I was with you until the end when you credited Clinton for controlling spending. I actually remember the 90s and Clinton proposed every spending program under the sun, and was told "no" by congress. He never reined himself.
besides adding massively to the national debt, what else did bush's tax cuts do?
- Thread starter blu
- Start date
I was with you until the end when you credited Clinton for controlling spending. I actually remember the 90s and Clinton proposed every spending program under the sun, and was told "no" by congress. He never reined himself.
Sheldon
Senior Member
- Apr 2, 2010
- 5,213
- 1,432
- 48
Nice strawmen. I didn't pass judgement on the nuances of either position, and I didn't say anything about tax increases solving the debt sufficiently on its own.
Have Biff perform your psychiatric evaluation.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
How do you propose to pay for the expense of government?
is all I can really say if that's what you got out of that.How many years of life have you lived complaining that R's and D's are all the same and the man is out to get you and take everything that's yours?
And, how many years did you spend crying about it on message-boards as opposed to organizing rallies and/or moving to another section of the Earth where you think it's better?
Oh?
Right.
Last edited:
No taxation without representation doesn't mean no taxation. Noone's forcing you to live in the Country that the Founder's designed where the Citizenry forcibly pay for the infrastructure, law enforcement and security. But they did design it this way.
Avorysuds
Gold Member
You hit Nail on the head Mr. Smartypants...
That's it, there is NO reason for a "truer" conservative to not agree with Obama... The wars, illegal immigration, torture, stimulus, Bail outs, expansion of Homeland security and so many other HUGE issues in todays America are irrelevant... No, conservatives hate Obama for passing Bush's tax cuts...
It's funny though, just going off Obama's policies is it even possible to argue he is not a Neocon? What what that makes his supporters...
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Yep, But what they had to admit when they extended them is the important thing. All these libs in here want us to believe they did nothing to help the Economy. Yet when Obama and the Dems agreed to extend them, they did it because they agreed that ending them WOULD HURT THE ECONOMY. Therefore you can conclude they Helped the economy.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,731
- 1,830
Taxes are in the constitution.
Liability
Locked Account.
The REASONABLE and agreed-upon "expenses of government" must necessarily get paid for -- and no matter how you slice it or dice it, it comes down to taxation.
While many folks disagree with the notion of an "income" tax, I believe we are essentially stuck with it. So -- let's make it fair and reasonable.
Step one: LIMITED GOVERNMENT. I know. I know. We have that on paper. But, the undeniable problem is, we do not have it in reality. So, let's make it a reality.
Step two: Limit SPENDING.
Step three: Smaller tax rates, not larger. John Kennedy said it and he was ******* clearly right, a rising tide lifts all boats. Lower the rate, increase productivity. Increase productivity, the greater the wealth and income. The same low rate on increased income yields greater revenues for our government. BUT they must comply with the restrictions. See step one.
For everyone champing at the bit now to tell me that the above is over-simplified, I say, no ******* kidding. There are many many difficult thorny things to be hashed out. So what? That's the nature of the beast. Let the people we elect get down to DOING that difficult work. In the interim though, we can save lots of time and money if jerkwads like Sen. Upchucky Schumer will stop trying to tell us how the Tea Party is too extreme. **** you chuck. They are not extreme, you scumbag. You and your ilk are.
So shut the **** up and face reality. If we don't rein in this unGodly deficit problem, we are going to die as a society and as a Republic way too fast. 30 years tops unless we stop the insanity. So, again, Sen. Schumer, do us all a favor and shut your pie hole, stupid. Better yet, step down.
Last edited:
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Really, please do point out the provision of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to not only tax your income, but to use Withholding to do it.
I can't wait for this.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,731
- 1,830
I said taxes are in the constitution. Either you agree or disagree.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Then I do not agree. If you care to prove me wrong with the specific Provision that allows for our current tax system feel free.
JamesInFlorida
Senior Member
- Dec 18, 2010
- 1,501
- 186
- 48
16th Amendment states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
How does this restrict the government from withholds while collecting income tax? There's no mention of withholds, thus the constitution doesn't allow, nor disallow government from collecting them. Remember the constitution not only grants powers to the government-but more importantly restricts it-and the withholds aren't listed as a restriction.
More so, he simply stated taxes were mentioned in the constitution-you still refute this.
edit: You said you don't agree that taxes are in the constitution. Regardless of how you interpret the 16th or not-taxes are mentioned in the amendment, and thus are mentioned in the constitution. That is a fact. Not opinion.
Last edited:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Duties, imposts and excises are in the original, not an unapportioned income tax.
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,731
- 1,830
Show me the provision that doesn't.
When an FDR work program saved Ronald Reagan's father, was it a hand out or an investment in the American people?
When the government made education affordable to millions of Americans during the postwar years, was it a hand out or an investment in the American people?
During the postwar years, the government ensured the middle class living standards rose with corporate profits. We didn't see a super-abundance of no-benefit temp jobs like today; to the contrary, capital had to play ball with labor. American families were not left behind so that a small cabal of corporations and share holders could realize dynastic wealth. [The concept of broadly shared wealth makes sense because corporations benefited immensely from subsides, bailouts, infrastructure investments, and military protection, especially when it comes to the protection of valuable supply chains in dangerous places. But it also makes sense because the US concept of freedom didn't jive with the anti-democratic concentration of power that comes with concentrated wealth. Preserving a large middle class was a counterweight to the kinds of aristocratic power that the founders denounced in old Europe where family trumped merit. The founders didn't want the market winners to become so wealthy that they could afford to buy government and media - and thus replace competitive markets with monopolies, creating one class with easy access to resources, and another that could not afford education or health care] Needless to say, government's postwar investment in the middle class meant that consumers had money for consumption. In order to capture that money, the capitalist was forced to add jobs and innovate.
Reagan convinced the nation that government should abandon middle class support and dedicate all its resources to the wealthy. He said this would lead to the famous trickle down effect. At about this time, corporations (lobbyists) replaced Labor as the prime mover of Washington -- and they did everything possible to drive down wages, and ship jobs to the 3rd world. America spent 30 years cutting programs and laws that benefited the middle class consumer in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy. When the middle class started to lose the ability to consume -- when they lost their jobs and benefits -- Reaganomics performed the greatest sleight of hand in American history: consumption by credit. Starting in the 80's, every American received 3 credit cards a week so they could keep buying from the suppliers. America went on a 30 year credit binge - borrowing money from China in order to buy flatscreen TVs made in Taiwan, but branded on Madison avenue, so the wealth created from the transaction only made a small group of shareholders wealthy.
(You know how the story ends. Eventually the consumer goes bankrupt and the economy dies)
America got punk'd in 1980. The middle class is gone. And now there is nothing to drive consumption. Tax breaks are not going to do anything -- because the 30yr drive for cheap labor has undermined demand, i.e., Ameican workers don't have enough money to buy things. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and they are not adding jobs. Unlike the postwar years, they don't pay their workers enough to consume. Corporations only add jobs when there is money sitting in middle class pockets. The Reagan Revolution took money out of those pockets in order to give American business cheaper labor costs. The rest you may ignore.
When the government made education affordable to millions of Americans during the postwar years, was it a hand out or an investment in the American people?
During the postwar years, the government ensured the middle class living standards rose with corporate profits. We didn't see a super-abundance of no-benefit temp jobs like today; to the contrary, capital had to play ball with labor. American families were not left behind so that a small cabal of corporations and share holders could realize dynastic wealth. [The concept of broadly shared wealth makes sense because corporations benefited immensely from subsides, bailouts, infrastructure investments, and military protection, especially when it comes to the protection of valuable supply chains in dangerous places. But it also makes sense because the US concept of freedom didn't jive with the anti-democratic concentration of power that comes with concentrated wealth. Preserving a large middle class was a counterweight to the kinds of aristocratic power that the founders denounced in old Europe where family trumped merit. The founders didn't want the market winners to become so wealthy that they could afford to buy government and media - and thus replace competitive markets with monopolies, creating one class with easy access to resources, and another that could not afford education or health care] Needless to say, government's postwar investment in the middle class meant that consumers had money for consumption. In order to capture that money, the capitalist was forced to add jobs and innovate.
Reagan convinced the nation that government should abandon middle class support and dedicate all its resources to the wealthy. He said this would lead to the famous trickle down effect. At about this time, corporations (lobbyists) replaced Labor as the prime mover of Washington -- and they did everything possible to drive down wages, and ship jobs to the 3rd world. America spent 30 years cutting programs and laws that benefited the middle class consumer in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy. When the middle class started to lose the ability to consume -- when they lost their jobs and benefits -- Reaganomics performed the greatest sleight of hand in American history: consumption by credit. Starting in the 80's, every American received 3 credit cards a week so they could keep buying from the suppliers. America went on a 30 year credit binge - borrowing money from China in order to buy flatscreen TVs made in Taiwan, but branded on Madison avenue, so the wealth created from the transaction only made a small group of shareholders wealthy.
(You know how the story ends. Eventually the consumer goes bankrupt and the economy dies)
America got punk'd in 1980. The middle class is gone. And now there is nothing to drive consumption. Tax breaks are not going to do anything -- because the 30yr drive for cheap labor has undermined demand, i.e., Ameican workers don't have enough money to buy things. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and they are not adding jobs. Unlike the postwar years, they don't pay their workers enough to consume. Corporations only add jobs when there is money sitting in middle class pockets. The Reagan Revolution took money out of those pockets in order to give American business cheaper labor costs. The rest you may ignore.
Last edited:
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,424
- 2,180
It's called the 16th Amendment. Read it.
Nope, that was Clinton's.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
BREAKING : UK authorises military to board Moscow pirate shadow fleet oil tankers- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Opportunity for the Furries to showcase their spring couture- Started by DigitalDrifter
- Replies: 1
-
Mike Johnson Chides Senate Republicans for Passing Funding Bill that Defunds ICE and CBP Specifically- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 2
