Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, there should not be. States that levy income taxation for provided services have the authority to enforce those. People also have the right to move through states should they not like those taxes or service. SS and medicare, or any other federally determined blanket such as these, are unconstitutional and therefore, not authorized. And yes, they are theft by force/violence.
What do you propose that seniors do who can't work anymore and who have medical costs far exceeding their savings?
That question requires the understanding that medical costs are extremely expensive in the US because of the govt. meddling in the industry from all angles. From fostered monopolies, to oppressive malpractice laws, etc...
I would propose that under the current system, they are going to be fucked no matter what. Prices will continue to rise on everything under the current corporatist environment. So we saddle these costs onto taxpayers current and those not yet born, and the govt. that takes and gives has gotten tot he point it actually can not even take enough and therefore must borrow from other nations to foot these bills.
Your question is relevant, it is just not answerable simply under the context of taxation. The answer is more complicated than that.
So there should be no income taxes? State or Federal? What about medicare/SS taxes? Should we do away with those programs completely?
No, there should not be. States that levy income taxation for provided services have the authority to enforce those. People also have the right to move through states should they not like those taxes or service. SS and medicare, or any other federally determined blanket such as these, are unconstitutional and therefore, not authorized. And yes, they are theft by force/violence.
What do you propose that seniors do who can't work anymore and who have medical costs far exceeding their savings?
Medicare/SS are both going broke faster than a Concorde jet. Ron Paul is right, keep the programs for those that are currently dependent, pay for it with cuts in our overseas military, and let the rest of us opt out of it and fund our own health care and retirement.
What do you propose that seniors do who can't work anymore and who have medical costs far exceeding their savings?
That question requires the understanding that medical costs are extremely expensive in the US because of the govt. meddling in the industry from all angles. From fostered monopolies, to oppressive malpractice laws, etc...
I would propose that under the current system, they are going to be fucked no matter what. Prices will continue to rise on everything under the current corporatist environment. So we saddle these costs onto taxpayers current and those not yet born, and the govt. that takes and gives has gotten tot he point it actually can not even take enough and therefore must borrow from other nations to foot these bills.
Your question is relevant, it is just not answerable simply under the context of taxation. The answer is more complicated than that.
You're right it's a complicated issue. That's why I was asking for ideas about what should be done. I'd LOVE a society that wasn't dependent on government or ruled by corporate interests, but the facts are that is the society we have and unless we are willing to do something dramatic and completely fuck over a large portion of our country (more so than we are now) then I don't know how we change things.
We are all taxpayers. The working class pays around 32% and folks like romney with his oodles of $ pay around 15%.
You are so delusional and misinformed, it's kind of sad.
But there's a simple solution for the idiotic tax system we have.
Abandon the "regressive taxes are sooooo unfair" bullshit. Let's insitute a straightforward flat tax OR a sane and simple version of a consumption tax to replace our graduated income tax system with its thousands of complicated pages and credits and deductions and -- oh nozies! -- loopholes.
If you fucking cheesedick libs INSIST that we have to have an income tax -- based on your utterly mindless class warfare divide and conquer thinking -- then there ARE going to be rules and regulations by which folks can minimize their exposure to that confiscation of their wealth.
If you want to eliminate loopholes and have those greedy evil rich fuckers pay their allegedly fair share, then make it a uniform tax with no deductions. No wiggle room. No tax credits. No home mortgage deductions. Nothing. Nada.
JUST a simple flat rate on income.
If that evil rich guy earns 10 million a year and the complete federal flat tax rate is (pick a number) 20%, then the evil rich guy will pay two fucking million dollars a year. If you make a hundred grand a year, you will pay at that same flat rate $20,000.00 a year. Same rate, vastly different amounts.
But until you accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with trying (WITHIN the rules and regulations and laws) to minimize how much you have to give to Uncle Sam, then you are going to continue your mindless mantra of "make the rich pay their fair share!"
They already do, you fucking nimrods.
For my part, I don't want to soak the rich. I am content if they pay the same rate as everyone else. I kinda want them to have an incentive to do the capitalism thing they do. THAT'S what really spreads the wealth around. Stop trying to kill the golden goose just because you assholes are jealous.
Newsflash: we reject communism AND socialism. They suck.
...and all you come back with is a hate-filled rant minus any logic.
I love this thread! The best part is that the cons are too fucking stupid to see their own hypocracy even when it's reduced to a couple of sentences. Geezus, this country is doomed.
But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?
And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.
I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?
And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.
I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?
DBlack, you won't get an answer, these idiots aren't programmed for higher level thought...
And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.
I'm not using it as a cliche, so how about addressing it for what it is - a critique on the hypocrisy of those who want to force someone else to do their charity work for them. The idea that you can express your concern for the poor by voting for a law that makes someone else give them money is a best a self-deception. Likewise, the idea that without such laws no one would care for the poor is deeply cynical. Are you saying that all the people who vote for welfare laws would turn their backs on the poor if helping them wasn't mandated by the state?
...
Oh I'll answer. And then you two girls will dodge and make excuses. It's all too predictable.
You have claimed that those receiving unemployment (apparently what the whackjobs call "charity") should "just go out and get jobs".
You have also claimed that the unemployment numbers are even worse than reported by the govt - while also blaming Obama for this terrible condition which makes it so hard to get a job - which you claim the unemployed should "just go out and get."
Only the whackjobs don't see the self-contradiction there.
I love this thread! The best part is that the cons are too fucking stupid to see their own hypocracy even when it's reduced to a couple of sentences. Geezus, this country is doomed.
AbNormal: You are too fucking stupid to offer a coherent single thought.
If the country is doomed, it's only because there are far too many totally and tragically ignorant ass-wipes, like you, who can vote.
Also, as long as you are talking about being "too fucking stupid," it's worth some consideration to note that there is no such word as "hypocracy."
I love this thread! The best part is that the cons are too fucking stupid to see their own hypocracy even when it's reduced to a couple of sentences. Geezus, this country is doomed.
AbNormal: You are too fucking stupid to offer a coherent single thought.
If the country is doomed, it's only because there are far too many totally and tragically ignorant ass-wipes, like you, who can vote.
Also, as long as you are talking about being "too fucking stupid," it's worth some consideration to note that there is no such word as "hypocracy."
Thanks spelling nazi. BTW, John Belushi wants his video back.
Yeah. Where did you get your distortion of conservative views -- DU, HuffPo, or DailyKOS?Besides, IL, you got it wrong.
But my thread is 100% accurate.
No wonder you're so bitter.
Bitter? You realize of course this is me laughing at the wacko logic of The Right and of course, you, right?
it's okay, I can undertand why you would get bent outta shape. Kinda described you so accurately that you couldn't resist a compulsion to um, well seriously a blond joke thing was the best you could come up with? Well considering what you have to work with, I get it.
Tell ya what. I'm really sorry you're mindless drone who can't think for yourself! Which of course, I can prove about you but you cannot prove about me.
So I completely understand why your panties got in a bunch on this one and I am happy to tolerate your existence in my country!
Well all you little whackjobs just got your collective panties in a bunch on THIS post, didn't you?
Look, it's simple. You're all mindless sheeple. You couldn't find an original thought if you wanted. This is why you get all bent when anyone post something that goes against the mantra of your Thought Masters.
It's not that anything is inaccurate about my little piece of satire, it's that it pisses you off that it's true.
Of course, I can back this up and prove it about you little girls.
And of course, you cannot prove this about me. That would be the difference between us!
If you're so concerned with the people that need a helping hand I would urge you to go out and give them one, and quit trying to force the taxpayers into footing the bill for you.
But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?
And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.
Speaking of hypocrisy...The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!
Spot on.
They've even taken it to a whole new level of hypocrisy. There is a thread bashing Obama because he publicly took credit for "Obamacare". First they name it after him and then bash him when he takes credit for it. They are dishonest hypocrites to their core.
Wow, do you have THAT wrong.
But I don't have time. Can't someone else do it for me?
And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.
Speaking of hypocrisy...The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!
Spot on.
They've even taken it to a whole new level of hypocrisy. There is a thread bashing Obama because he publicly took credit for "Obamacare". First they name it after him and then bash him when he takes credit for it. They are dishonest hypocrites to their core.
So you're not even the slightest bit ashamed of your own hypocrisy?And I thought you were smarter than resorting to the tired, yet meaningless conservative cliches. Guess not. Good for you.
Speaking of hypocrisy...Spot on.
They've even taken it to a whole new level of hypocrisy. There is a thread bashing Obama because he publicly took credit for "Obamacare". First they name it after him and then bash him when he takes credit for it. They are dishonest hypocrites to their core.
And.....?
AbNormal: You are too fucking stupid to offer a coherent single thought.
If the country is doomed, it's only because there are far too many totally and tragically ignorant ass-wipes, like you, who can vote.
Also, as long as you are talking about being "too fucking stupid," it's worth some consideration to note that there is no such word as "hypocracy."
Thanks spelling nazi. BTW, John Belushi wants his video back.
Abnormal:
You poor poor pathetic stupid pussy. Your illiteracy gets noted (not merely because you are stupid and ignorant, but because you are too monumentally fucked up to even use an easy built in spell checker), and you start crying. Damn, girl. Get a tampon in that bleeding vagina of yours.
You are a little bitch.
And the late liberal comedian, John Belushi, doesn't want anything back. Have an adult explain "dead" to you, ya pussy derp motherfucker.
Joe,Thanks spelling nazi. BTW, John Belushi wants his video back.
Abnormal:
You poor poor pathetic stupid pussy. Your illiteracy gets noted (not merely because you are stupid and ignorant, but because you are too monumentally fucked up to even use an easy built in spell checker), and you start crying. Damn, girl. Get a tampon in that bleeding vagina of yours.
You are a little bitch.
And the late liberal comedian, John Belushi, doesn't want anything back. Have an adult explain "dead" to you, ya pussy derp motherfucker.
The late liberal comedian John Belushi would be pissed as hell that anyone as fucking douchy as you were using his video. Yeah, I'm kind of new around here but it hasn't escaped my notice that you never seem to have anything to say that wouldn't please your conservative puppet masters. You goddamned piece of shit.
The economy is really bad and it's all Obama's fault but no one should need a helping hand because there are plenty of jobs except that unemployment is really way higher than the govt says it is - except when it comes to the people who are out of work and need a helping hand, then there's plenty of jobs so they don't need help but that doesn't mean the economy is good.
Got it!
Wow, What a utterly Childish, and Simple View.
Can't believe I wasted time Reading it.
Are you suggesting that liberals who support assisting the poor don't in fact pay taxes of their own and should not have an opinion on where their tax money should be spent? The tired cliche is the reference to "liberals always want to spend other peoples money" or some variation of that, when in fact we all pay taxes too and have just as much say as to where it should be spent.
And thanks for bringing up the other tired cliche, that people will just step up and charities will be the solution for the poor if we "just got government out of our wallets". If that were the case, why isn't it happening now? Why hasn't it ever happened?
Like I said, tired cliches, not real world. I thought you were above that.
Again, it's not a cliche. It's a valid criticism. The wealth re-distribution is the entire point of the welfare state. If were just a matter of a genuine desire to help the poor as a community, we'd simply do that. We wouldn't need laws requiring it.
It's like putting up for a referendum vote on a civil right issue, the minority would never win.
