Tea Party Patriots, please do not fall for the fake balanced budget amendment trick.

[johnwk]

.



SEE: GOP Eyes Debt Ceiling Vote for Leverage to Pass Balanced Budget Amendment (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/25/gop-eyes-debt-ceiling-vote-leverage-pass-balanced-budget-amendment/)


Our RINO crowd on Capitol Hill is actively attempting to trick Tea Party favorites who were recently elected to Congress. The trick is to convince them to not agree to increase the national debt limit unless a balanced budget amendment is tied to the increase. But the various amendments offered when carefully scrutinized reveals a trick to make it constitutional to allow Congress not balance the budget on an annual basis!


Let us take a look at one of the fake balanced budget amendments S.J.RES. 5 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.J.RES.5:..) being used to trick recently elected members of Congress who were supported by Tea Party Activists.


S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:


`Article--


`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.


Good thought. Let’s look at it closely!


`Section 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.


Now wait a second. Why should we be stuck with giving the federal government 18 percent of our nation’s GDP? If Congress followed our Constitution, far less revenue would be needed.


`Section 3. The Congress may provide for suspension of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such fiscal year.


Well, isn’t this peachy? Congress may override the amendment whenever it so desires.


`Section 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress by a roll call vote.


Meaningless weasel wording to suggest taxes will not be raised while there is nothing in the proposed wording to establish a real moment of accountability.


`Section 5. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.


Yet another provision to break the chains requiring a balanced budget, and one which cleverly omits specific increase in taxes to equal the proposed increase in the national debt!


`Section 6. Any Member of Congress shall have standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforcement of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition signed by one-third of the Members of either House of Congress. No court of the United States or of any State shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article.


And this is totally pathetic ___ allowing the Court to enforce the amendment, and in the very next section Congress is entrusted to enforce the article by appropriate legislation. In other words, the fox, our federal government, on two different levels is left in charge of the hen house.


`Section 7. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Just what we need, the fox in charge of patrolling the hen house.


`Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States except those for repayment of debt principal.


And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?


`Section 9. This article shall become effective beginning with the second fiscal year commencing after its ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.'.


Bottom line is, the above amendment has been carefully worded in such a manner which neither compels an annually balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt, nor does it create a moment of meaningful accountability when Congress spends more than is brought in from taxes. It is nothing but a trick to pretend a desire for fiscal responsibility.


Now, let us compare the above proposal with what our founding fathers intended should Congress borrow to meet is expenses. We find the founder’s intentions expressed in a number of the Constitution’s ratification documents, e.g., see Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp)


``Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-``


In easy to understand language, our founders intended that if Congress did not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes (its normal way of raising revenue which today is somewhat different) to fund “the Publick Exigencies”, Congress was then to make up the shortfall using a direct tax laid among the States and each State’s share of the tax was to be a proportionately equal to its allotted number of Representatives in Congress, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation.


If the Founder’s method to balance the budget were followed today, each state’s share of an annual shortfall being raised would be determined by the following formula:



States’ population

---------------------------- X SHORTFALL = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population



And just for the record, our founders did in fact use the direct tax a number of times in our nation’s history e.g., see: An Act laying a direct tax for $3 million (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94) which uses the Founder’s rule of apportionment and shows each state’s share of the tax. Also see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing each state to pay is share in its own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions if meeting its payment on time!


Now why is our founder’s no nonsense method to deal with an annual deficit far superior to the fake balanced budget amendments being offered by members of Congress? The answer is accountability!


After computing each State`s apportioned share of the tax, each State’s Congressional Delegation is to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature is to then transfer the State’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state does not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government is to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.


Unlike the fake balanced budget amendments offered by the Republican Party leadership to end Congress’ irresponsible spending and borrowing, our founder’s solution provides a very real moment of accountability and would encourage every member of Congress to spend less and live within the means provided from Congress’ normal method of raising revenue to avoid the apportioned tax and having to return home with a bill in hand and suffer the consequences.


Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if Chuck Schumer had to return home with a bill in hand to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he was proud to announce the American Taxpayer did not care about! I suspect Schumer’s political career would come to an immediate and painful end.


BTW keep in mind our founder’s no nonsense balanced budget method is already part of our Constitution. It’s simply being ignored by those who now pretend to want a balanced budget amendment.


For related information on our founding father’s original tax plan CLICK HERE (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)


JWK

[fj1200]

Oh good, another thread referencing the State Rate plan.

Did anyone read it? I need another "property in their labor" reference for my forum pool.

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, watch out for another trick that's been attempted in past "Balanced Budget Amendment" proposals.

You know that programs such as Social Security and Medicare are not authorized by the Constitution. FDR back in the 1930s managed to get Social Security approved by the Supreme Court by calling in "merely a tax", though it is obviously far more.

The latest trick is, propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that says basically, "Congress cannot spend more than it takes in, unless the spending is for the vital Social Security and Medicare programs."... in so many words.

It's bad enough that these exceptions are provided. You know and I know that Congress would simply rename every bill, "The Social Security Memorial Bridge fund" and "The Medicare enhancement Town Hall For My Own Favorite State Pork Bill"... and every spending bill under the sun would thus roll merrily along, exempt from budget-balancing.

But the worst part of this little trick, is that, for the first time, Social Security and Medicare would be mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and thereby made de facto constitutional.

Don't let them even TRY this.

That is all.

[Kathianne]

I may have read his pov if he'd gotten to it in under 5 sentences. He didn't, so I didn't read.

So I'll say mine. Exempt from taxes on federal level, (I'd say state level, but the fight is too big), for those making less than $20k single; $30k married; $40k married with more than spouse.

With that exemption, tax with caps on percentages consumption. When one reaches 10% of salary in taxes, cut it off.

Bottom line, I see the benefits in eliminating all fed taxes, but consumptive. But have a real problem with the poor, working poor, and barely making it middle class. When 100% of salary is spent on food, housing, clothing, it's a total tax. Now that accounts for maybe 20% of citizenry? Pulling % out of my head.

It's unfair that a single someone making $18k a year, that spends 100% of salary on food, rent, clothes with no savings pays all of the tax.

Same single making $60k can save $35k after rent, food, etc.

Going to have to find a marriage here between progressive and regressive.

[DragonStryk72]

Oh good, another thread referencing the State Rate plan.

Did anyone read it? I need another "property in their labor" reference for my forum pool.

Yeah, well, he pussied out of the other thread so you knew it couldn't be long before he was running up the bill again on it. I just couldn't bring myself to read through it all again.

[SpidermanTUba]

.



Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if Chuck Schumer had to return home with a bill in hand to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he was proud to announce the American Taxpayer did not care about! I suspect Schumer’s political career would come to an immediate and painful end.
JWK


Man did you fail math or something? A tax apportioned by population means each citizen will share a roughly equal burden. New Yorkers, having the 15th highest per capita income in the nation, would have less trouble paying that tax than everyone but residents in 14 other states. You're a fucking moron .

[fj1200]

I may have read his pov if he'd gotten to it in under 5 sentences. He didn't, so I didn't read.

That's probably best :laugh: but believe it or not he wasn't railing against the evils of the FairTax this time.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Picture for a moment the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature if Chuck Schumer had to return home with a bill in hand to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit which Schumer helped to create with his teeny, tiny pork barrel earmarks which he was proud to announce the American Taxpayer did not care about! I suspect Schumer’s political career would come to an immediate and painful end.
JWK




Man did you fail math or something? A tax apportioned by population means each citizen will share a roughly equal burden. New Yorkers, having the 15th highest per capita income in the nation, would have less trouble paying that tax than everyone but residents in 14 other states. You're a fucking moron .

I see you have a problem with equal taxation.

You are correct that the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax so that if it were collected directly from each citizen and I paid one dollar, you too, pal, would pay one dollar. What a novel idea, equal taxation!

However, our wise founding fathers decided each state ought to be first sent a bill to pay their fair share, allowing each state to raise its share in its own chosen way. But if any state neglected to meet its obligation, then Congress was to send forth its officers to collect the state’s share.


But I do know socialists and “progressives” who disagree with our Constitution’s fair share formula are intent on denying to the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share under their progressive income tax their constitutionally guaranteed representation in Congress proportionately equal to their financial contribution. By contrast, the lovers of income taxation are very quick to demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes time to spend from the federal treasury.

So tell us, are you a progressive socialist?

And just for the record, here is our founders thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink)


PINCKNEY:



With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink)

And if there is any question as to why a fair share formula, (the rule of apportionment) was put into our Constitution and tied taxation and representation by the same standard (each state’s population size) Mr. PENDLETON says the following during the ratification debates:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52)


JWK

[DragonStryk72]

I see you have a problem with equal taxation.

You are correct that the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax so that if it were collected directly from each citizen and I paid one dollar, you too, pal, would pay one dollar. What a novel idea, equal taxation!



Actually, that isn't equal, and let me tell you why. Here in NY, I rent a $700 1 bedroom, in a semi-decent neighborhood, and it's on the bus line. It's actually a part of a larger house, with the porched entrance as my front door. There's basically three rooms, a tiny bathroom, a small kitchen that doesn't even have enough space for a table, a small mainspace/living room, a small bedroom, and the porch.

Now, my friend Sarah also rents for $700 dollars a month, but it's a 3-bedroom apartment (not simply a part of someone else's house), with 2 baths, walk-in closets (note the plural), a balcony, medium sized-living room, a dining room, and a large kitchen.. The bedrooms consist of one master and two regular bedroom, with the master having one of the 2 bathrooms to itself. All this, and its located in a good neighborhood, and it's on a busline.

Cost of living matters, but your supposedly equal taxation doesn't begin to take that into account. It is also needlessly complicated on a grand scale, which is why our wise founders didn't employ it.

Spidey, stop poking him. He doesn't care what you're saying, and that's not me making shit up, he's literally said as much in another thread. He's just here to spout the same tired crap about trying to force a tax even our founders ended up not wanting. And he'd rather let us bury ourselves with the current system than try anything else that might work

[johnwk]

I see you have a problem with equal taxation.


Actually, that isn't equal, and let me tell you why. Here in NY,


Then move the fuck out of New York like I did and take your business with you and let the socialists in New York die on the vine. You fucken dimwit!

JWK

[DragonStryk72]

I see you have a problem with equal taxation.




Then move the fuck out of New York like I did and take your business with you and let the socialists in New York die on the vine. You fucken dimwit!

JWK

says the "man" who can't spell fucking right, or even properly as fuckin' for the slang form? Thank you for showing your true colors once more, as you continue to troll the boards, casting more and more people against you, and your plan to bankrupt a large section of the populace.

So maybe you can answer this: If I'm broke because of your tax running me into the ground, how precisely am I supposed to move?

And Oh yeah, here's a thought for sheer abuse: What's to stop the rich folks (You know, the ones who can buy up large sections of land), from beating your system by just holing up in the low pop density states, and just buying up empty property to keep people from developing it?

You jump up and down on here like a child, and you will never appear as anything more than that until you can actually debate or discuss with someone. I doubt you have the moral courage for it.

[johnwk]

So maybe you can answer this: If I'm broke because of your tax running me into the ground, how precisely am I supposed to move?

And Oh yeah, here's a thought for sheer abuse: What's to stop the rich folks (You know, the ones who can buy up large sections of land), from beating your system by just holing up in the low pop density states, and just buying up empty property to keep people from developing it?


Oh poor you. Get a freaken job or walk to another state you lazy prick and stop with the class warfare shit.





You jump up and down on here like a child, and you will never appear as anything more than that until you can actually debate or discuss with someone. I doubt you have the moral courage for it.

Debate with a fool like you who posts bullshit and makes crap up? You recently wrote:
Cost of living matters, but your supposedly equal taxation doesn't begin to take that into account. It is also needlessly complicated on a grand scale, which is why our wise founders didn't employ it.

First of all dimwit, it’s part of our Constitution. In addition, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about when you say …our wise founders didn't employ it

Here is the rundown pal:

The Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

The Act of Aug. 2, 1813, c. 37, 3 id. 53. By this act the tax was imposed upon real estate and slaves, according to their respective values in money.

The Act of Jan. 19, 1815, c. 21, id. 164. This act imposed the tax upon the same descriptions of property, and in like manner as the preceding act.

The Act of Feb. 27, 1815, c. 60, id. 216, applied to the District of Columbia the provisions of the Act of Jan. 19, 1815.

The Act of March 5, 1816, c. 24, id. 255, repealed the two preceding acts, and reenacted their provisions to enforce the collection of the smaller amount of tax thereby prescribed.

The Act of Aug. 5, 1861, c. 45, 12 id. 294, required the tax to be levied wholly on real estate.

The Act of June 7, 1862, c. 98, id. 422, and the Act of Feb. 6, 1863, c. 21, id. 640, both relate only to the collection, in insurrectionary districts, of the direct tax imposed by the Act of Aug. 5, 1861,


Now, go blow yourself you fucken dimwit.

[johnwk]

Cost of living matters, but your supposedly equal taxation doesn't begin to take that into account.

You lazy piece of shit. You’re too good to contribute an equal share? I don’t give a fuck if your rich or poor, or where the fuck you live and how much rent you pay. Not my business. What is my business is you need to pay and equal share in the cost of government.

There was a time in our country when even the unemployed were expected and required to contribute their fair share in meeting the expenses of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.


JWK


Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay taxes so he can spread their wealth, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

[DragonStryk72]

You lazy piece of shit. You’re too good to contribute an equal share? I don’t give a fuck if your rich or poor, or where the fuck you live and how much rent you pay. Not my business. What is my business is you need to pay and equal share in the cost of government.

There was a time in our country when even the unemployed were expected and required to contribute their fair share in meeting the expenses of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.


JWK


Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay taxes so he can spread their wealth, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

Fair share? So it's FAIR for New Yorkers to pay a larger share than anyone else in the nation? Man do we have different definitions of that word. I think I'll have to ask a fellow New Yorker. Hey Jim, how do you feel about paying more in taxes than anyone else in the country simply based upon you being a New Yorker? Me, that doesn't sit well, and hell, I'm up in Albany at this point. I can only imagine the pure hell this tax would unleash down in the city, where it's 2-3x more expensive to live. Oh yeah, and where's one of our main national economic centers? Oh right, so there's likely a bunch of people who simply can't move, and it's not like high taxes ever have a negative impact on the economy.

And again with the personal attacks. Do you really think you're winning anyone here with that? Are your convictions so weak that this is all you can do, act like more and more of a histrionic child?

[DragonStryk72]

johnwk said:
You just don’t get it do you? I’m not interested in commenting on your editorial opinions.

This tells me, and everyone else on this board everything we need to know about you. You're not here to talk, you're here to show yourself how much "smarter" you are, and to look down your nose at us. You don't come across as intelligent man, you come across as throwing a screaming hissy-fit.

[johnwk]

Fair share? So it's FAIR for New Yorkers to pay a larger share than anyone else in the nation? Man do we have different definitions of that word. I think I'll have to ask a fellow New Yorker. Hey Jim, how do you feel about paying more in taxes than anyone else in the country simply based upon you being a New Yorker? Me, that doesn't sit well, and hell, I'm up in Albany at this point. I can only imagine the pure hell this tax would unleash down in the city, where it's 2-3x more expensive to live. Oh yeah, and where's one of our main national economic centers? Oh right, so there's likely a bunch of people who simply can't move, and it's not like high taxes ever have a negative impact on the economy.


You freaken dimwit. The founder's direct tax boils down to an equal per capita tax so that if it were collected directly from each citizen and the people living in Idaho each paid one dollar, you too, living in New York would pay one dollar.


However, as I pointed out above, our wise founding fathers decided each state ought to be first sent a bill to pay their fair share, allowing each state to raise its share in its own chosen way. But if any state neglected to meet its obligation, then Congress was to send forth its officers to collect the state’s share.

[DragonStryk72]

You freaken dimwit. The founder's direct tax boils down to an equal per capita tax so that if it were collected directly from each citizen and the people living in Idaho each paid one dollar, you too, living in New York would pay one dollar.


However, as I pointed out above, our wise founding fathers decided each state ought to be first sent a bill to pay their fair share, allowing each state to raise its share in its own chosen way. But if any state neglected to meet its obligation, then Congress was to send forth its officers to collect the state’s share.

Now you can't spell freaking, either? Look, if you're going to take shots at my intellectual capacity, take the time to spell it correctly when you do it.

Our wise founding fathers also only had to deal with 13 colonies along one coastline, not an entire continent, plus Alaska and Hawaii. As well, our wise founding fathers also knew that it was not, and never would a permanent way of doing things. Being so wise, they understood that better methods of doing so would come along, just as they left the language placed for us to continue to amend the Constitution as needs be. As has been brought up before, the method you are proposing is needlessly complicated, and would be inaccurate as hell. Do you know how regularly we'd need to keep redoing the census just to make sure people weren't getting overcharged? And that doesn't even begin to account for the homeless population, most of which is transient, moving southward through the country when winter settles into the north. Then what happens to the 1 million people per year that legally immigrate to this country? What of the untold numbers per year that illegally immigrate? It's fair for me to pay for every illegal in NY? How gracious of you.

And again, you do not address the point I made about the cost of living differences in this country. In fact, you just don't give a shit. If 12,000,000 New Yorkers get screwed out of house and home because of this tax, they're "lazy shits" as you put it. Doesn't matter that they're stretched as it is, no. Either address the point or stop acting like you know what you're talking about. We are not in the 18th century anymore, and unless you're willing to discuss how today's tax system can be addressed, you're just wasting a colossal amount of time.

And as for your "road labor" we can't. Between the prison work contracts, and the union labor contracts, there is no place for us to start doing this work like you seem to think we should be able to. There's no way to do so legally without incurring massive debt on the state and federal levels for breach of contracts, thus dumping even more tax on me. Yeah, thanks a bunch.

[johnwk]

Now you can't spell freaking, either? .

You freaken hicks speak a different language than real New Yorkers.

[Kathianne]

You freaken hicks speak a different language than real New Yorkers.

youse a frekin joke. rally.

[johnwk]

And again, you do not address the point I made about the cost of living differences in this country. In fact, you just don't give a shit. If 12,000,000 New Yorkers get screwed out of house and home because of this tax, they're "lazy shits" as you put it. .

I did address your stupid point. Move the fuck out of New York just like I did and took my business with me. What you don’t give a “shit” about is your pinko Congressional Delegation which constantly uses its vote in Congress for socialist shit and increasing the national debt. And that is why you don’t like the direct tax because your Congressional Delegation would have to come home with a bill instead of pork. The cost of living in New York wouldn’t be so high if you wouldn’t vote pink communist into you state legislature. Learn to live in your own shit that you helped to create!

Socialists, “progressives”, and the friends of big government, especially in pinko states with large populations such as New York, California, Pennsylvania who have enormous voting strength in Congress are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury with a direct tax to extinguish a deficit created by your PROGRESSIVE CROWD (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/), you want to run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave you your one man one vote. Stop crying and learn to pay your equal share for the support of government.


JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay taxes so he can spread their wealth, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

[johnwk]

youse a frekin joke. rally.

Go blow your socialist friend.

[Kathianne]

Go blow your socialist friend.

LOL! You wouldn't know a socialist if they told you. You want change for your own reasons, which haven't a thing to do with what the original intent was, just your way of trying to sell the plan you favor.

I agree that tax codes need change and simplification, but your plan doesn't cut it. It won't happen, but you are boring in repetitiveness and in need of reality check. BTW, your personal attacks really need to stop, though some other moderator needs to step in now.

[DragonStryk72]

I did address your stupid point. Move the fuck out of New York just like I did and took my business with me. What you don’t give a “shit” about is your pinko Congressional Delegation which constantly uses its vote in Congress for socialist shit and increasing the national debt. And that is why you don’t like the direct tax because your Congressional Delegation would have to come home with a bill instead of pork. The cost of living in New York wouldn’t be so high if you wouldn’t vote pink communist into you state legislature. Learn to live in your own shit that you helped to create!

Socialists, “progressives”, and the friends of big government, especially in pinko states with large populations such as New York, California, Pennsylvania who have enormous voting strength in Congress are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury with a direct tax to extinguish a deficit created by your PROGRESSIVE CROWD (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/), you want to run and hide from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave you your one man one vote. Stop crying and learn to pay your equal share for the support of government.


so 12 million New Yorkers should all move out of New York for an outdated tax system that's clearly broken? It's great that you have a business, but what about us working stiffs? The ones who are barely making it here now between the taxes we already pay through withholding, and the higher cost of living here? Fuck us all? Way to provide for the general welfare there, john.

You bitch about "tyranny", but you'll tell me where I can and can't live all because it has to be your way. You'll decide I'm just lazy, as opposed to actually looking at it and going, "Hey, you know, maybe poor people can't afford to move".

Kathianne said it, you're a joke, and the sad fact is that you'll never see how much of one you are.

[fj1200]

And again with the personal attacks. Do you really think you're winning anyone here with that? Are your convictions so weak that this is all you can do, act like more and more of a histrionic child?

It appears you struck a nerve. :laugh:

[johnwk]

so 12 million New Yorkers should all move out of New York for an outdated tax system that's clearly broken? It's great that you have a business, but what about us working stiffs? The ones who are barely making it here now between the taxes we already pay through withholding, and the higher cost of living here? Fuck us all? Way to provide for the general welfare there, john.

You bitch about "tyranny", but you'll tell me where I can and can't live all because it has to be your way. You'll decide I'm just lazy, as opposed to actually looking at it and going, "Hey, you know, maybe poor people can't afford to move".

Kathianne said it, you're a joke, and the sad fact is that you'll never see how much of one you are.


I’m not telling you where to live shit head. But stop crying poor you about the cost of living in New York. You put the communist scumbags in your state government so live with the consequences, or, move the fuck out of New York. Stop complaining to me about the cost of living in New York because I expect you and the rest of your socialist scumbag friends in New York to pay an equal share of the cost of the federal government. It’s really very simple…if I have to pay one dollar, and my neighbor has to pay one dollar, you too have to pay one dollar and all the rest of your socialist pals in New York have to pay one dollar. Get it?


JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay taxes so he can spread their wealth, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

[DragonStryk72]

I’m not telling you where to live shit head. But stop crying poor you about the cost of living in New York. You put the communist scumbags in your state government so live with the consequences, or, move the fuck out of New York.


And what of the millions of people who cannot afford to move?! Answer this point.


You need to learn what socialist actually means. No, it does not mean "disagrees with you". No one here believes I am a socialist, and you repeating it ad nauseum is not making it mystically true, and it just makes you look like a lunatic. For the sake of your own argument, give it up on that word.

And I love how you apparently believe I am the king of NY, somehow. That I personally put into power every single person in this whole state, and therefore it is my fault alone that things are in the shape they're in here. It isn't as if there are more than 12,000,000 voters in the state, thus making me about .00000001% of the voting populace. Of course, it's all on me.

More dancing around the points, and still no real substance. More personal attacks too, though I must commend you that you at least managed to spell shithead correctly. That would make it a first. I still can't fathom why you haven't worked out the point that the insults aren't really doing anything other than making you look childish, but oh well, not really my concern.

Does it even occur to you that everyone votes for people they don't think are scumbags? That they think their candidate will change the way things are going for the better? Come on, I can't even imagine how far apart my vote and Gabs vote is, and we'll probably argue one another from now til judgment day, but she honestly believes the Democratic party line. I honestly believe that 99% of liberals out there are simply naive about the way things actually work in the world.

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay taxes so he can spread their wealth, but he does not force his beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.

Okay, look. I voted Libertarian in the last election. I've never supported Obama, and am not about to start. Clearly, however, you have no conceptual idea of what a tyrant is either, and no, Obama isn't. He's inept, certainly, but not a tyrant. Has he used mustard gas on you to test it? Has he had you dragged off quietly in the night for calling him a tyrant on? Has he restrained you in any way, shape, or form from speaking against him?

As well, I do pay income taxes, as do the rest of the 40%. Yes, we get a return each year, but it gets yanked from our paychecks regardless. In fact, I have to pay people to get my money back when the government takes too much.

To quote Penn & Teller "Words mean shit", and you need to learn what they mean.


;

[johnwk]

[bla, bla, and bla]

The bottom line with you pal is, you do not agree with everyone paying an equal tax to support the federal government if it spends more than is brought in from is normal revenue sources. You want someone else to carry your burden because the cost of living in New York is high. Move the fuck out of New York if you cant afford living there. I was born in East Harlem and busted my ass to get the fuck out of New York because I was tired of supporting freeloaders like you. The difference between us is, I do not expect others to pay my load, nor pay less than I pay for the government to protect my liberty. In a nutshell here is what I agree with:

Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___: Rep. Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=179)


JWK

[fj1200]

The bottom line with you pal is, you do not agree with everyone paying an equal tax to support the federal government if it spends more than is brought in from is normal revenue sources. You want someone else to carry your burden because the cost of living in New York is high. Move the fuck out of New York if you cant afford living there. I was born in East Harlem and busted my ass to get the fuck out of New York because I was tired of supporting freeloaders like you. The difference between us is, I do not expect others to pay my load, nor pay less than I pay for the government to protect my liberty. In a nutshell here is what I agree with:

NY is a tax donor state. Are you still in FL? That's a slight tax receiver state.

[DragonStryk72]

bla, bla, and bla
JWK

In other words, you don't care about the lives of millions, and have no actual defense. Can we get a mod to declare this one in win column for me? Whatta you think, fj? That pretty much checkmate?

[Kathianne]

In other words, you don't care about the lives of millions, and have no actual defense. Can we get a mod to declare this one in win column for me? Whatta you think, fj? That pretty much checkmate?

he's more than weak, that I'll give you. However, not a debate in formal sense, so fall short.

[johnwk]

NY is a tax donor state. Are you still in FL? That's a slight tax receiver state.

Well then, perhaps that is one of the reasons why I support our Constitution's direct tax method to deal with annual deficits and reject the fake balanced budget amendment which is being promoted. Do you not support equal taxation?

JWK

[johnwk]

In other words, you don't care about the lives of millions, and have no actual defense. Can we get a mod to declare this one in win column for me? Whatta you think, fj? That pretty much checkmate?

Oh, but I do care! And the people of New York have it within their power to remove from office the communists and socialists which cause their misery. But people like you always find someone else to blame for their misery. Get rid of the socialists in your State’s Legislature, get rid of the socialists you have in your local governments, and the cost of living in New York brought on by confiscatory taxation will immediately come down.

But getting back to the subject of the thread, are you a supporter of the fake balanced budget amendment?


JWK

[fj1200]

Well then, perhaps that is one of the reasons why I support our Constitution's direct tax method to deal with annual deficits and reject the fake balanced budget amendment which is being promoted. Do you not support equal taxation?

Equal rates? Yes (with a standard deduction to ensure some progressivity). Equal amount per capita? No. Mississippi does not have the same capacity to pay as does New York.

[fj1200]

In other words, you don't care about the lives of millions, and have no actual defense. Can we get a mod to declare this one in win column for me? Whatta you think, fj? That pretty much checkmate?

Well, you did get him to swear more than I thought possible. :laugh:

[johnwk]

Equal rates? Yes (with a standard deduction to ensure some progressivity). Equal amount per capita? No. Mississippi does not have the same capacity to pay as does New York.

Then maybe every member Mississippi sends to Congress ought to make certain Congress does not borrow to meet its expenses so the direct tax does not have to be imposed to extinguish an annual deficit. Oh, I forgot. Our progressive gang on Capitol Hill just loves to spend for their communist causes even when it requires borrowing. And that is why they hate the direct tax which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable when bringing home a bill instead of pork.


JWK

[fj1200]

Then maybe every member Mississippi sends to Congress ought to make certain Congress does not borrow to meet its expenses so the direct tax does not have to be imposed to extinguish an annual deficit. Oh, I forgot. Our progressive gang on Capitol Hill just loves to spend for their communist causes even when it requires borrowing. And that is why they hate the direct tax which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable when bringing home a bill instead of pork.

Are you aware of the relative Congressional representations of MS vs. NY? Perhaps you should first work to restore the original relationship of the Senate to state legislatures.

[DragonStryk72]

Oh, but I do care! And the people of New York have it within their power to remove from office the communists and socialists which cause their misery. But people like you always find someone else to blame for their misery. Get rid of the socialists in your State’s Legislature, get rid of the socialists you have in your local governments, and the cost of living in New York brought on by confiscatory taxation will immediately come down.

But getting back to the subject of the thread, are you a supporter of the fake balanced budget amendment?


JWK

Ah, evasion. Alright, fine, you've clearly given up the ghost. As for a real balanced budget amendment, it would be great, but Congress is never really going to limit its own spending. The check and balance would have to put the responsibility for enforcement of the balanced budget amendment in the hands of another branch of government, most likely the executive, so that a budget can simply be vetoed straight out, regardless of majority because it overspends the amount of money coming in.

This is another pass at trying to look like they're doing something, pretty much. I mean, with the economy right up there on everyone's minds, they have to make some sort of token effort so both parties can slam each other come election time.

[DragonStryk72]

Then maybe every member Mississippi sends to Congress ought to make certain Congress does not borrow to meet its expenses so the direct tax does not have to be imposed to extinguish an annual deficit. Oh, I forgot. Our progressive gang on Capitol Hill just loves to spend for their communist causes even when it requires borrowing. And that is why they hate the direct tax which would make every member of Congress immediately accountable when bringing home a bill instead of pork.


JWK

John, do you even know how voting works?! Tell me how Mississippi is going to somehow stop all the rest of Congress from doing anything? They can all cast vote in unison against bills, and still get screwed into the ground, because the other 500+ plus between House and Senate smacked them down.

Uh, actually, I don't think anyone on the Hill is even really discussing the direct tax you're talking about, much less hate it.

And here's a fun run: How do you stop Congress from altering the tax whichever way they like. Like, let's say CA and NY, who have far more representation in Congress than Miss., decide to shift things in their favor, and get enough votes to control the majority. What's stopping them?

[fj1200]

John, do you even know how voting works?!

I'm sure anything past the 1790's is a bit fuzzy.

[gabosaurus]

Since when do teabaggers listen to rational thought processes?

[DragonStryk72]

Since when do teabaggers listen to rational thought processes?

Is there a reason you decided to attack me personally when I've made not one comment about you in this whole thread?

[DragonStryk72]

I'm sure anything past the 1790's is a bit fuzzy.

see, that's what I don't get: They specifically put in the language to be able to amend and change precisely because of the need to change as time progressed. They knew that things would need to evolve, there were wise enough to understand that. They made the Bill of Rights separate from that amends process precisely so that nobody could take away the essential rights that are the foundations of our country.

So, why, on God's green earth would we completely forget that so we can use an outdated, and overly complicated tax system?

[johnwk]

They can all cast vote in unison against bills, and still get screwed into the ground, because the other 500+ plus between House and Senate smacked them down.



And then they have to bring home the bill!


BTW, the numbers are 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate, and all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House.

[johnwk]

Ah, evasion. Alright, .



There was no evasion asshole. I answered your fucken question. Get rid of the socialists in your state government and those you elect to Congress. And, then get a freaken job, or two if you need to, and stop blaming your shit on everyone else.

JWK

[gabosaurus]

Is there a reason you decided to attack me personally when I've made not one comment about you in this whole thread?

How was I attacking you personally? It was just a random, general comment. Chill out. :)

[gabosaurus]

There was no evasion asshole. I answered your fucken question. Get rid of the socialists in your state government and those you elect to Congress. And, then get a freaken job, or two if you need to, and stop blaming your shit on everyone else.


http://i56.tinypic.com/ok7wgh.jpg

[DragonStryk72]

How was I attacking you personally? It was just a random, general comment. Chill out. :)

So, you often run into a room with black people in it and shout nigger? I'm in the Tea Party, you insulted me directly. If you want to be treated with respect, then you need to learn to show some. If there are particular people you have a problem with, then deal with them directly, and leave the general slurs out.

[DragonStryk72]

And then they have to bring home the bill!


BTW, the numbers are 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate, and all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House.

Okay, so total votes against can still be 500+, hence my numbering of it.

[DragonStryk72]

There was no evasion asshole. I answered your fucken question. Get rid of the socialists in your state government and those you elect to Congress. And, then get a freaken job, or two if you need to, and stop blaming your shit on everyone else.

JWK

Excuse me, I am not blaming everyone else. I'm blaming the clear and obvious hole in your proposed tax system. A second job? seriously? Are you just not paying attention to the way things are going up here? Oh wait, it's the "I don't give a shit". You can say you do, but all evidence from your posts speaks to exactly the opposite.

Technically, I have two jobs now. I have my regular job I go to, and then I wake up at 3:30 am on the days off that I have during the week to walk down to Labor Ready so that I can possibly get some hard labor work I'll get seriously underpaid for. I work seven days a week right now. So, where's that other job gonna fit in?

You also evaded my point on the recurring census needs to keep the per capita figures accurate, otherwise you're going to shaft a lot of people more than you already will. You admit that you can't stop the Congress from fucking with your tax system at all, which means we'll be right back where we were soon enough.

And another evasion: Tell me how Mississippi is going to somehow stop all the rest of Congress from doing anything?

I also see we've gone back to mis-spelled swear words. Oh well.

[gabosaurus]

So, you often run into a room with black people in it and shout nigger? I'm in the Tea Party, you insulted me directly. If you want to be treated with respect, then you need to learn to show some. If there are particular people you have a problem with, then deal with them directly, and leave the general slurs out.

Do get over yourself. Why should I respect a member of a lunatic fringe group?

[DragonStryk72]

Do get over yourself. Why should I respect a member of a lunatic fringe group?

Really? So then, I should feel totally free and justified in treating you as the worst possible example of any group you belong to? And I should judge all others by that same measuring stick? Because that is what you're saying here.

Wanting less government does not make me a lunatic any more than it made our Founders lunatics. And give the millions of people in the Tea Party, they aren't a "fringe" group, clearly.

[gabosaurus]

Lady Gaga has 10 million followers on Twitter and Facebook. She has as much chance of being elected President as any teabagger.

[jimnyc]

Lady Gaga has 10 million followers on Twitter and Facebook. She has as much chance of being elected President as any teabagger.

A woman continually using the term "teabagger" as a way to name call or refer to other people is tasteless and a turn off and a half. Not to mention not very "lady like". I highly doubt that the other women on this board who agree with the principles of the tea party organization would continually use terms such as that.

[fj1200]

Lady Gaga has 10 million followers on Twitter and Facebook. She has as much chance of being elected President as any teabagger.

:laugh:

[johnwk]

Excuse me, I am not blaming everyone else. I'm blaming the clear and obvious hole in your proposed tax system. A second job? seriously? Are you just not paying attention to the way things are going up here? Oh wait, it's the "I don't give a shit". You can say you do, but all evidence from your posts speaks to exactly the opposite.

Technically, I have two jobs now. I have my regular job I go to, and then I wake up at 3:30 am on the days off that I have during the week to walk down to Labor Ready so that I can possibly get some hard labor work I'll get seriously underpaid for. I work seven days a week right now. So, where's that other job gonna fit in?

You also evaded my point on the recurring census needs to keep the per capita figures accurate, otherwise you're going to shaft a lot of people more than you already will. You admit that you can't stop the Congress from fucking with your tax system at all, which means we'll be right back where we were soon enough.

And another evasion: Tell me how Mississippi is going to somehow stop all the rest of Congress from doing anything?

I also see we've gone back to mis-spelled swear words. Oh well.

Look Dragon, I’m going to try this one more time with you. First of all it is not my tax proposal. The apportioned direct tax is part of the great compromise which made our Constitution possible. Our founders, unlike the scumbags now in Washington, never intended for Congress to tax the people directly, and especially not on the sale of the property which you have in your labor. They intended for Congress to raise its revenue from taxes at our water’s edge, such as a non discriminatory tonnage tax on imports. But if that source were found insufficient, Congress was to go to internal taxes and tax specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury and not the necessities of life which would be an oppressive tax upon the poor. But if an emergency occurred and Congress found it absolutely necessary to borrow to meet its expenses, then, and only then, was the direct tax to be used and each state’s share of a total sum being raised was to be apportioned just as each state’s number of representatives are apportioned … representation with proportional obligation! I believe the principle of apportionment is sound whenever a direct tax is laid, and turns out to be an equal per capita tax, meaning, if the tax is laid directly upon the people, and a person living in Idaho pays one dollar, you too living in New York would likewise pay one dollar. However, our founders intended for each state to raise its share in its own chosen way.

But now, let us get to the nitty-gritty. We all know how Congress wastes our money. And you should know better than I how Chucky Boy Schumer, Jerry Nadler and some of your other Congressional Delegation members squander your tax dollars. Now, be honest. What do you think would happened if these two had to bring home a bill in hand for your State’s Governor and Legislatures to deal with to extinguish a deficit created by Schumer and Nadler because they could not live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption? Do you not think Tea Party events would turn into TAR AND FEATER PARTIES (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) and Schumer and Nadler would be dealt with in an appropriate manner? What the founder’s direct tax does is create a very real moment of accountability and encourages members of Congress to spend less to avoid the direct tax.

Now, try to put aside your personal situation and circumstances and look at the big picture, and then tell me whether or not our founder’s direct tax has merit.

JWK

[fj1200]

... and especially not on the sale of the property which you have in your labor.

:laugh:


Now, try to put aside your personal situation and circumstances and look at the big picture, and then tell me whether or not our founder’s direct tax has merit.

One could turn that around on you.

[DragonStryk72]

if the tax is laid directly upon the people, and a person living in Idaho pays one dollar, you too living in New York would likewise pay one dollar. And as has been said to you a number of times, the Cost of Living in NY is 2-3x higher than the cost of living in Idaho. Let's say Idaho has $100, $25 of which is their budget for expenses, and the tax is $50 dollars. They would be fine. However, in NY it would be $50-$75 in expenses, so that $50 either leaves them just broke enough to never get ahead, OR it grinds them into the dirt. It is simple basic math, john.
But now, let us get to the nitty-gritty. We all know how Congress wastes our money. And you should know better than I how Chucky Boy Schumer, Jerry Nadler and some of your other Congressional Delegation members squander your tax dollars. Now, be honest. What do you think would happened if these two had to bring home a bill in hand for your State’s Governor and Legislatures to deal with to extinguish a deficit created by Schumer and Nadler because they could not live within the revenue brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption?

Do you not think Tea Party events would turn into TAR AND FEATER PARTIES (http://www.imageenvision.com/illustration/1775-the-bostonians-paying-the-exciseman-or-tarring-and-feathering-by-jvpd) and Schumer and Nadler would be dealt with in an appropriate manner?

Nope, not even for a second. They can vote against the measure, and point out to their constituency that they were against it, and pass blame on the rest of Congress. They can blame the unfair, and needlessly complicated system of taxes that is done 50 different ways in 50 different states. If located in a high CoL state, they can use the fact that people who pay only a quarter of the rents, bills, and other expenses that they do are still paying the exact same amount of money, while they are being bankrupted, and essentially forced into indenture by the tax. Do I need to go on with plausible excuses?

What the founder’s direct tax does is create a very real moment of accountability and encourages members of Congress to spend less to avoid the direct tax, [COLOR="blue"]but pretty much annihilates the working poor in states such as NY, CA, and FL, where the Cost of Living is high enough already. You still won't answer the simple point of what happens to the people who cannot afford to move? You've just made it so they also cannot afford to stay.

You also skipped similar clear holes when I asked how many census runs we would have to do to keep the per capita amounts accurate/COLOR]

Now, try to put aside your personal situation and circumstances and look at the big picture, and then tell me whether or not our founder’s direct tax has merit.

JWK

I am, I am looking at the lives of the millions like me, and those who are in even worse straits. Do you really think we're all just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses? No, people here are taking underpaying, underworking jobs, get two or three at a time, just to eke it out, and you're proposing a scheme that would cuts tens of millions off at the knees.

It had merit, back when that was considered an efficient way to do things, and we had only 13 states occupying a single coast line with a federal government that only convened on an as needed basis, and no year-round professional military. It does not have merit, because now it would far too complicated, and unfairly disadvantage those who committed the apparent sin of living in our most well-populated states.

The system fails on all shots of basic logic at it.

[DragonStryk72]

Lady Gaga has 10 million followers on Twitter and Facebook. She has as much chance of being elected President as any teabagger.

Gabs, seriously, grow up. Instead of simply realizing that you're severely prejudiced, you just throw the word down again.

[johnwk]

I am, I am looking at the lives of the millions like me, and those who are in even worse straits. Do you really think we're all just sitting around with our thumbs up our asses? No, people here are taking underpaying, underworking jobs, get two or three at a time, just to eke it out, and you're proposing a scheme that would cuts tens of millions off at the knees.

It had merit, back when that was considered an efficient way to do things, and we had only 13 states occupying a single coast line with a federal government that only convened on an as needed basis, and no year-round professional military. It does not have merit, because now it would far too complicated, and unfairly disadvantage those who committed the apparent sin of living in our most well-populated states.

The system fails on all shots of basic logic at it.


Well, I tried to re-start the conversation, and I see you have no intention to restrain socialists elected to government. In addition, you still want your apportioned number of representatives in Congress when spending from the federal treasury so your socialist pals Schumer and Nadler can impose their socialist agenda with their large representation in Congress. But you are unwilling to pay your apportioned share into the federal treasury to extinguish a deficit created by you socialist pals in Congress. That representation with proportional obligation thing does not sit well with you.


And so, my answer to you is ... go fuck yourself. I knew plenty of your kind while I lived in New York, and I made the right decision to move the fuck out of your socialist scum hole and move my business with me. As far as I'm concerned, your kind can rot on the vine. You deserve New York just like your socialist pals on the left coast deserve California's elected government. Hopefully you and your pals will starve to death which would help thin the ranks of your socialist thieving crowd.

JWK



There is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor are nothing more than sissy thieves, too chicken livered to confront their neighbor face to face and forcefully take what they want. This is the sum of our progressive gang … a bunch of punk ass whiners, incapable of doing anything productive for themselves.

[LuvRPgrl]

Lady Gaga has 10 million followers on Twitter and Facebook. She has as much chance of being elected President as any teabagger.

At least she would be an improvement over Obama

[gabosaurus]

It's just a word, people. If you didn't have a dirty mind, you would merely think "teabaggers" were a bunch of people who like to drink tea.

My daughter thinks the Tea Party is a group of people who serve tea at their parties. Which is what a 9-year-old should think. :)

[johnwk]

At least she would be an improvement over Obama

A-freaken-men!

JWK

[DragonStryk72]

It's just a word, people. If you didn't have a dirty mind, you would merely think "teabaggers" were a bunch of people who like to drink tea.

Well, if it is just a word, then why are you using it, especially if you meant it how you say in that quote? Are you implying that anyone who drinks tea should not be in office? Strictly speaking, you're still insulting me, because I'm a major sweet tea drinker. But, no this is not how you meant. The context was one of an insult, and you're just trying to wiggle out of it now.

You specifically use it as an insult because you take it to mean something insulting. So, on top of having a dirty mind yourself, you also are hypocritical, getting riled because someone took insult at you insulting them.

To re-quote Penn & Teller "Words mean shit!"

[DragonStryk72]

Well, I tried to re-start the conversation, and I see you have no intention to restrain socialists elected to government. In addition, you still want your apportioned number of representatives in Congress when spending from the federal treasury so your socialist pals Schumer and Nadler can impose their socialist agenda with their large representation in Congress. But you are unwilling to pay your apportioned share into the federal treasury to extinguish a deficit created by you socialist pals in Congress. That representation with proportional obligation thing does not sit well with you.


And so, my answer to you is ... go fuck yourself. I knew plenty of your kind while I lived in New York, and I made the right decision to move the fuck out of your socialist scum hole and move my business with me. As far as I'm concerned, your kind can rot on the vine. You deserve New York just like your socialist pals on the left coast deserve California's elected government. Hopefully you and your pals will starve to death which would help thin the ranks of your socialist thieving crowd.

JWK



There is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery. Those who use and rely upon government force to gain possession of the product of their neighbor’s labor are nothing more than sissy thieves, too chicken livered to confront their neighbor face to face and forcefully take what they want. This is the sum of our progressive gang … a bunch of punk ass whiners, incapable of doing anything productive for themselves.

And see this up here, this is why you will never get anywhere with this. "Go fuck yourself" follow by another childish rant. You didn't answer a single point I raised, you just throw in with more trolling. That's all you ever do. Then you say the same thing again, like clearly I didn't understand, but I do. You don't give a shit about the millions who would be destroyed financially for that tax system.

[johnwk]

And see this up here, this is why you will never get anywhere with this. "Go fuck yourself" follow by another childish rant. You didn't answer a single point I raised, you just throw in with more trolling. That's all you ever do. Then you say the same thing again, like clearly I didn't understand, but I do. You don't give a shit about the millions who would be destroyed financially for that tax system.


I don’t waste my time trying to answer “Why is the sky blue daddy?”. Anyone who supports the progressive fairtax simply does not know how to think. All you see is the IRS will be closed down. You don’t see what comes in its place. You’re a stupid none thinking socialist fuck and are part of our nation’s problem.

[fj1200]

That representation with proportional obligation thing does not sit well with you.

So no response to poor states not being able to afford the tax bill you'd like to send them then?

[fj1200]

Anyone who supports the progressive fairtax simply does not know how to think. All you see is the IRS will be closed down. You don’t see what comes in its place.

The FT was a whole different thread... or don't you realize you made a clusterF of your argument there as well.

[DragonStryk72]

I don’t waste my time trying to answer “Why is the sky blue daddy?”. Anyone who supports the progressive fairtax simply does not know how to think. All you see is the IRS will be closed down. You don’t see what comes in its place. You’re a stupid none thinking socialist fuck and are part of our nation’s problem.

Right, like I said, more trolling, no real answers. You can pontificate all you want, you just look more and more foolish as you continue, just like you have in every other thread you gone through on this subject. You dismiss automatically everyone who disagrees with you, lob insults, and act as though you're just too good for honest debate.

Btw, it's "non-thinking" not none thinking, and you still haven't defined socialist for me, so until you show that you even understand what that word means, that's not even a slander I care about. And really, is it just too hard for you to insult my intelligence with proper spelling and grammar? Am I asking for the stars here? I don't think so.

[johnwk]

So no response to poor states not being able to afford the tax bill you'd like to send them then?

The response has been made you ignoramus. Maybe the people living in the "poor" states who now use their Congressional Delegation to create deficits to send them welfare checks will instruct their Congressional Delegation to stop creating deficits so the apportioned tax wont be laid. Another option is to move the fuck out of a "poor” state.

[DragonStryk72]

The response has been made you ignoramus. Maybe the people living in the "poor" states who now use their Congressional Delegation to create deficits to send them welfare checks will instruct their Congressional Delegation to stop creating deficits so the apportioned tax wont be laid. Another option is to move the fuck out of a "poor” state.

Ooh, fj must be special. He actually got a properly spelled insult.

[fj1200]

The response has been made you ignoramus. Maybe the people living in the "poor" states who now use their Congressional Delegation to create deficits to send them welfare checks will instruct their Congressional Delegation to stop creating deficits so the apportioned tax wont be laid. Another option is to move the fuck out of a "poor” state.

I'm sorry I should have clarified, I was looking for an intelligent response. Some of the people need to move out of the poor states and different people need to move out of the rich states. Seems your tax plan is merely musical states.


Ooh, fj must be special. He actually got a properly spelled insult.

:laugh: