cut taxes on the poor except that they currently don't pay any. We should probably extend this so that the poor don't need to pay for movie tickets, cars, housing, food or medical care either. The platform of the Democratic party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem of my party is that we eviscerated the economic power of the middle class. We need to rebuild it so that becomes a contributing power once again in broadening the tax basis. No, the middle class independent are not fooled whatsoever by the Palins or the McConnells or the far loonies from the Bush days. This government will stay centrist until my Party comes up with a solid conservative program and a strong, calm leader who can present said plan in a moderate voice.

Oh, and don't think that the American rich are going anywhere. They have liked fleecing the flock here at home for a long time. The will stay here to sheer.

 

[code1211]

Tyranny in a democracy only occurs when the rights of the minority are violated. No such violations are occuring right now. The minority participated in the constitutional process, they lost the election, and now they will abide the just and constitutional process of the majority making the rules. The American electorate simply will not accept government-inspired fear and tax cuts for the rich as acceptable majority programs anymore. Until the minority comes up with reasonable and acceptable alternatives, the minority will remain exactly that.

This is the whole philosophical debate of the funding of government, isn't it?

How should the funds needed to pay for anything be collected? If one is shopping, the cost of a coat is the cost. If it costs $50.00, there might be room for some negotiation and it might just be the price tag, but that final cost going to be paid by the purchaser.

If the purchaser is stretching to afford it or if the purchaser is content with the quality and price even though he could afford much more, it makes no difference. The cost must be paid.

Taxes are different. They are levied as a percent. Usually. Like a sales tax. Income taxes are a percent that increases as income does. However, Income taxes don't start at the first dollar earned. The result is that many don't pay any income tax to the Feds.

In spite of paying no tax, they still use the highways, enjoy the peace and are allowed to vote. At the start of the European incursion into this continent, the rule quickly became if you don't work, you don't eat. In other words, if you don't contribute to the wealth of the community, you don't deserve any benefits from the wealth of the community.

Should this new posture of recieving benefits when no value is contributed be expanded to things like movie tickets? If you don't have the cost of a ticket, you can still see the movie? If you don't have the cost of anything, you can still enjoy the benefits?

Why is taxation different than anything else? Why is the right to vote, which is a restricted right and therefore a privilidge, accorded to all who have reached the age of consent and are not felons and not also restricted to those who pay taxes to the authority running the vote?

It only seems fair that if you enjoy the benefits, you pay part of the costs. Like a movie ticket.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The world is pre-Katrina, post-Katrina, Fitnah. Post the figures for 2006 through 2010, since it is your assertion. I don't think you are going to be very happy about what you find out.

Texas has always been a "welfare" state, taking in more fed dollars than it sends to tax dollars to D.C. It is a very friendly "corporate welfare" state. It has always been so.

Post what you want, Ive already proven you are a liar.

Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Texas is a Donor State
Texas taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Texas citizens received approximately $0.94 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 35th nationally and represents a slight decrease from 1995, when Texas received $0.95 per dollar of federal taxes paid (ranking them 37th nationally). Neighboring states and the amount of federal spending they received per dollar of federal taxation paid were as follows: New Mexico ($2.03), Oklahoma ($1.36), Arkansas ($1.41), and Louisiana ($1.78).

The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > Texas

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post what you want, Ive already proven you are a liar.

You certainly have not (quite the opposite), because you are using outdated, outmoded figures. Thus they don't count, and they make your argument false. Post your figures from 2006. They won't prove your false assertion.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote..." -Ben Franklin
Just to clarify Ben Franklin did NOT say this, though it is a good quote. There is no cited source for this quote though it is a really common misquote.
Foxfrye
I'm torn on this one. I am a huge Second Amendment advocate, but I am fully aware that military might has surpassed the ability of the common man to defend himself against tyranny of his own government. Or has it? To be truthful, I would not like for my neighbor who regularly gets drunk and disorderly that increase his paranoia to have a fully armed Bradley tank in his back yard nor would I like bank robbers to have easy access to a 105mm recoiless rifle. I don't know who would win if the US government should be taken over in an unscrupulous coup and it became necessary for the people to take it back. I think at least most of the military would side with the people though.

I really hate to say this but I disagree on the last line. They would side with the people in a heartbeat if they could but you must understand that those in the military operate under a very high degree of control. The government does control much of what a service member sees and hears during a campaign. Granted, at home station you are as free as any other citizen but when deployed or on base lockdown all venues of communication are controlled. Our current level of tech really bothers me in terms of capability. A single aircraft can drop hundreds –that’s right, hundreds- of dumb 500lb bombs within a single foot of accuracy, spot targets on the ground as small as a blade of grass anywhere in the world all on its own with little to no support. There is some amazing tech out there at the moment that all but negates a militaristic uprising.

Honestly, freedom to me is the right to do what I want, when I want and how I want to the extent that it does not interfere with the freedoms of others. For obvious reasons, some freedoms must be given up to operate a successful government (like the freedom to not pay any taxes or serve in a draft) to ensure that those freedoms continue to exist. We have gone too far though. It is unfortunate that my own party, republicans, who trumpet the constitution began the current fast pace of eroding freedoms with the patriot act. The stimulus and healthcare bills are adding to the speed and magnitude of the end to freedom. I strongly believe in the need to earn what you have. You have the right to work for your food but you do not have the inherent right to food.