Anyone see the democratic mouthpiece on Fox this morning?

reply to post by Bunch


Expecting everyone to pay an equal percentage makes me an idealist?

Why should anyone in any class get a government bailout?

It isnt the governments job or duty to bail people out, nor is it their obligation to make people whole.

A progressive taxation system is the hallmark of a civilised and compassionate society. It is the most basic form of natural justice for those with wealth to assist those without. The progressive taxation system is the most efficient way of smoothing-out income inequality and reducing the social harm and negative consequences that result from large income disparities.

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar


COME ON MAN, a "democratic commentator" on FOX, that is an oxymoron in itself. That is like calling Mr. Colmes of Hannity and Colmes fame a democrat. Any "democratic commentator" on FOX has the job of making democrats look stupid, inept, or morally corrupt. The fact is that this commentator said something that is not true. When the government "takes" money from the rich, it is in the form of taxes. Then, the government, which by the way is elected by the people, many of whom are poor, gets to decided how that money is spent. If it decides to use some of this money in the benefit of the poor it does not qualify as "income redistribution." It is called government spending, some of which, should go to the poor. Stop watching FOX, it makes you less intelligent.

A study done a few years ago proved that the more you watched FOX News, the more likely you were to be INCORRECT about MAJOR issues in our world. That is about the most damning finding that could be discovered in regards to a "News" organization.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


The very practice you described is unconstitutional, and goes against the very foundations of freedom.

Just for fun, post the link to that "study".

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar


A quick google search gave me this article
www.alternet.org...
There are many like it, so if you don't like the source, but are sincerely interested in the validity of this study, you can feel free to look for the information yourself.

As far as your comment about something I said being "unconstitutional," I had to scratch my head a bit and re-read my post. I assume you were commenting on my statement that the government takes our taxes and then uses them, a small portion by the way, to benefit the poor. My friend, though I will give you that the constitution, along with no other law to my understanding, does not allow for a direct income tax, taxation in general and by proxy the spending of these taxes is quite constitutional and happens everyday. The government taxes us all the time. It then uses these taxes to pay for roads, defense, government programs, etc. What exactly you deem to be "unconstitutional" about this alludes me. Do you not understand that when the government takes our money in the form of taxes, that it then, spends that money on things? Maybe I am the one who is missing the point of your comment, please clarify.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

reply to post by Bunch


How is he going to pay for it? By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, by increase taxes on oil companies, by increasing taxes on the top 5% of earners.
I make around 40k a year. When Bush implemented his tax cuts, I got money back from the government every year. If Obama let's Bushs tax plan expire then I will not have that much needed yearly break which by the way I never received during the Clinton years. I always owed! I understand how great Obama sounds but you really do have to read the small print when it comes to his policy.

Obamas tax cuts are highly misleading saying he would only tax small businesses making over 250000.00 a year. He tries to make it out most businesses will not fall into this category but truth is most businesses will. The average salary of a small business owner is 236000 a year sounds safe doesnt it.

But wait i have a book keeper i pay them 40000 a year so on taxes my business made 276000.00. oh no Im screwed now i need to fire them and do it my self and reinvest that 40000 in company assets and get the tax brake for expanding my business. i had an idea Or 5 of us got together and started a business share profits evenly and did ok were making 50000 each oh again same problem one of my friends are out and avoid taxes thru business expenses.

Small businesses (less than 500 employees) employ 50.9% of nations private non-farm workforce in 2004. Say you pais your self and your employess 8.00 an hour 8 x 40 (work week) = 320.00 a week now we take that and figure out yearly 320.00 x 52 weeks = 16640.00 now lets take that into 250000.00 comes to 15.02 so if a business has more than 15 employees there paying taxes. Now no small business owner is going to pay themselves 16000 so again people will have to loose there jobs.

Are people really that stupid when economy is having a problem your going to raise taxes on the people that created 50% of them? Truth is he will be taxing more middle class americans than you think especially the people that worked hard to get where they were at and created jobs for people along the way. Well i guess obama wont loose his job any way.

Ps none of these examples even included other expeses such as rent electricity water office supplies etc.


[edit on 10/14/08 by dragonridr]

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


I was referring to your comment that "the government takes taxes on uses them to benefit the poor".

The Constitution specifically states what government may use public money on, and nothing in Article 1 Section 8 could be construed as giving government the the power to use it for something thats only benevolent to a single group, in this case the poor.

Incidentally, why should one group benefit from taxes moreso than another?



[edit on 14-10-2008 by Constitutional Scholar]

reply to post by Constitutional Scholar


Section 8 [1] states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."

IMO, and that of many a constitutional scholar, this "general Welfare" includes the welfare of our citizenry, no matter what their socioeconomic status. I definitely see your point that the government can't "steal from the rich and give to the poor." However, I do not see it like that. IMO, the policies, or monies, that benefit the poor, also benefit the rich. When I was in college I wrote a paper about whose conclusion was basically this; There are way more poor people in this country than rich, by affording the poor some basic forms of human dignity the rich get in return a better country to live in. One with less crime, a happier populace, and a more stable government. No one is saying we need to give the poor everything that the rich have, just the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This, IMO, would include access to an equal education, health care, and in general, the American Dream.

reply to post by Bunch


If you actually believe this - then you probably need to get on that spaceship that will be over Atlanta today - it's coming for Rep. John Lewis.
No matter who gets the office of President - they already have a serious fight on their hands, BUT - Obama IS GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES - NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ANNUAL SALARY IS - taking away the current tax cut does that across the board. AUTOMATICALLY Also - Dems think if you make 50000 a year - you're wealthy - to be considered middle class - you must be between the poverty level and 50G....what planet are they from?
I don't know about you - but I'm pretty tired of ALL OF THEM taking advantage of my good will. I've been paying taxes all my life - don't mind helping the poor - but when corporate greed and my government does their damnest to make me part of the poor - that makes me mad. I will be taking action - if only as one person...HOW ABOUT YOU?

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
The atrocity known as public education is both unconstitutional and a giant money vacuum.

"God Money"...

If you ask yourself what is the main differece between 3rd World countries and the rest of us, the answer is -- developed infrastructure and social services. Both require funding via taxation. If we didn't have taxation in this country, we wouldn't have nuclear weapons and space flight and, quite possibly, computers for all the right wing nuts to post their gibberish.

It's tragic that some choose to treat money as absolute without regards to progress, prosperity and in wellfare of the Nation.

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


Unfortunately for the argument you put forth, no court has ever found healthcare to be a right.

No court has ever found the general welfare clause to include education.

Even the founding fathers disagree with your opinion:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson

Only those specifically enumerated.

Education or healthcare are not enumerated anywhere within the document.

The government must protect the PURSUIT of happiness, not guarantee it, and certainly not provide for it.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

Even past Presidents back up my contention:

"[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." - President Franklin Pierce, 1854

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit." - President Grover Cleveland, 1887

Even the big retard himself, FDR, stated government must not be involved in education:
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
The government must protect the PURSUIT of happiness, not guarantee it, and certainly not provide for it.

Gosh... Protection is an activity that must be paid for. From minor things like educating population about healthy habits and what not, to FDA (protection) to disaster response (protection) and countless other activities including the cop on your block (protection) all need to be funded. Apart from that, the way I see it, healthcare is protection of citizens. Better public schools mean less crime and that translates into protection.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sigh......

Here, this will keep you busy for a while:

Post any Supreme Court ruling that backs up your contention.

Pack a lunch because you will be looking for a very long time.

Protecting the pursuit of happiness doesnt require any payment.

It only requires freedom infringing laws not be passed.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
Post any Supreme Court ruling that backs up your contention.

I don't need a specific Supreme Court ruling to know that people should use toilet paper every time they do number 2 in the bathroom. Maybe you do.

Protecting the pursuit of happiness doesnt require any payment.

In the above post, I gave you some examples which you still have to refute.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Yes, because asses went unwiped prior to the invention of TP right?

When toilet paper is discussed in the Constitution, get back to me.

There is nothing to refute, you are stating opinion. I prefer to deal in fact.

I hate to come off like a jerk here but, im shocked that everyone is so taken off guard by this, this has been obamas platform from the start. Yep take from the rich and give the the poor, redistribute the wealth, big business and rich people are evil. Im not rich, but .........i also know ive never had anyone on welfare offer me a steady wage.......

reply to post by Bunch


Wow you are ignorant. Taxing people doesnt spur growth in the economy, it just makes government larger so they can spend money on crap pork.

Bill Clinton didnt make the economy of the 90's, the computer and internet did. Computers made a huge leap in a short amount of time technologically which made them 10x faster than the ones produced in prior years. This increased productivity and sales which spured the economy to produce more, more quickly. Then the internet came to fruishion, companies were scrambling to get on with websites galore.

Taxes made it harder to hire employees, so people made do by working more hours for less pay. No government should ever have a surplus, that means they are taxing the people too much.

Originally posted by Bunch
Obama's tax policies are about fairness and stimulating the economy.

While many conservative support the idea of trickle down economics, which has been proved to be an economic fallacy during the Bush Administration and McCain supports it, the Obama camp is basically appealing for a form of windfall tax and when it comes to tax policy obviously one side gets screwed usually, sometimes both, but in this case one.

For the last 8 years its been the high income earners, big corporations that have benefited from this to no benefit of the country. Last time a form of windfall tax was used was during the Clinton administration and we had a booming economy and he manage to leave office with a surplus.

So first, let throw away this notion that Obama is a socialist becasue of the tax policy he wants to implement.

Is he going to raise taxes? YES,

For what purpose? To stimulate the economy by giving much deserved tax cuts to the middle class and the poor.

How is he going to pay for it? By letting the Bush tax cuts expire, by increase taxes on oil companies, by increasing taxes on the top 5% of earners.

Is it fair? On a fair world NO, but given the current economic situation I think his policy is acceptable.

My view on Obama tax policies is that it is ok as long as he keeps his vision on why he is rasing taxes, if it is to create more big government then he should go to hell with his tax increases.

The benefits of his tax plan need to be tangible to those he is saying he is going to help, no a repeat of Bush tax policies.

Bill Clinton did not stimulate the economy by increasing taxes. He did help deregulate the market you know which is why we are here today. There were a lot of bubbles going on while bill Clinton was is office and the exploitation of a weak Russia and the east in general sure helped.

Also if he thinks people making 250k are rich, that is complete BS. It's more like 400k and up are rich.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by hadjimagnet]

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
There is nothing to refute, you are stating opinion. I prefer to deal in fact.

OK, I'll type real slow. I submitted the following facts:

Gosh... Protection is an activity that must be paid for. From minor things like educating population about healthy habits and what not, to FDA (protection) to disaster response (protection) and countless other activities including the cop on your block (protection) all need to be funded. Apart from that, the way I see it, healthcare is protection of citizens. Better public schools mean less crime and that translates into protection.

Please refute the thesis that these protection measures are necessary.