If we give them a lower tax rate don’t we have a right to ask how they're spending th

[Ernie S.]

No.

Another yahoo that wants the government to keep throwing money out and expecting nothing in return, it's easy to see how we got in this mess. people like you.

Government allowing me to keep more of my what I earn is not throwing money away. Government pissing money away on solar panel manufacturers that are about to go bankrupt is.
Come back when you grow up a bit, son.

 

[Charles_Main]

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

Your Title Exposes you for the Left wing Hack you are.

If we give them? Don't we have the right to ask how they spend it?

It is their money bud, they earned it, you are not giving them anything, you are simply taking less of what is theirs.

As to your Second question, no, You have no right to ask them how they will spend their own Fucking money.

 

[Ernie S.]

I have to wait 2 hours??? WYF

 

[GreatDay]

No.

Another yahoo that wants the government to keep throwing money out and expecting nothing in return, it's easy to see how we got in this mess. people like you.

Government allowing me to keep more of my what I earn is not throwing money away. Government pissing money away on solar panel manufacturers that are about to go bankrupt is.
Come back when you grow up a bit, son.

I didn't know you needed governments permission to do stuff, sorry to hear that, me I'm a free man, when I choose to do stuff i know what I'm getting into, even if there's a tax bill involved..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another yahoo that wants the government to keep throwing money out and expecting nothing in return, it's easy to see how we got in this mess. people like you.

Government allowing me to keep more of my what I earn is not throwing money away. Government pissing money away on solar panel manufacturers that are about to go bankrupt is.
Come back when you grow up a bit, son.

I didn't know you needed governments permission to do stuff, sorry to hear that, me I'm a free man, when I choose to do stuff i know what I'm getting into, even if there's a tax bill involved..

Free? You're a slave.

 

[cutter]

Typical liberal mindset, everything you earn belongs to the government and you are only entitled to what they let you keep. What a bunch of leeches.

 

[Ernie S.]

Another yahoo that wants the government to keep throwing money out and expecting nothing in return, it's easy to see how we got in this mess. people like you.

Government allowing me to keep more of my what I earn is not throwing money away. Government pissing money away on solar panel manufacturers that are about to go bankrupt is.
Come back when you grow up a bit, son.

I didn't know you needed governments permission to do stuff, sorry to hear that, me I'm a free man, when I choose to do stuff i know what I'm getting into, even if there's a tax bill involved..

Completely missed my point.
You're a "free man" but think government can spend your money more wisely than you can?
You are not free. You are a fool.
The freedom you crave is the freedom to piss away MY money. Sorry pal. The people are set to reject that.

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't know you needed governments permission to do stuff, sorry to hear that, me I'm a free man, when I choose to do stuff i know what I'm getting into, even if there's a tax bill involved..

You're an imbecile. Try not paying your taxes and see if you need the government's permission.

 

[GreatDay]

I didn't know you needed governments permission to do stuff, sorry to hear that, me I'm a free man, when I choose to do stuff i know what I'm getting into, even if there's a tax bill involved..

You're an imbecile. Try not paying your taxes and see if you need the government's permission.

you could choose to be a free man and not mess with the government's money if it's got a picture of Franklin or a President burn it, or better yet say no thanks, you'll be alright I don't think they'll bother you none....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didn't know you needed governments permission to do stuff, sorry to hear that, me I'm a free man, when I choose to do stuff i know what I'm getting into, even if there's a tax bill involved..

You're an imbecile. Try not paying your taxes and see if you need the government's permission.

you could choose to be a free man and not mess with the government's money if it's got a picture of Franklin or a President burn it, or better yet say no thanks, you'll be alright I don't think they'll bother you none....

You are a dupe, a fool, an idiot and a Marxist

 

[bripat9643]

You're an imbecile. Try not paying your taxes and see if you need the government's permission.

you could choose to be a free man and not mess with the government's money if it's got a picture of Franklin or a President burn it, or better yet say no thanks, you'll be alright I don't think they'll bother you none....

The government forces you to use its money, moron. What do you think legal tender laws are for?

 

[tjvh]

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

When you look at government involvement public schools and the US Post Office are funded by taxpayer dollars, as was Dodge and GM through the big automotive bail-out, so in each of those cases "the people" have the right to know how those dollars are being spent. Those businesses in the private sector, who pay federal and state taxes, and are not financed through the government through a "direct fiscal-lifeline" don't need to be told or informed HOW they are to manage their profits. This is why they are part of the private sector, outside of the realm and reach of Federal Government dictatorship. Why are those who have never run a business, always so quick and judgemental about how private organizations ought to run theirs? If you have concerns with how a corporation is run, why not try creating one, then inform us how well you are able to manage to keep it financially above water and create jobs?

No... The US Post office is NOT funded by Tax Dollars. It is funded by people buying Stamps, etc.. The Post Office is being forced by the Government to fund retirements for future employees, and that money is in turn being looted by the Government.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

What fucking business is it of yours how someone spends their money?

Fucking Marxist lowlifes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the modern American liberal/progressive/leftist has lost sight of the freedom the Founders intended that we have. The Founders saw government as the tool of the people that would allow our rights to be secured, would allow a coalition of individual states to function as one nation, and then would leave us alone to live our lives and make of them whatever we could.

The modern American liberal turns that on its head and longs to--in fact even works to--reinstate the European concept of Monarchy or authoritarian government that orders society and provides whatever the people need. The people give up their freedoms, but they are relieved of the responsibility to provide for themselves.

For those of us who still cherish freedom, the concept should always be how much we the people will allow the government to have to do what it is assigned to do. The government should never have the power to tell us how much we may have or how we are required to spend it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

When you look at government involvement public schools and the US Post Office are funded by taxpayer dollars, as was Dodge and GM through the big automotive bail-out, so in each of those cases "the people" have the right to know how those dollars are being spent. Those businesses in the private sector, who pay federal and state taxes, and are not financed through the government through a "direct fiscal-lifeline" don't need to be told or informed HOW they are to manage their profits. This is why they are part of the private sector, outside of the realm and reach of Federal Government dictatorship. Why are those who have never run a business, always so quick and judgemental about how private organizations ought to run theirs? If you have concerns with how a corporation is run, why not try creating one, then inform us how well you are able to manage to keep it financially above water and create jobs?

No... The US Post office is NOT funded by Tax Dollars. It is funded by people buying Stamps, etc.. The Post Office is being forced by the Government to fund retirements for future employees, and that money is in turn being looted by the Government.

With regard to the funding of the U.S. Post Office

The Post Office did not introduce stamps until 1847 and did not require their use until 1851

For almost 200 years, the Post Office was a secure department within the U.S. government, held a cabinet seat and was taxpayer supported like all other government agencies.

But in 1971, President Richard Nixon removed nearly 200 years of federal protections from the Post Office when he reorganized it as the less powerful U.S. Postal Service in retaliation for the postal workers striking for a living wage in 1970. In the 1980s, the Postal Service had its funding removed.

However, the US Constitution specifically allows for the establishment for the establishment of the US Post Office, as well as Congress has the power to levy taxes.

In June 1788, the ninth state ratified the Constitution, which gave Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads” in Article I, Section 8. A year later, the Act of September 22, 1789 (1 Stat. 70), continued the Post Office and made the Postmaster General subject to the direction of the President. Four days later, President Washington appointed Samuel Osgood as the first Postmaster General under the Constitution. A population of almost four million was served by 75 Post Offices and about 2,400 miles of post roads.

The Post Office received two one-year extensions by the Acts of August 4, 1790 (1 Stat. 178), and March 3, 1791 (1 Stat. 218). The Act of February 20, 1792 (1 Stat. 232), continued the Post Office for another two years and formally admitted newspapers to the mails, gave Congress the power to establish post routes, and prohibited postal officials from opening letters. Later legislation enlarged the duties of the Post Office, strengthened and unified its organization, and provided rules for its development.

If the United States Post Office can NOT be fiscally sound and restructured, to obtain a surplus while meeting with the changing demands of the time, then Congress has the power of the purse strings to make the necessary changes. We DO, after all, have other services that are more efficient than what the US Post Office can provide.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I think the modern American liberal/progressive/leftist has lost sight of the freedom the Founders intended that we have. The Founders saw government as the tool of the people that would allow our rights to be secured, would allow a coalition of individual states to function as one nation, and then would leave us alone to live our lives and make of them whatever we could.

The modern American liberal turns that on its head and longs to--in fact even works to--reinstate the European concept of Monarchy or authoritarian government that orders society and provides whatever the people need. The people give up their freedoms, but they are relieved of the responsibility to provide for themselves.

For those of us who still cherish freedom, the concept should always be how much we the people will allow the government to have to do what it is assigned to do. The government should never have the power to tell us how much we may have or how we are required to spend it.

The whole concept of how "government" sees fit to use money has been twisted from what the Founders established. Mind you the Federal Government is the most financially unstable institution you can find, yet they like to promote laws dictating how other "groups" are to use their funds. The system Obama, and those who share his ideology promotes, is to punish the successful - These are the individuals who work hard and achieve financial success in building a corporation, based upon an idea or concept, and daring (shall we say) achieve the American Dream. Then the government is to "reward" those who FAIL to obtain success on their own through hard work, planning, and education (we saw that through examples of companies like Solyndra, or bailing out GM so the Government has the power to dictate what a corporation OUGHT to build for the people). Here is a small clue for the left - The CONSUMER has, and should continue to have, the only power to say whether a company is providing a service or "goods" that meets with an individual's needs . . . . not the federal Government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

Major disconnect. Our money is TAKEN for taxes, if some is not taken it was never the Governments to begin with. The idea that lower taxes include knowing what people spend THEIR money is ignorant. Taxes are OUR money taken by the Government. Not Government money to begin with so lower taxes are not some how Government giving us money.

 

[Foxfyre]

When you look at government involvement public schools and the US Post Office are funded by taxpayer dollars, as was Dodge and GM through the big automotive bail-out, so in each of those cases "the people" have the right to know how those dollars are being spent. Those businesses in the private sector, who pay federal and state taxes, and are not financed through the government through a "direct fiscal-lifeline" don't need to be told or informed HOW they are to manage their profits. This is why they are part of the private sector, outside of the realm and reach of Federal Government dictatorship. Why are those who have never run a business, always so quick and judgemental about how private organizations ought to run theirs? If you have concerns with how a corporation is run, why not try creating one, then inform us how well you are able to manage to keep it financially above water and create jobs?

No... The US Post office is NOT funded by Tax Dollars. It is funded by people buying Stamps, etc.. The Post Office is being forced by the Government to fund retirements for future employees, and that money is in turn being looted by the Government.

With regard to the funding of the U.S. Post Office

For almost 200 years, the Post Office was a secure department within the U.S. government, held a cabinet seat and was taxpayer supported like all other government agencies.

But in 1971, President Richard Nixon removed nearly 200 years of federal protections from the Post Office when he reorganized it as the less powerful U.S. Postal Service in retaliation for the postal workers striking for a living wage in 1970. In the 1980s, the Postal Service had its funding removed.

However, the US Constitution specifically allows for the establishment for the establishment of the US Post Office, as well as Congress has the power to levy taxes.

In June 1788, the ninth state ratified the Constitution, which gave Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads” in Article I, Section 8. A year later, the Act of September 22, 1789 (1 Stat. 70), continued the Post Office and made the Postmaster General subject to the direction of the President. Four days later, President Washington appointed Samuel Osgood as the first Postmaster General under the Constitution. A population of almost four million was served by 75 Post Offices and about 2,400 miles of post roads.

The Post Office received two one-year extensions by the Acts of August 4, 1790 (1 Stat. 178), and March 3, 1791 (1 Stat. 218). The Act of February 20, 1792 (1 Stat. 232), continued the Post Office for another two years and formally admitted newspapers to the mails, gave Congress the power to establish post routes, and prohibited postal officials from opening letters. Later legislation enlarged the duties of the Post Office, strengthened and unified its organization, and provided rules for its development.

If the United States Post Office can NOT be fiscally sound and restructured, to obtain a surplus while meeting with the changing demands of the time, then Congress has the power of the purse strings to make the necessary changes. We DO, after all, have other services that are more efficient than what the US Post Office can provide.

A coordinated mail service isn't so much a corruption of the Founders intent and that, along with regulation of interstate commerce, could easily fall within the necessity of the federal government to administer a unified nation. Unfortunately, rather than contract with the private sector to provide the service, the government chose to do it themselves with the inherent inefficiency and runaway costs that inevitably are built into government programs.

 

[GreatDay]

A coordinated mail service isn't so much a corruption of the Founders intent and that, along with regulation of interstate commerce, could easily fall within the necessity of the federal government to administer a unified nation. Unfortunately, rather than contract with the private sector to provide the service, the government chose to do it themselves with the inherent inefficiency and runaway costs that inevitably are built into government programs.

I can mail a letter from LA to NY for less than 50 cents with the post office, it's next competitor charges 6 times as much. Medicare provides health care with a tenth the admin costs of the private sector, the only time the government isn't the best is when the GOP sign a contract with their buddies to give them a bunch of taxpayers money like here in AZ a while back when the GOP who run this place starting buying people huge SUVs with taxpayer money in the name of green energy, it almost broke us and did run the GOP state senate leader out of the state house.

 

[GreatDay]

If we give them a lower tax rate don't we have a right to ask how they are spending the money?


If we have a right to ask how the schools are spending our money, then if we pay higher taxes so dividends and capital gains can pay less, don’t we have the right to ask how the money is being spent?

I mean if it is to create jobs, don’t we have a right to ask, “How many jobs did that car elevator create?”.

Is there a better way to create jobs?


This guy says it better:

BREAKING: You Know That TED Talk You Weren't Supposed To See? Here It Is.

No one should have the right to tell someone how to spend thier own money, unless of course it comes from the government.

and when one day when one person is born with all the money we can all do just as He says, like the good old days, when the people didn't have to worry about what to do you do as the King tells you....