Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, paying taxes is not good for America. Furthermore, that doesn't explain how the government is entitled to take my money. All it says is that you approve.

And it can be argued it is immoral to not pay taxes, given the vital services governments provide.

Otherwise, as I and others have tried to explain to you (a seemingly futile effort), Congress is authorized to tax by the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

No, paying taxes is not good for America. Furthermore, that doesn't explain how the government is entitled to take my money. All it says is that you approve.

And it can be argued it is immoral to not pay taxes, given the vital services governments provide.

Perhaps it could, but you haven't done that. Neither have you explained how government is entitled to take my money.

Otherwise, as I and others have tried to explain to you (a seemingly futile effort), Congress is authorized to tax by the Constitution.

All you've said is that the law authorizes it. My question isn't about the law. It's about the morality of taxation. I know libs can't fathom anyone asking a question about morality. Libs never consider whether their schemes are moral.

 

[bripat9643]

It's quite simplle really. Article I, section 8; the very first sentence. As for income tax, read the Constitution, the section on amending it and then read the XVI amendment.

You see, the people elected the members of the House, and the State Legislators elected the Senators and then the States ratified the amendment.

It's not an entitlement, it's the law.

My question isn't whether it's legal. Putting Jews in gas ovens was legal according to German law. That doesn't make it moral. The question I'm asking is a moral question: How is the government entitled to take my money?

 

[Sallow]

It's quite simplle really. Article I, section 8; the very first sentence. As for income tax, read the Constitution, the section on amending it and then read the XVI amendment.

You see, the people elected the members of the House, and the State Legislators elected the Senators and then the States ratified the amendment.

It's not an entitlement, it's the law.

My question isn't whether it's legal. Putting Jews in gas ovens was legal according to German law. That doesn't make it moral. The question I'm asking is a moral question: How is the government entitled to take my money?

It's in the Constitution. While not perfect, that's the way the Constitution authorizes a government to generate revenue. Governments need capital to function. If you can figure out a way to have a country without a government...heck..I am sure people are open to your ideas. But if you are really really sick of paying taxes..Somalia..doesn't require them.

 

[bripat9643]

It's in the Constitution. While not perfect, that's the way the Constitution authorizes a government to generate revenue. Governments need capital to function. If you can figure out a way to have a country without a government...heck..I am sure people are open to your ideas. But if you are really really sick of paying taxes..Somalia..doesn't require them.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of your statement, it doesn't answer the question: How is the government entitled to take my money? I mean in the moral sense, not the legal sense. You and your Komrades keep telling us that taxation is legal. No one is arguing that point. Gassing the Jews was legal perfectly according to German law. I don't see any of you numskulls defending that.

 

[Too Tall]

Obviously you misunderstood the question, which was can someone who never worked collect SS retirement benefits? The answer is yes, some wives who have never worked do collect retirement benefits and it is from their husbands account. But otherwise no.

You are bringing up SSDI and I have a feeling you don't know anyone that has ever collected. It is not just pay in a few cents and then complain about some illness and collect. It takes forever and the proof must be pretty overwhelming. I knew someone that got a letter for SSD turning her down and she was in a coma. Her mother took a picture of it. I honestly don't believe you when you say you know 5 people on SSD. It is very difficult to get and it's easy to research. Just check online and you will find hundreds, possible thousands of people trying to find out how to expedite the process.

But I'm not surprised you think of it as a welfare scheme. That is very typical RW thinking.

My sister has been collecting SSDI for over 20 years, and she never paid more than $100 in FICA taxes.

Your claims are bullshit.

Your ignorance is showing. SSDI is not part of the retirement program and you do not have to work to collect. This is the program they use for disabled children.

It is part of the 'retirement program,' adults did have to work, and it is used for disabled children(under the age of 22). That is one out of three that you got right.

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is a payroll tax-funded, federal insurance program. A portion of the FICA taxes you pay are set aside for SSDI (as well as Social Security Retirement and Medicare)

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a payroll tax-funded, federal insurance program of the United States government. It is managed by the Social Security Administration and is designed to provide income supplements to people who are physically restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability, usually a physical disability.
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), a person qualifies for SSDI if they:
have a physical or mental condition that prevents them from engaging in any "substantial gainful activity" ("SGA"), and
the condition is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death, and
they are under the age of 65, and
generally, have worked 5 out of the last 10 years[1] as of the determined date of onset of disability

The work requirement is waived for applicants who can prove that they became disabled at or before the age of 22, as these individuals may be allowed to collect on their parent's or parents' work credits.

Social Security Disability Insurance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

They're dragging their feet, that's for damned sure. And that cannot be doiung good things for this recovery

But I am not convinced that anybody really has a plan to truly fix this economy.

In the long run Americans need to go back to work.

And I read nothing from either party that convinces me they are really interested in dealing with the root cause of American un-and-under-employment.

In fact, both parties seem content allowing this problem to get worse.

BOTH parties.

 

[Synthaholic]

What a system. We have a vote as to what's enough money and then punish people who make more then that. Oh, but only because it's "fair."

Contributing to the society you live in is 'punishment'?

Yup - you're a conservative!

Apparently you have never worked in a government position/agency. If you had, you would know that bureaucracy simply equates to fiscal waste. Very little money actually gets to its intended recipient. Conservatives don't mind contributing their share. They do, however, demand fiscal responsibility. Is that really too much to ask?

Do conservatives also understand that costs rise? What you think is a fair share may have been, 20 years ago.

Please tell me which government agency you feel runs efficiently?

Social Security Administration, IRS, FEMA (when properly funded and run) - actually, quite a few of them when they are properly funded and run.

Everyone talks about the DMV. I suppose the complaint is long lines and long waits, correct? Well, that tells me that they are not over-staffed, which would waste taxpayer money. Would you prefer two employees and wait your turn, or would you prefer 10 employees, and you get instant service?

 

[Synthaholic]

I think that Synthaholic is moving right as he matures. I'm not sensing the spirit of the fight in his posts. Perhaps there is hope after all.

Sorry. There is no evidence that Synthia is maturing.

Meh. His arguments are starting to lose their zest. His heart doesn't seem in it anymore. Perhaps he is souring on the whole progressive agenda as he gets older and realizes that the liberal Utopia, while ideal, isn't realistic and will never exist.

If my zest is waning, perhaps it's because I'm tired of explaining simple things to simpletons who, tomorrow, will log in and make their same, talking-point, fact-less arguments?

 

[Synthaholic]

Were you aware that reality doesn't give a shit about your claims?

Which is cute..because benefits for veterans aren't scored as defense spending.

Tough shit for you, huh, Comrade?

What does this even mean?

That you already know that, but choose to make a dishonest argument anyway? (likely)

Or that when you lose an argument, all you have are insults?

 

[Synthaholic]

There is one man left standing of Obama's original economic team. Geitner. Thank God he has no plans to flee any time soon.










Oh wait.

Oh wait...what? He's not going anywhere.

Wanna bet?

Yes!

 

[Synthaholic]

Given your penchant for lying, of course not.

You made a claim. Back it up, or retract.

Is it from a comedy bit or not?

I have no idea. I've never seen the bit. But you claim it is.

Back it up, or retract.

Yet you still use that screenshot as an implication that Maher is unhinged, giving the finger.

More of your typical dishonesty.

 

[Synthaholic]

here it is.......

Bill Maher Slams Oprah's Favorite Things | A Christmas Message | Pajiba: Reviews, News, Quotes & Cultural Commentary

Good find! But that has nothing to do with the screenshot that they also are using...you know, the one from the comedy bit on Real Time With Bill Maher.

But that video is very good !

You mean the comedy bit that you haven't proven exists yet?

No, moron. The video on the page that Trajan linked to.

Oh, I get it - You didn't click his link because you were afraid that you would find the comic bit from your screenshot!

You are a coward.

 

[Synthaholic]

Name a Liberal boondoggle.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security.

So, you don't know what boondoggle means, either?

 

[xsited1]

Some people are saying no, see the 'argument' against, here:

Schumer's conspiracy theory: GOP sabotaging recovery | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

The evidence suggests Schumer's on to something. The House of Representatives has offered no debate on the issue of unemployment and has passed only 18 bills since taking control in January. 15 of those bills were passed to name federal buildings after someone. This do-nothing congress sees no urgency as millions of Americans are out of work, work one or two or three part time jobs simply to pay rent or the morgage on a home underwater.

The GOP leadership in both houses of congress has opposed all efforts by the president, and even turned down an offer by President Obama to reduce the payroll tax for businees. It seems ideology is only an excuse, the real reason is their lust for power.

From the link:

if Democrats lose the Senate and Harry Reid relinquishes his party post as a result, Schumer would likely be a top contender for Minority Leader. If Obama loses, thanks in no small part to his hefty contribution to the nation's overspending and debt, then Schumer could even have aspirations for higher office.

I wouldn't put it past Schumer. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No, paying taxes is not good for America. Furthermore, that doesn't explain how the government is entitled to take my money. All it says is that you approve.

And it can be argued it is immoral to not pay taxes, given the vital services governments provide.

Perhaps it could, but you haven't done that. Neither have you explained how government is entitled to take my money.

Otherwise, as I and others have tried to explain to you (a seemingly futile effort), Congress is authorized to tax by the Constitution.

All you've said is that the law authorizes it. My question isn't about the law. It's about the morality of taxation. I know libs can't fathom anyone asking a question about morality. Libs never consider whether their schemes are moral.

Not all 'Libs' think the same, something you apparently can't fathom. I would tend to agree taking from the poor and giviing to the rich under government policy is a moral issue.

I would argue Gov. Walker acted improperly by attempting to take away the right of the people of Wisconsin to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

I would argue that Gov. Brewer of AZ acted improperly by demagogueing the issue of immagration by signing a law which jeopardized the right of the people to be secure in their persons, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

But I'm not sure these are moral issues, or that the morality of their actions should be debated. They are legal matters of which a vetting by the courts and of the people in future elections will decide.

Withholding medical care from those in need is immoral, of that I'm sure.

 

[Synthaholic]

Were you aware that reality doesn't give a shit about your claims?

Like I said, defense is the biggest single item. SS is an off budget insurance program, Medicare and Medicaid are TWO items, despite being stuck together arbitrarily on that chart.

It really pisses you off that America has the most powerful military in the world, doesn't it?

Tough shit.

More of your typical dishonesty.

 

[Synthaholic]

Where did you earn the money? Here.

How does that entitle the government to take it?

So you don't expect to have to pay the military? or FEMA? You don't want to use the roads? Or maybe you think they should all be toll roads even though postal roads are part of the constitution. Just how do you think those programs should be paid for? Honestly, this particular discussion is one of the stupidest on this board.

That's because we are arguing with the 3 Stooges.

 

[Synthaholic]

Synthaholic, I'll address this to you directly, since only the hysterical chick took a swing and a miss at it.

So, in essence, liberals believe that the government, in actuality, owns everything in this country, and that the government shall determine how much each citizen in this country is allowed to keep.

Does that sum it up?


You can't disagree with that statement if you feel the government is entitled to keep what it sees fit.

The government is representative of the citizens. So when you complain about the government deciding things arbitrarily, it is totally false. If you want to stop paying your taxes, convince enough people to vote for representatives who will abolish taxes.

As Sallow says: It's really just that simple.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's in the Constitution. While not perfect, that's the way the Constitution authorizes a government to generate revenue. Governments need capital to function. If you can figure out a way to have a country without a government...heck..I am sure people are open to your ideas. But if you are really really sick of paying taxes..Somalia..doesn't require them.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of your statement, it doesn't answer the question: How is the government entitled to take my money? I mean in the moral sense, not the legal sense. You and your Komrades keep telling us that taxation is legal. No one is arguing that point. Gassing the Jews was legal perfectly according to German law. I don't see any of you numskulls defending that.

Where was the "Gassing the Jews" codified as a legal action? Is there an article in the Weimar Constitution which states such a legality? Does it include the legal authoity to kill foreign nationals who happened to be Jews living in a country invaded by the German Government?