Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,436
- 270
I don't consider Military to be just "gov't employees". Yes, technically they are but the Military is mandated by the Constitution. See "Provide for the Common Defense".
Why do some think the Government owns your money
- Thread starter RetiredGySgt
- Start date
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #22
The Government does not have the authority to tax us at 100 Percent. And if it tried the Country would rightly rebel. Have you forgotten what STARTED this Country? Rebellion against taxation that was to much and that we had no say in.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
Lets see...
Republicans tried to outlaw BIRTH CONTROL PILLS. Not abortion but BIRTH CONTROL PILLS!
Romney would eliminate the subsidies and guarantees of coverage that benefit women. It will also end the requirement that insurers cover preventive services such as mammograms, prenatal care, and certain cancer screenings with no co-pays.
The Ryan Plan which Romney supports would privatize Medicare and Social Security thus destroying BOTH programs and placing the retired directly into the uninsured category.
Cant speak to Hispanics issue.
Mitts not an extremist. He just played one for the primaries.
When someones stated stance is repeated accurately, thats not spreading fear, thats called warning people of the consequences. Calling it spreading fear is the rhetoric.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #24
No. We aren't. if we were the government, we wouldnt need checks and balances to keep our power.
I see you fell for his rhetoric....
Outlaw birth control pills...really? I just thought that the women had to buy their own, and not on the taxpayers back.
Romney would eliminate the subsidies and guarantees of coverage that benefit women? Oh, come on....
The Ryan plan gives people a choice with medicare, voucher, or Medicare. Obama's plans ends up bankrupt in 12 years....at least a party is trying to save it.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
yes REALLY.
The personhood amendment pushed in several states would have given full citizen rights upon egg fertilization.
The birth control pill works in several stages. The first is it tries to prevent fertilization, but the second is it tries to prevent implantation of fertilized eggs.
Therefore, the Personhood amendments supported by Republicans would make all forms of hormonal birth control including the birth control pill illegal.
What is Personhood? | Personhood USA
Romney says he would repeal Obamacare "day one" ( which any remedial civics class student would laugh at ), which would end the subsidies I stated above.
And dude, vouchers? Really?
Lets see...repeal Obamacare...which repeals the no pre-existing conditions ban...then give seniors...the vast majority of which have SOME pre existing condition...a voucher to go buy health insurance on the private market and guess what happens? They go uninsured because the insurance companies arent going to take 8,000 dollars and then pay out 100,000 dollars. Thats a loser any which way you slice it. If you really believe that theyre "giving seniors a choice" then Im sorry to say sir but its YOU thats falling for the rhetoric.
and dont get me started on re opening the doughnut hole that costs seniors more than they can afford on their medications.
And seriously, if you start in on that bullshit "repeal and replace argument" Ill punch a kitten, I swear to god. I challenge ANYONE and EVERYONE to find a single thing ROmney has presented as an actual PLAN to replace Obamacare with. Not some "well, we'd have to keep this or that", but his ACTUAL PLAN.
Last edited:
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,338
- 263,278
- 3,615
We created a document called The Constitution
That document provides the details for the structure of our government and has been copied around the world
That document begins.......We the People
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Probsbly because the government prints it?
gallantwarrior
Gold Member
Oh, but it is soooo difficult to admit to yourself, and to others, that you selected poorly.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
Comical...I bet you want to be taken seriously too.
You guys have been nothing but class warfare from day one...
Result............ business goes on hold.
Wake up, this corruption must end.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
Oh thank you for that bullshit response. It allows me to retort thusly:
The right created the "war on.." slogan. Christmas, Christians, Family, Values, blah blah blah. And when the phrase is used against them, they cry like little babies.
And you better start taking me seriously...Im one of those job creators youre defending.
Last edited:
Oh thank you for that bullshit response. It allows me to retort thusly:
The right created the "war on.." slogan. Christmas, Christians, Family, Values, blah blah blah. And when the phrase is used against them, they cry like little babies.
And you better start taking me seriously...Im one of those job creators youre defending.
Not to be disrespectful, Vidi, but you are just slinging bs this evening. You know as well as I do that if Obama could run on his record as president, all this other class warfare, gender dividing bs and fear mongering wouldn't be an issue.
I do hope we can at least agree on the obvious.
R
rdean
Guest
If there was no government, you would live in a cardboard box next to a hole in the ground where you take a dump. Me? I want sewers and electricity and roads.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #36
Oh thank you for that bullshit response. It allows me to retort thusly:
The right created the "war on.." slogan. Christmas, Christians, Family, Values, blah blah blah. And when the phrase is used against them, they cry like little babies.
And you better start taking me seriously...Im one of those job creators youre defending.
You have made several inappropriate posts in this thread. We are in the Clean debate forum. No attacks, no sniping no bad mouthing.
Vidi
CDZ prohibited
Oh thank you for that bullshit response. It allows me to retort thusly:
The right created the "war on.." slogan. Christmas, Christians, Family, Values, blah blah blah. And when the phrase is used against them, they cry like little babies.
And you better start taking me seriously...Im one of those job creators youre defending.
You have made several inappropriate posts in this thread. We are in the Clean debate forum. No attacks, no sniping no bad mouthing.
I sniped no one. I answered fully what was being posted.
You in particularly began this thread as I said with a false premise in which YOU and only YOU make the assumption you know what other people are thinking.
You have provided no proof that others think as you claim other than your own word.
And now you attack me for calling you on it. What exactly is it youre so afraid of? That something that doesnt fit neatly into your own worldview might actually be true? That you might actually be wrong on something?
and to PROVE you see things as you want to see them instead of how they really are, here is the rules of the CDZ:
No Name Calling
No Trolling and/or Troll Threads
No Hijacking
No Personal Attacks
No Neg Repping
I have not called anyone a name, I have not trolled, I have not hijacked, I have called you out on your lies which I guess could be considered a personal attack but under THAT definition ANY disagreement with another poster would fall under that heading, and I have not negged repped anyone. Hmmm...guess Im well within the rules huh?
The prrof lies in your accusation of sniping and saying that is disallowed in the CDZ. Though I have NOT sniped, nowhere in the rules does it say no sniping. Thats something YOU have chosen to create out of thin air.
Just like your argument in your original post. Only in your head.
Now, Im sure you will see all of this as a personal attack. You are wrong. I called you no names. I simply pointed out where your argument and reasoning is deficient and suggested some possible causes for that deficiency. If you see that as a personal attack, then, in my humble opinion, you are being overly sensitive.
And if my characterization of Republicans is "bad mouthing" then your original post clearly falls under that heading and that makes this entire thread against the rules and you guilty of trolling. So care to turn that mirror back on yourself a bit, sir?
Last edited:
oldfart
Older than dirt
I am assuming that you are British and simply expressing your enthusiasm for the current Prince of Wales. There is no Charles III. Charles II is generally regarded as a pretty successful ruler and all around good egg. But then when your predecessor had had his head chopped off, you tend to be a little more careful. It's his son James II who lost the throne in the Glorious Revvolution of 1688. As he took ship for France, he expressed both his feeling toward his people and his level of intelligence by throwing the Great Seal into the Thames and exclaiming, "Now let them try to rule without me!" implying that the power of government existed not in men or institutions, but in inanimate objects.
I am not aware of a story involving James II and a tax on tea. Are you perhaps referring to George III and the unpleasantness with the American colonies? If so George's minister Lord North shares at least equal responsibiliy. And the Tea Act got a bad rap. Originally it was one of many of the "Intolerable Acts" but when most of the others were repealed to sooth relations with the colonies, George noted that the Tea tax was "one tax to keep up the right [to levy taxes]".
English history has enough colorful episodes to provide delght for aes; it just helps to keep them straight.
All the best.
P.S. Three hundred years later the Great Seal tuned up in a dredge of the Thames. Jmes II couldn't do anything right.
Last edited:
oldfart
Older than dirt
First, I have read the entire string before posting an answer (I promise!) and wanted to make a irect reply to your original post since the discussion doesnt seem to have advanced very far. I started out as an economist and taught Money & Banking. I ended up representing taxpayers before the IRS fo a living.
I agree with you that, "The Government has the right to tax, and taxes are needed to run essential services." I believe that the powers of government are not limited to "essential services" (who gets to decide what is essential?) but has general powers to promote the general welfare. I believe that government must be accountable for its spending (including "tax expenditures") and the public has both a right and duty to hold government accountable at the ballot box for its stewardship of our collective resources.
The beancounters in the Congressional Budget Office keep track among a lot of other things that effect the budget "tax expenditures" which are defined as any exclusion, deduction, credit, deferral, orother device in the tax code which has the effect of providing a tax advantage to one group of taxpayers but not all or nearly all taxpayers. So for example, the standard deduction and personal exemption (while not universal, there are exceptions) applies to most people and therefore is not a tax expenditure, while the deductions for mortgage intrest, charitable contributions,and casualty losses are.
The gross amount of tax expenditures is staggering. Each time a tax or expenditure bill comes up for a vote, the CBO must score it for its effect on the budget, so we get a pretty detailed idea of the cost of each measure, both spending bills and tax bills, when they are passed and as they continue in effect
Which brings me to your question. If government were to reduce all tax rates that would reduce revenues, but not be considered a tax ependiture. If however, he government decided to double the child tax credit, it would be a tax expenditure. Some tax credits are "refundable" in the sense that they can be refunded even if you have paid nothing in; the child tax credit happens to be partially refundable. The idea for such credits comes from the flaming liberal who was Barry Goldwater's chief economic advisor in 1964, Milton Friedman. He called it the "Negative Income Tax" and today we call it the Earned Income Tax Credit. Since Barry lost in 1964, the idea didn't become law until another Republican by the name of Richard Nixon got elected president four years later and made it a signature part of his domestic policy.
But most of the tax expenditures go to very large corporations and very wealthy individuals. Those parts of the tax code are arcane and most people are only vaguely aware that they exist. Things like intangible drilling costs, percentage depletion, bonus depreciation, refund o FICA taxes on tips, and so forth. I make a pretty good living keeping up with the breaks that help small (as in less than 500 workers) businesses.
So some people and entities get checks from the government in excess of any amounts they have had withheld or paid in. These tend to be the very poor and the very rich.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you state "Where did the concept that if the Government takes less of your money they should be able to make you tell them what you spend your money on come from?" I'm guessing you are talking about the idea that in order to get most of these tax breaks you must provide the government on the tax return with the information necessary to calculate it and show that you are eligible for it. For example, to claim the now expired New Homeowner's Credit, you would have to prove when you bought the house and how much it cost. If you had something else in mind, I am curious to hear it.
All the best, Jamie
Borillar
Platinum Member
Pointing out the opposition's platform isn't fear-mongering. Fear-mongering is more along the lines of the Bush administrations use of terror alerts, talk of mushroom clouds, etc, if they didn't get their way.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
-
The Legacy of the former democrat politician Bill Richardson- Started by Votto
- Replies: 1
-
Throw The GOP In Prison for Impersonating the GOP STAT!
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 2
-
Let The The Criminal Courts Decide = Not Capitol Hill
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 1
