Why do repubs insist on tax breaks for the wealthy but insist on ending income tax credits for...

[jasonnfree]

A couple of corporations that don't pay income taxes.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes Citizens for Tax Justice

 

[Skull Pilot]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

What tax breaks are pending votes in Congress?

And no one should get a tax credit ever.

Pay what you owe period.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You have to pay taxes in order to have less of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You have to pay taxes in order to have less of them.

I was mocking NYCarbo. The lefties here constantly bleat about GOP tax cuts for the rich.

 

[emilynghiem]

Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.

The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.

The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.

And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.

Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.

We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.
Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to impliment that would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.

Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.

We can do that much more simply by getting rid of social services at the federal level and letting the states manage their own welfare and education.

Do that and get back to me in 20 years. We'll compare policy and results along with the economies of Liberal vs Conservative states.

Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.

Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.

Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.

Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.

If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs".
and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.

Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.

Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt,
punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.
BUT we don't have a government where that could be done without rewriting the US Constitutions and the constitutions of every state in the nation.
The red state, blue state concept could be tried nearly overnight.

Hey Ernie S I'm with you, and the advantage I have is that I am a Democrat asking for change within the party.

Instead of "trying to prove" beliefs/policies right or wrong,
I just ask that we recognize our BELIEFS are faith based, and the parties don't follow each other's faith-based reasoning.
It doesn't have to be proven, just agreed that these are BELIEFS and cannot be imposed to force others to change their beliefs and creeds. These need to be recognized as equal.

I believe that point CAN be proven.

* Atheists are allowed to sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God, without showing any harm is caused.
So why aren't Christians allowed to remove the mention of Marriage and Orientation that goes against their beliefs
and doesn't belong in public policy where these push BELIEFS not all people agree to.
If "tolerance of diversity" is mandated in one case, why not the other with references to God, Jesus, the Bible etc.

We can show a pattern of "discrimination by creed" without making "judgments" about the creeds, per se;
only based on the fact there is conflict, and the rulings towards one and against the other are not treating creeds equally.

* Conservatives' BELIEF in states rights was excluded from and violated by the ACA mandates, while Democrats pushed their BELIEF in the right to health care. Neither party believes in putting the other creed first, yet this is what happened.

What about you, me Where_r_my_keys and others writing this out and presenting it to party leaders or other members in our districts and precincts to ask for a review of all "political beliefs" (from gun rights to marriage rights, voting rights and right to health care) and decide which of these issues need to be decided by consensus, or separated from govt and left to party.

With the ACA mandates, enrollment and exchange system being challenged,
this is the perfect opportunity to argue that system should be applied to register the members who
BELIEVE in paying for benefits of all those populations and regulate it themselves.

Let the Republicans and conservatives pay for Veterans benefits, VA reform, etc. with restitution
owed for war contracts that were questioned as illicit or unauthorized.

And whatever both parties can agree on can be national policy, but if they don't agree on social programs
then separate those. the Democrats keep promising to set up alternatives to the death penalty so here's
a prime opportunity to reform the prison system at the same time as immigration, and reformat the systems.

Why not challenge candidates for office to take on these reforms, invest campaign funds and donations
directly into solutions, and use that to run for office in 2016, based on what reforms they can coordinate and lead?

The Progressives and Libertarians and other third parties sick of the waste, abuse and corruption
would love to see the major parties held to account for once. Prove solutions work first, where people
CHOOSE to follow and fund whatever BELIEFS are advocated, and give taxpayers a choice instead of forcing us
to pay while we are experimented on with unproven programs that keep changing at our expense.

 

[emilynghiem]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You have to pay taxes in order to have less of them.

No taxation without representation.
Nothing wrong with paying taxes where there is accountability for the spending.

If there are no reforms and solutions put forth on how to stop the waste and abuse, why keep charging taxpayers for that. Where is the incentive to fix anything if the costs keep getting dumped on the public and debts on future generations to pay for.

 

[BluesLegend]

Heaven forbid if hard working individuals and corporations get to keep their own money THEY earned. The vast majority of people in this country pay only a fraction of the taxes I pay. I can't tell you how annoying it is when some low life scum liberal tells me I'm not paying my fair share when there are millions of people sitting around on their fat lazy asses not even working.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You have to pay taxes in order to have less of them.

No taxation without representation.
Nothing wrong with paying taxes where there is accountability for the spending.

If there are no reforms and solutions put forth on how to stop the waste and abuse, why keep charging taxpayers for that. Where is the incentive to fix anything if the costs keep getting dumped on the public and debts on future generations to pay for.

Liberals would hate my tax codes.

 

[Ernie S.]

We can do that much more simply by getting rid of social services at the federal level and letting the states manage their own welfare and education.

Do that and get back to me in 20 years. We'll compare policy and results along with the economies of Liberal vs Conservative states.

Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.

Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.

Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.

Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.

If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs".
and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.

Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.

Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt,
punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.
BUT we don't have a government where that could be done without rewriting the US Constitutions and the constitutions of every state in the nation.
The red state, blue state concept could be tried nearly overnight.

Hey Ernie S I'm with you, and the advantage I have is that I am a Democrat asking for change within the party.

Instead of "trying to prove" beliefs/policies right or wrong,
I just ask that we recognize our BELIEFS are faith based, and the parties don't follow each other's faith-based reasoning.
It doesn't have to be proven, just agreed that these are BELIEFS and cannot be imposed to force others to change their beliefs and creeds. These need to be recognized as equal.

I believe that point CAN be proven.

* Atheists are allowed to sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God, without showing any harm is caused.
So why aren't Christians allowed to remove the mention of Marriage and Orientation that goes against their beliefs
and doesn't belong in public policy where these push BELIEFS not all people agree to.
If "tolerance of diversity" is mandated in one case, why not the other with references to God, Jesus, the Bible etc.

We can show a pattern of "discrimination by creed" without making "judgments" about the creeds, per se;
only based on the fact there is conflict, and the rulings towards one and against the other are not treating creeds equally.

* Conservatives' BELIEF in states rights was excluded from and violated by the ACA mandates, while Democrats pushed their BELIEF in the right to health care. Neither party believes in putting the other creed first, yet this is what happened.

What about you, me Where_r_my_keys and others writing this out and presenting it to party leaders or other members in our districts and precincts to ask for a review of all "political beliefs" (from gun rights to marriage rights, voting rights and right to health care) and decide which of these issues need to be decided by consensus, or separated from govt and left to party.

With the ACA mandates, enrollment and exchange system being challenged,
this is the perfect opportunity to argue that system should be applied to register the members who
BELIEVE in paying for benefits of all those populations and regulate it themselves.

Let the Republicans and conservatives pay for Veterans benefits, VA reform, etc. with restitution
owed for war contracts that were questioned as illicit or unauthorized.

And whatever both parties can agree on can be national policy, but if they don't agree on social programs
then separate those. the Democrats keep promising to set up alternatives to the death penalty so here's
a prime opportunity to reform the prison system at the same time as immigration, and reformat the systems.

Why not challenge candidates for office to take on these reforms, invest campaign funds and donations
directly into solutions, and use that to run for office in 2016, based on what reforms they can coordinate and lead?

The Progressives and Libertarians and other third parties sick of the waste, abuse and corruption
would love to see the major parties held to account for once. Prove solutions work first, where people
CHOOSE to follow and fund whatever BELIEFS are advocated, and give taxpayers a choice instead of forcing us
to pay while we are experimented on with unproven programs that keep changing at our expense.

I do like your thinking and with more people questioning the policies of their own parties, we might be able to find a way out of this, BUT rebuilding government is a nearly impossible task given that the majority either don't care as long as their EBT card is recharged each month or are so committed to their ideology that common sense be damned.
A much simpler approach was codified in the Constitution. The powers of the federal government well spelled out. All other powers not taken by the feds were left to the states or the people.
Its no big thang to revert to strict constitutional government, though it would piss off a lot of people and put half of federal employees out of work.

Show me where the constitution allowed government to mandate health care standards and force me to subsidize someone else's poor life style choices.
Show me where someone in California has the right to vote on education policy in Arkansas.
We have individual entities set up to administer powers granted to the states. Granted, it wouldn't be along strict party lines, but it would be preferable to the bloated, unfair system we have now.

 

[emilynghiem]

The bottom 47% of wage earners pay no income taxes. Who is the sponge here?
Another Billy troll thread, based on ignorance, stupidity, and blind partisan hackery.

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts caused most of that, as well as the child tax credit,

started by the Republican Congress in 1997 and added to by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

No, the GOP only has tax cuts for the rich. Not tax cuts for the lower earning classes. Why are you off script here?

You have to pay taxes in order to have less of them.

No taxation without representation.
Nothing wrong with paying taxes where there is accountability for the spending.

If there are no reforms and solutions put forth on how to stop the waste and abuse, why keep charging taxpayers for that. Where is the incentive to fix anything if the costs keep getting dumped on the public and debts on future generations to pay for.

Liberals would hate my tax codes.

They can live under their own!
When I asked Steve Stockman on the radio why not hold parties accountable for their own programs,
he said that Liberals would turn into Conservatives overnight!

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and we can speed up this process by holding parties responsible for their own policies and programs they "believe" in funding. if liberals believe in handouts, they can pay for those through their own party programs and handout all they want to.

Other people have equal right to exercise charity through means that meet their standards of accountability, such as churches or nonprofit training programs that focus on healthy relations and development, and not just handing out funds rewarding people for having children as a welfare ticket.

Let people who believe in microlending practice that. Reward taxpayers for investing directly into cost-effective school programs, medical facilities and education, and internships that provide public services on a sustainable basis.

Give taxpayers a choice in what programs to fund under which type of management to serve the various populations. Many people would much rather fund churches and charities to do the work responsibly, rather than go through govt that can't be trusted not to muck things up.

If we organize and separate by party, then it won't take the whole state all voting in agreement on the same reforms to change the laws. We could agree to separate jurisdiction by party, or else sue to force a separation by "political beliefs". and then the citizens are free to set up and fund their own programs through their party networks and membership base.

Only the programs that all citizens of that state agree to vote on should remain public will qualify for public funding, and the ones that don't remain private per citizens parties or other business, charity, school or nonprofit groups to manage locally.

Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt, punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.
BUT we don't have a government where that could be done without rewriting the US Constitutions and the constitutions of every state in the nation.
The red state, blue state concept could be tried nearly overnight.

Hey Ernie S I'm with you, and the advantage I have is that I am a Democrat asking for change within the party.

Instead of "trying to prove" beliefs/policies right or wrong,
I just ask that we recognize our BELIEFS are faith based, and the parties don't follow each other's faith-based reasoning.
It doesn't have to be proven, just agreed that these are BELIEFS and cannot be imposed to force others to change their beliefs and creeds. These need to be recognized as equal.

I believe that point CAN be proven.

* Atheists are allowed to sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God, without showing any harm is caused.
So why aren't Christians allowed to remove the mention of Marriage and Orientation that goes against their beliefs
and doesn't belong in public policy where these push BELIEFS not all people agree to.
If "tolerance of diversity" is mandated in one case, why not the other with references to God, Jesus, the Bible etc.

We can show a pattern of "discrimination by creed" without making "judgments" about the creeds, per se;
only based on the fact there is conflict, and the rulings towards one and against the other are not treating creeds equally.

* Conservatives' BELIEF in states rights was excluded from and violated by the ACA mandates, while Democrats pushed their BELIEF in the right to health care. Neither party believes in putting the other creed first, yet this is what happened.

What about you, me Where_r_my_keys and others writing this out and presenting it to party leaders or other members in our districts and precincts to ask for a review of all "political beliefs" (from gun rights to marriage rights, voting rights and right to health care) and decide which of these issues need to be decided by consensus, or separated from govt and left to party.

With the ACA mandates, enrollment and exchange system being challenged,
this is the perfect opportunity to argue that system should be applied to register the members who
BELIEVE in paying for benefits of all those populations and regulate it themselves.

Let the Republicans and conservatives pay for Veterans benefits, VA reform, etc. with restitution
owed for war contracts that were questioned as illicit or unauthorized.

And whatever both parties can agree on can be national policy, but if they don't agree on social programs
then separate those. the Democrats keep promising to set up alternatives to the death penalty so here's a prime opportunity to reform the prison system at the same time as immigration, and reformat the systems.

Why not challenge candidates for office to take on these reforms, invest campaign funds and donations directly into solutions, and use that to run for office in 2016, based on what reforms they can coordinate and lead?

The Progressives and Libertarians and other third parties sick of the waste, abuse and corruption would love to see the major parties held to account for once. Prove solutions work first, where people CHOOSE to follow and fund whatever BELIEFS are advocated, and give taxpayers a choice instead of forcing us to pay while we are experimented on with unproven programs that keep changing at our expense.

I do like your thinking and with more people questioning the policies of their own parties, we might be able to find a way out of this, BUT rebuilding government is a nearly impossible task given that the majority either don't care as long as their EBT card is recharged each month or are so committed to their ideology that common sense be damned.
A much simpler approach was codified in the Constitution. The powers of the federal government well spelled out. All other powers not taken by the feds were left to the states or the people.
Its no big thang to revert to strict constitutional government, though it would piss off a lot of people and put half of federal employees out of work.

Show me where the constitution allowed government to mandate health care standards and force me to subsidize someone else's poor life style choices.
Show me where someone in California has the right to vote on education policy in Arkansas.
We have individual entities set up to administer powers granted to the states. Granted, it wouldn't be along strict party lines, but it would be preferable to the bloated, unfair system we have now.

Hi Ernie S. I'm in deep conversations with friends who are Obama voters who are learning the system, learning that state laws are different from federal laws. And I am asking them why not change the prison systems to schools and medical treatment centers, and use those resources to pay for health care instead of taking it out of their paychecks. This is a new idea; they didn't think they had any chance of changing state policies. They thought you just elect people and politicians pass whatever they want. This is the first they have considered writing reforms ourselves and pushing solutions through our parties to pay for them.

Ernie what I'm thinking is to introduce on the State level some level of Constitutional laws or ethics, where BELIEFS can be addressed, not just religious conflicts but political beliefs (health care, marriage laws, etc.) So the State could potentially call for separate systems for taxpayers to choose from, and this could be organized by Parties. They don't impose deadlines or mandates on each other, but work with their own constituents, similar to how churches set up private schools. Why not set up health care and prison systems and fund what they believe will work for their members, and enroll them under their own programs similar to registering for school and signing up for student loans and work study? The State can still provide the security and law enforcement, but the social program can have separate funding and enrollment, just like how people can choose what schools to fund and attend.

So these Constitutional review and conflict resolution/consulting boards could investigate complaints and conflicts between either city vs. state or state vs. federal levels BEFORE going to courts or legislatures and dragging fights into govt.
Any type of "conflict of interest" (not just monetary, but religious, personal or political beliefs) could be reviewed to make sure nobody's creed is violated or nobody is being forced by govt/political pressure to change or compromise their BELIEFS.

Here, we could experiment with solutions and reforms BEFORE proposing public policies and changes. And this would give all parties a venue for demonstrating leadership skills and experience BEFORE running for office.

What do you think? If Ralph Nader wrote the legislation that started OSHA and the Consumer Protection agencies surely we could pull together a Constitutional convention of progressives and libertarians left out of the loop, and find a way to equalize the playing field by stopping this pattern of "bullying by majority rule" to coerce or exclude by creeds.

Either resolve the conflicts and pass a mutually agreed policy, written neutrally enough to represent all sides parties and interests, or separate and develop programs in private until something is shown to work that people freely chose to adopt.

 

[Flash]

A couple of corporations that don't pay income taxes.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes Citizens for Tax Justice

First of all corporations don't really pay taxes. The money for the taxes are collected from the consumers of the goods and services that the corporations are assessed and passed on to the government as a cost of doing business. All revenue for corporate taxes is derived from the selling of goods and services.

You want corporate taxes to be low because that means a lower price for the good and services that you buy. It taxes were higher then the cost of the corporate made goods and services would be higher. That is a bad thing.

If you go to the UK everything is much more costly there because the government has imposed a significant burden of taxation on good and services. We don't want that, do we?

The filthy ass Federal government collects about a trillion a year from the corporate tax. That is all paid by us. In addition the state and locals extract a fair amount of taxation from all businesses and we all wind up indirectly paying them.

The problem is not that we are not paying enough taxes. The problem is the bloated combined Federal, State and Local governments that takes over 40% of the GNP. That is the major problem.

 

[Ernie S.]

Political parties are not legislative bodies and cannot enact or enforce law. The process to implement what you suggest would require the rewrite of 51 Constitutions and take decades to accomplish.
Allowing the states to administer their own social programs and education would pit Liberal policy against Conservative policy at a level sufficient to see what works and wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Simply close a few federal buildings and lay off unneeded, redundant employees.

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt, punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.
BUT we don't have a government where that could be done without rewriting the US Constitutions and the constitutions of every state in the nation.
The red state, blue state concept could be tried nearly overnight.

Hey Ernie S I'm with you, and the advantage I have is that I am a Democrat asking for change within the party.

Instead of "trying to prove" beliefs/policies right or wrong,
I just ask that we recognize our BELIEFS are faith based, and the parties don't follow each other's faith-based reasoning.
It doesn't have to be proven, just agreed that these are BELIEFS and cannot be imposed to force others to change their beliefs and creeds. These need to be recognized as equal.

I believe that point CAN be proven.

* Atheists are allowed to sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God, without showing any harm is caused.
So why aren't Christians allowed to remove the mention of Marriage and Orientation that goes against their beliefs
and doesn't belong in public policy where these push BELIEFS not all people agree to.
If "tolerance of diversity" is mandated in one case, why not the other with references to God, Jesus, the Bible etc.

We can show a pattern of "discrimination by creed" without making "judgments" about the creeds, per se;
only based on the fact there is conflict, and the rulings towards one and against the other are not treating creeds equally.

* Conservatives' BELIEF in states rights was excluded from and violated by the ACA mandates, while Democrats pushed their BELIEF in the right to health care. Neither party believes in putting the other creed first, yet this is what happened.

What about you, me Where_r_my_keys and others writing this out and presenting it to party leaders or other members in our districts and precincts to ask for a review of all "political beliefs" (from gun rights to marriage rights, voting rights and right to health care) and decide which of these issues need to be decided by consensus, or separated from govt and left to party.

With the ACA mandates, enrollment and exchange system being challenged,
this is the perfect opportunity to argue that system should be applied to register the members who
BELIEVE in paying for benefits of all those populations and regulate it themselves.

Let the Republicans and conservatives pay for Veterans benefits, VA reform, etc. with restitution
owed for war contracts that were questioned as illicit or unauthorized.

And whatever both parties can agree on can be national policy, but if they don't agree on social programs
then separate those. the Democrats keep promising to set up alternatives to the death penalty so here's a prime opportunity to reform the prison system at the same time as immigration, and reformat the systems.

Why not challenge candidates for office to take on these reforms, invest campaign funds and donations directly into solutions, and use that to run for office in 2016, based on what reforms they can coordinate and lead?

The Progressives and Libertarians and other third parties sick of the waste, abuse and corruption would love to see the major parties held to account for once. Prove solutions work first, where people CHOOSE to follow and fund whatever BELIEFS are advocated, and give taxpayers a choice instead of forcing us to pay while we are experimented on with unproven programs that keep changing at our expense.

I do like your thinking and with more people questioning the policies of their own parties, we might be able to find a way out of this, BUT rebuilding government is a nearly impossible task given that the majority either don't care as long as their EBT card is recharged each month or are so committed to their ideology that common sense be damned.
A much simpler approach was codified in the Constitution. The powers of the federal government well spelled out. All other powers not taken by the feds were left to the states or the people.
Its no big thang to revert to strict constitutional government, though it would piss off a lot of people and put half of federal employees out of work.

Show me where the constitution allowed government to mandate health care standards and force me to subsidize someone else's poor life style choices.
Show me where someone in California has the right to vote on education policy in Arkansas.
We have individual entities set up to administer powers granted to the states. Granted, it wouldn't be along strict party lines, but it would be preferable to the bloated, unfair system we have now.

Hi Ernie S. I'm in deep conversations with friends who are Obama voters who are learning the system, learning that state laws are different from federal laws. And I am asking them why not change the prison systems to schools and medical treatment centers, and use those resources to pay for health care instead of taking it out of their paychecks. This is a new idea; they didn't think they had any chance of changing state policies. They thought you just elect people and politicians pass whatever they want. This is the first they have considered writing reforms ourselves and pushing solutions through our parties to pay for them.

Ernie what I'm thinking is to introduce on the State level some level of Constitutional laws or ethics, where BELIEFS can be addressed, not just religious conflicts but political beliefs (health care, marriage laws, etc.) So the State could potentially call for separate systems for taxpayers to choose from, and this could be organized by Parties. They don't impose deadlines or mandates on each other, but work with their own constituents, similar to how churches set up private schools. Why not set up health care and prison systems and fund what they believe will work for their members, and enroll them under their own programs similar to registering for school and signing up for student loans and work study? The State can still provide the security and law enforcement, but the social program can have separate funding and enrollment, just like how people can choose what schools to fund and attend.

So these Constitutional review and conflict resolution/consulting boards could investigate complaints and conflicts between either city vs. state or state vs. federal levels BEFORE going to courts or legislatures and dragging fights into govt.
Any type of "conflict of interest" (not just monetary, but religious, personal or political beliefs) could be reviewed to make sure nobody's creed is violated or nobody is being forced by govt/political pressure to change or compromise their BELIEFS.

Here, we could experiment with solutions and reforms BEFORE proposing public policies and changes. And this would give all parties a venue for demonstrating leadership skills and experience BEFORE running for office.

What do you think? If Ralph Nader wrote the legislation that started OSHA and the Consumer Protection agencies surely we could pull together a Constitutional convention of progressives and libertarians left out of the loop, and find a way to equalize the playing field by stopping this pattern of "bullying by majority rule" to coerce or exclude by creeds.

Either resolve the conflicts and pass a mutually agreed policy, written neutrally enough to represent all sides parties and interests, or separate and develop programs in private until something is shown to work that people freely chose to adopt.

I can see health care working like that; kind of a few group policies and see which one works the best over-all.
Prisons though gets dicey. What prison does a perp go to? the one of his persuasion or the one of his victim?

We have a system already to stop "bullying by majority rule" it's carefully detailed in the Constitution.
I would entertain privatizing many government departments and allow people to choose their school like they choose their internet service provider.
You seem to want compromise and think that we all should learn to work together on policy. That wouldn't really work since roughly half of Americans are so set in their values is akin to compromise on the weapon you choose to be killed by.
Since the Great Society, the right has been compromising with Progressives all the way and that has gotten us to the point where nearly half pay no income tax and some even get a check as a "refund" for taxes they didn't pay.
We have obamacare and gay weddings and a proposal for free college. We have kids graduating that can barely read and we have sports games where everyone gets a trophy.
If California wants all that crap, fine I don't and I don't want to pay for some little kid in California's trophy for losing. I don't think we should reward failure and I refuse to pay for it.

 

[CowboyTed]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

The tax code was never intended to be a welfare program, that's why.

So...why doesn't that apply to the wealthy? Subsidies? Loopholes? Breaks?

A guy who makeones a million a year, after credits and legal deductions will pay about 220,000 in income tax. Someone reaching that salary typically is at the age where his kids are grown and he's paying to send them to college.
Those getting EITC on the other hand are likely to have 4 kids in public school, they're collecting food stamps, subsidized housing and medicaid.
Now the poor family is paying sales taxes on their skittles and big macs but it costs society 60 or 70 thousand a year in education and "entitlements.
Both the rich guy and the poor folk are pretty much equal in their benefit from infrastructure fire and police services.

So why the fuck is the rich guy paying the freight for 3 or 4 poor families?
What's fair about that?

It is about benefit from society.

The rich benefit most from society. Here is a tip, what would America be like with nearly a gun for every adult in your society and people on the street starving?

I think some of the RW hear need to go to a place like South Africa and see the violence that results. Car Jackings are so common place you don't stop at traffic lights at night, people live on compounds surrounded by electric fencing and armed guards and don't walk streets at night. You can't flag a taxi on the street. Crime is rampant and Security costs a fortune.
The isolated farming communities have daily occurance of sieges in their family homes on average one a day.
Major city centers are no go areas after dark.

I have lived there 10 years ago.

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is not that we are not paying enough taxes. The problem is the bloated combined Federal, State and Local governments that takes over 40% of the GNP. That is the major problem.

^ Please note: 40% tax rate on revenue/labor/income = 2/5 ^

So this means we are back to the days of 2/5 slave and 3/5 free
if we retain the benefits of only 60% of our labor and the rest belongs to govt.

Thanks, Flash, for pointing out how this is a problem. If we are ALL "indentured servants" at this rate!

 

[CowboyTed]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.

The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.

The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.

And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.

Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.

We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.

Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.

But this is where the problem lies....

Many people didn't want to pay for the Iraq War. How does that work?

The GOP was happy spending trillions on a failed war and Dem want to spend money of Education at home.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Ernie: what do you think the ACA was? Obama and the Democrats took a political BELIEF from the Democrats' own PLATFORM where the BELIEF in health care as a RIGHT (and also Gay marriage as a RIGHT) and LEGISLATED that as a nationalized law by majority rule. It's a political BELIEF.

So the parties already write up their OWN platforms of "political beliefs" which have become their mantras,their political RELIGION and need to fund that through their own parties. Their members can create nonprofits, businesses, schools, etc WITH THEIR OWN MONEY they already invest/donate into political campaigns, lobbies, etc. They can run their OWN programs through the private sector and keep this OUT of govt (unless all people and parties agree on those beliefs).

Why are political beliefs given special treatment over religious beliefs?
If religious beliefs don't belong in govt unless the public agrees, then the same policy should apply to political beliefs.

Otherwise, it's discrimination by creed to allow the majority party to get their beliefs mandated through govt, punishing people of other beliefs with penalties and exclusion.

Govt cannot be abused to force people to change their beliefs. This is happening because "secular beliefs" are being pushed into govt as laws, claiming these are not religious. That's discrimination and we don't even see it.

I understand, and mostly agree with your argument. I would love to separate the country by political party for 20 years just to prove that one is self sustaining and viable and one is doomed to bankruptcy.
BUT we don't have a government where that could be done without rewriting the US Constitutions and the constitutions of every state in the nation.
The red state, blue state concept could be tried nearly overnight.

Hey Ernie S I'm with you, and the advantage I have is that I am a Democrat asking for change within the party.

Instead of "trying to prove" beliefs/policies right or wrong,
I just ask that we recognize our BELIEFS are faith based, and the parties don't follow each other's faith-based reasoning.
It doesn't have to be proven, just agreed that these are BELIEFS and cannot be imposed to force others to change their beliefs and creeds. These need to be recognized as equal.

I believe that point CAN be proven.

* Atheists are allowed to sue to remove Crosses or mentions of the word God, without showing any harm is caused.
So why aren't Christians allowed to remove the mention of Marriage and Orientation that goes against their beliefs
and doesn't belong in public policy where these push BELIEFS not all people agree to.
If "tolerance of diversity" is mandated in one case, why not the other with references to God, Jesus, the Bible etc.

We can show a pattern of "discrimination by creed" without making "judgments" about the creeds, per se;
only based on the fact there is conflict, and the rulings towards one and against the other are not treating creeds equally.

* Conservatives' BELIEF in states rights was excluded from and violated by the ACA mandates, while Democrats pushed their BELIEF in the right to health care. Neither party believes in putting the other creed first, yet this is what happened.

What about you, me Where_r_my_keys and others writing this out and presenting it to party leaders or other members in our districts and precincts to ask for a review of all "political beliefs" (from gun rights to marriage rights, voting rights and right to health care) and decide which of these issues need to be decided by consensus, or separated from govt and left to party.

With the ACA mandates, enrollment and exchange system being challenged,
this is the perfect opportunity to argue that system should be applied to register the members who
BELIEVE in paying for benefits of all those populations and regulate it themselves.

Let the Republicans and conservatives pay for Veterans benefits, VA reform, etc. with restitution
owed for war contracts that were questioned as illicit or unauthorized.

And whatever both parties can agree on can be national policy, but if they don't agree on social programs
then separate those. the Democrats keep promising to set up alternatives to the death penalty so here's a prime opportunity to reform the prison system at the same time as immigration, and reformat the systems.

Why not challenge candidates for office to take on these reforms, invest campaign funds and donations directly into solutions, and use that to run for office in 2016, based on what reforms they can coordinate and lead?

The Progressives and Libertarians and other third parties sick of the waste, abuse and corruption would love to see the major parties held to account for once. Prove solutions work first, where people CHOOSE to follow and fund whatever BELIEFS are advocated, and give taxpayers a choice instead of forcing us to pay while we are experimented on with unproven programs that keep changing at our expense.

I do like your thinking and with more people questioning the policies of their own parties, we might be able to find a way out of this, BUT rebuilding government is a nearly impossible task given that the majority either don't care as long as their EBT card is recharged each month or are so committed to their ideology that common sense be damned.
A much simpler approach was codified in the Constitution. The powers of the federal government well spelled out. All other powers not taken by the feds were left to the states or the people.
Its no big thang to revert to strict constitutional government, though it would piss off a lot of people and put half of federal employees out of work.

Show me where the constitution allowed government to mandate health care standards and force me to subsidize someone else's poor life style choices.
Show me where someone in California has the right to vote on education policy in Arkansas.
We have individual entities set up to administer powers granted to the states. Granted, it wouldn't be along strict party lines, but it would be preferable to the bloated, unfair system we have now.

Hi Ernie S. I'm in deep conversations with friends who are Obama voters who are learning the system, learning that state laws are different from federal laws. And I am asking them why not change the prison systems to schools and medical treatment centers, and use those resources to pay for health care instead of taking it out of their paychecks. This is a new idea; they didn't think they had any chance of changing state policies. They thought you just elect people and politicians pass whatever they want. This is the first they have considered writing reforms ourselves and pushing solutions through our parties to pay for them.

Ernie what I'm thinking is to introduce on the State level some level of Constitutional laws or ethics, where BELIEFS can be addressed, not just religious conflicts but political beliefs (health care, marriage laws, etc.) So the State could potentially call for separate systems for taxpayers to choose from, and this could be organized by Parties. They don't impose deadlines or mandates on each other, but work with their own constituents, similar to how churches set up private schools. Why not set up health care and prison systems and fund what they believe will work for their members, and enroll them under their own programs similar to registering for school and signing up for student loans and work study? The State can still provide the security and law enforcement, but the social program can have separate funding and enrollment, just like how people can choose what schools to fund and attend.

So these Constitutional review and conflict resolution/consulting boards could investigate complaints and conflicts between either city vs. state or state vs. federal levels BEFORE going to courts or legislatures and dragging fights into govt.
Any type of "conflict of interest" (not just monetary, but religious, personal or political beliefs) could be reviewed to make sure nobody's creed is violated or nobody is being forced by govt/political pressure to change or compromise their BELIEFS.

Here, we could experiment with solutions and reforms BEFORE proposing public policies and changes. And this would give all parties a venue for demonstrating leadership skills and experience BEFORE running for office.

What do you think? If Ralph Nader wrote the legislation that started OSHA and the Consumer Protection agencies surely we could pull together a Constitutional convention of progressives and libertarians left out of the loop, and find a way to equalize the playing field by stopping this pattern of "bullying by majority rule" to coerce or exclude by creeds.

Either resolve the conflicts and pass a mutually agreed policy, written neutrally enough to represent all sides parties and interests, or separate and develop programs in private until something is shown to work that people freely chose to adopt.

I can see health care working like that; kind of a few group policies and see which one works the best over-all.
Prisons though gets dicey. What prison does a perp go to? the one of his persuasion or the one of his victim?

We have a system already to stop "bullying by majority rule" it's carefully detailed in the Constitution.
I would entertain privatizing many government departments and allow people to choose their school like they choose their internet service provider.
You seem to want compromise and think that we all should learn to work together on policy. That wouldn't really work since roughly half of Americans are so set in their values is akin to compromise on the weapon you choose to be killed by.
Since the Great Society, the right has been compromising with Progressives all the way and that has gotten us to the point where nearly half pay no income tax and some even get a check as a "refund" for taxes they didn't pay.
We have obamacare and gay weddings and a proposal for free college. We have kids graduating that can barely read and we have sports games where everyone gets a trophy.
If California wants all that crap, fine I don't and I don't want to pay for some little kid in California's trophy for losing. I don't think we should reward failure and I refuse to pay for it.

Hi Ernie S all good points
1. the death penalty can be argued as religious in belief, and can be argued to decide by consensus.
so if the victims/survivors say they want the death penalty, and the prosecutors and taxpayers agree to pay,
then those beliefs must be equally respected. But the prolife people can ask not to pay for those costs
and fund alternatives to cases of life imprisonment where THAT is agreed to -- and to answer your question --
I would include whatever terms of restitution can be worked out by consensus. My suggestion is to have such inmates
trade places with immigrants on the waiting list, who want to work an honest living as a law abiding citizen, and let
the convicts serve their time working in factory jobs taking the place of women and children and slave workers who can attend school instead. Something like that. Restitution for rape, for trafficking, for serial killing, all proportional to the debts.

2. For the gay weddings and all the other agenda you argue about,
the whole point is to show that BELIEFS and CREEDS are being pushed one way,
but when it comes to the beliefs and creeds of Christians and Constitutionalists, these are penalized, punished and removed. So that would become the basis of the argument to show discrimination by creed. Pretty hard to ignore.

When half of Congress were split BY PARTY over the ACA mandates, and then the Court was split 4 to 5,
that shows a pretty even split by beliefs. Ironically for Roberts to have voted in favor to "try to make it nonpartisan" shows how partisan it was. Of course it is. Nobody can deny this, and the only problem is not interpreting "religion" to include political beliefs, because both parties have been exploiting their voters and donor base by political beliefs.

We'd have to agree to drop it on both sides, to protect the political beliefs of either party.
All the people I KNOW don't want to compromise their beliefs by gambling on courts or majority rule.
the only people who benefit are politicians who, whether they win or lose, use it to scare up more votes and funds.
the people in both parties lose because we are never guaranteed our beliefs are ever truly protected this way.

So the people have the most to gain by holding politicians and parties responsible for providing the programs
they espouse to defend.

We get those folks together, to enforce "equal protection" of creeds from discrimination, we can demand that politicians keep their commitments or else be exposed as frauds and let other people lead who are serious.

It only takes a few people from each party willing to stand up for this, and others will follow.
Nobody enjoys blowing billions of dollars on candidates, not getting what we want, and getting stuck with the bills and costs.

 

[emilynghiem]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

Because people who earn their own money by working for it themselves
consider it to be their money first, BEFORE they pay taxes to govt.

The poor are tired of being treated as criminals for being poor.
The rich are tired of being treated as criminals for being rich.

The politicians exploit both the rich and poor from their fear of being cheated by the other.

And both parties need to separate and pay for their own programs and cost of their legislative policies
instead of making the other group feel forced to pay for things they don't believe in.

Taxpayers should only be responsible for funding govt policies we ALL agree on.
Anything we don't agree on, and/or don't trust the other parties not to screw up through govt,
should be funded separately through the party that believes in supporting such a policy.

We'd stop all the lies, propaganda, and cheating taxpayers out of our money and into debts,
if we held political parties and leaders to pay for the programs they attest will work better.

Instead, if we keep playing along with the games these politicians use, to blame the other party while getting away with wasting and abusing taxpayer money, then we can never catch the crooks. so we keep paying the bills, while parties and politicians distract us by pointing the finger at each other. If people of all parties got together, made lists of all the shenanigans we didn't agree to fund, authorize govt to spend waste or abuse, and demand restitution, refunds or credits back, we could reclaim all our tax money that has been wasted and invest those credits into financing solutions and reforms, while charging the costs back to the wrongdoers who ran up our debts like a bad credit card bill we never agreed to pay. I hope we get smart soon, and turn the tables on govt running completely amok, like a bull in a china shop, charging all the damaged and debts to us instead of going after the parties that profited off abuses of public resources, laws and authority for their own benefits.

But this is where the problem lies....

Many people didn't want to pay for the Iraq War. How does that work?

The GOP was happy spending trillions on a failed war and Dem want to spend money of Education at home.

Right, so the same process applies to the War.
Track down the illicit contracts, unauthorized spending, costs of collateral damages,
and work out how much restitution is owed. Issue credits to taxpayers and charge the costs to
the wrongdoers who benefited at taxpayers expense.

Pay lawyers and legal teams a 10% commission to set up collection and settlement terms to pay back
this debt over time. Or, if citizens and businesses buy out the debts, then claim collateral and interest on the
loans, and start claiming land, property and programs that the lienholders will own until the debts are paid back.
Or else they own those programs and property.

Do the research and write out a deal, similar to collection or settlements on bad credit card debts. Free up the available credit to taxpayers, so that can be applied to funding VA and health care reforms, educational and medical developments, and charge back the costs of abuses, violations, crimes and corruption back to the wrongdoers responsible.

 

[Misty]

Because the mother fucking poor don't pay chit in taxes... What % of Americans are "poor." What % do they pay in all collected taxes?

And I don't know anyone that wants to tax the poor more, simply limit or end the welfare they don't pay for seeing as it fails to life anybody out of poverty as it's intention was.

The real question is why did you vote for someone that went to a well known racist church for 20+ years, is the least trusted President in US history, spies on anyone he wants, even allies... and recently took us back into Iraq after Bush got us out.

I'm not rich but all the money I'm able to scrimp and save goes to the government in the form of taxes. Income and property.

 

[OKTexas]

...the poor?

I'm dying to know.

The tax code was never intended to be a welfare program, that's why.

So...why doesn't that apply to the wealthy? Subsidies? Loopholes? Breaks?

A guy who makeones a million a year, after credits and legal deductions will pay about 220,000 in income tax. Someone reaching that salary typically is at the age where his kids are grown and he's paying to send them to college.
Those getting EITC on the other hand are likely to have 4 kids in public school, they're collecting food stamps, subsidized housing and medicaid.
Now the poor family is paying sales taxes on their skittles and big macs but it costs society 60 or 70 thousand a year in education and "entitlements.
Both the rich guy and the poor folk are pretty much equal in their benefit from infrastructure fire and police services.

So why the fuck is the rich guy paying the freight for 3 or 4 poor families?
What's fair about that?

It is about benefit from society.

The rich benefit most from society. Here is a tip, what would America be like with nearly a gun for every adult in your society and people on the street starving?

I think some of the RW hear need to go to a place like South Africa and see the violence that results. Car Jackings are so common place you don't stop at traffic lights at night, people live on compounds surrounded by electric fencing and armed guards and don't walk streets at night. You can't flag a taxi on the street. Crime is rampant and Security costs a fortune.
The isolated farming communities have daily occurance of sieges in their family homes on average one a day.
Major city centers are no go areas after dark.

I have lived there 10 years ago.

Sounds like Puerto Rico.