Read my lips Herman Cain. No new sales tax!

[johnwk]

I am quite confident if you want someone to save the country, that person would not be one who proposes to put another tax on the menu for Congress to fatten itself with, a nine percent national sales tax, in addition to taxing corporate profits and the wages working people earn. Our founding fathers would never have tolerated the gouging of America’s businesses and working people in such an extraordinary manner to fund the expenses of Congress. Indeed, those familiar with our Constitution’s original tax plan, will testify to this fact.

And in reference to a “national sales tax” which I might add defies our Constitution’s rule of apportionment, and goes as far as taxing every necessity of life a working person buys, it is only self evident that such a tax is the darling of depots and political schemers who dream of a tax which may constantly be increased in such small increments, say a quarter of a percent at a time and would avoid significant outcry, that the proverbial frog will eventually be cooked before attempting its escape.

And yet, that quarter of a percent will cleverly drain billions upon billions of dollars from the American People’s pockets, which will then be used to grow the beast which our founding fathers intended to be the people’s servant and not their master.

There is but one tax reform needed to control the beast in Washington and that is to add the following 32 words to our Constitution, which would bring us back to our Constitution’s original tax plan that paved the way for a free market system to work, and helped America to become the economic marvel of the world, when it was followed!

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[Psychoblues]

Just how do YOU propose to pay the salaries of our politicos and their staffs, the roads, all sorts of public safety mechanisms and personnel, etc. etc.? This is the USA, the greatest country in the world and it didn't get that way by allowing a despotic government to undermine it's original constitution or robbing it's citizens of their hard earned dollars. That is a myth spread about by fearmongers, parrots of the rightwing and those that would become despots right here in our homeland.

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

Just how do YOU propose to pay the salaries of our politicos and their staffs, the roads, all sorts of public safety mechanisms and personnel, etc. etc.? This is the USA, the greatest country in the world and it didn't get that way by allowing a despotic government to undermine it's original constitution or robbing it's citizens of their hard earned dollars. That is a myth spread about by fearmongers, parrots of the rightwing and those that would become despots right here in our homeland.

Psychoblues

Oh god, PB, why the hell would you ask him that? Come one, man, he's had like 20 thread about his circa 1783 tax system that doesn't work. Now we'll have to have another round "A man in his labor" and all that. Me an fj worked really hard to get him to shut up, and it's been working so well the past few months

[logroller]

No taxes eh? That just isn't realistic-- not now, not ever.

[johnwk]

Just how do YOU propose to pay the salaries of our politicos and their staffs, the roads, all sorts of public safety mechanisms and personnel, etc. etc.? This is the USA, the greatest country in the world and it didn't get that way by allowing a despotic government to undermine it's original constitution or robbing it's citizens of their hard earned dollars. That is a myth spread about by fearmongers, parrots of the rightwing and those that would become despots right here in our homeland.Psychoblues

Our founding fathers agreed by the adoption of our Constitution that if Congress was unable to raise sufficient revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes laid upon “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury, all of which were intended to be Congress' primary means of raising a federal revenue, then and only then was Congress intended to lay and collect a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum to make up the shortfall or deficit. However, to prevent abuse of this direct taxing power, and especially an evil of “democracy” in which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax the property away from the remaining 49 percent of the population, our founders thoughtfully established a fair share formula which tied this tax and representation in Congress by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by each State’s population size! The two agree upon FAIR SHARE formulas being:

FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES

State`s Pop.

___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.

U.S. pop.

FAIR SHARE OF ANY GENERAL TAX AMONG THE STATES

State`s Pop.

_________ X deficit or shortfall = STATE`S SHARE

U.S. pop.

In fact, the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax is laid directly upon the people! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress to extinguish an annual defict, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were divided evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California is compensated by the Constitution with a larger representation in Congress which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and gives California a greater say in how federal revenue is spent!

But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves an explain the rule of apportionment!

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“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 see:“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)

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to cure an evil of democracy, and insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share of any general tax laid among the States to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], 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)

Also 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) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Like I said: Herman Cain, read my lips. No new sales tax!

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[Psychoblues]

Oh god, PB, why the hell would you ask him that? Come one, man, he's had like 20 thread about his circa 1783 tax system that doesn't work. Now we'll have to have another round "A man in his labor" and all that. Me an fj worked really hard to get him to shut up, and it's been working so well the past few months

Thanks for heads up, DS72. Based on what he wrote above and below I think I'll just allow him to remain miserable paying taxes on his own. I've got enough misery in that regard already. I just hate it that he has to pay taxes.

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

Thanks for heads up, DS72. Based on what he wrote above and below I think I'll just allow him to remain miserable paying taxes on his own. I've got enough misery in that regard already. I just hate it that he has to pay taxes.

Psychoblues

You see? You see what you've started?

[DragonStryk72]

Our founding fathers agreed by the adoption of our Constitution that if Congress was unable to raise sufficient revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and from excise taxes laid upon “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, preferably articles of luxury, all of which were intended to be Congress' primary means of raising a federal revenue, then and only then was Congress intended to lay and collect a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum to make up the shortfall or deficit. However, to prevent abuse of this direct taxing power, and especially an evil of “democracy” in which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax the property away from the remaining 49 percent of the population, our founders thoughtfully established a fair share formula which tied this tax and representation in Congress by the same standard ___ each to be apportioned by each State’s population size! The two agree upon FAIR SHARE formulas being:

FAIR SHARE OF EACH STATE’S REPRESENTATIVES

State`s Pop.

___________ X House size (435) = State`s No.of Reps.

U.S. pop.

FAIR SHARE OF ANY GENERAL TAX AMONG THE STATES

State`s Pop.

_________ X deficit or shortfall = STATE`S SHARE

U.S. pop.

In fact, the tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax is laid directly upon the people! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress to extinguish an annual defict, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were divided evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of California’s larger population, California is compensated by the Constitution with a larger representation in Congress which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and gives California a greater say in how federal revenue is spent!

But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves an explain the rule of apportionment!

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“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 see:“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)

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to cure an evil of democracy, and insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share of any general tax laid among the States to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], 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)

Also 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) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Like I said: Herman Cain, read my lips. No new sales tax!

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Again we come to the Everyone pays exactly the same amount problem. So again, what about the poor people who are barely scraping it now? Harding work folk (Don't you dare pull that lazy argument, jwk. Seriously, it doesn't and has never worked) who just aren't making enough to support themselves AND pay this tax? I'll tell you: they get the pleasure of working for the government to get by, and damn them for wanting life, or the pursuit of happiness, this government needs their money.

you know what, though? You're too much of an intellectual coward to answer me and fj's previous problems with your proposed tax, so here's the way it'll work: When you show enough spine to go ahead and answer all of the points we've raised in your previous threads about this- VERBATIM, not a re-interpretation- then we can move forward with a debate. But until then, just go back to the way we enjoyed you- quiet, and not posting.

[red states rule]

Just how do YOU propose to pay the salaries of our politicos and their staffs, the roads, all sorts of public safety mechanisms and personnel, etc. etc.? This is the USA, the greatest country in the world and it didn't get that way by allowing a despotic government to undermine it's original constitution or robbing it's citizens of their hard earned dollars. That is a myth spread about by fearmongers, parrots of the rightwing and those that would become despots right here in our homeland.

Psychoblues

What are you so upset about PB? Did your state raise the liquor tax on you? Are you saying we are UNDERTAXED in America?

[johnwk]

Again we come to the Everyone pays exactly the same amount problem. So again, what about the poor people who are barely scraping it now? .

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.

And yet, here we are today with countless factions seeking to manipulate taxation so as to relieve their identifiable group from its burden, while creating various other groups upon who the burden is placed. And it is well worth to note that in many instances, those who do not share in financing the government are actually rewarded and allowed to feed from the public trough. How sad and discouraging it is to hear the cries and well rehearsed arguments and excuses of those who today support and promote such tyranny. A tyranny under which the force of government is used to transfer the property of one group of citizens to another, which is carried out under the cloak of taxation. But keep in mind, there is no magic wand in the force of government which changes the definition of theft!

And exactly what was our founding father’s thinking concerning the most fundamental purpose of government? Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=179) sums it up as follows:

"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."

But getting back to Herman Cain’s proposal, keep in mind it would lay a 9 percent tax upon corporate profits, a 9 percent tax upon incomes which includes taxing the wage which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor, and he would create a whole new tax, a 9 percent tax “national sales tax” which would tax the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter months, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then our beloved Herman Cain would tax the coffin used to bury her child because she simply could not afford his national sales tax on every imaginable necessity of life in addition to Mr. Cain taxing the bread she earns when selling the property she has in her labor! [/I][/b]

. In any event, it’s nice to know you are more interested in feeding the beast in Washington with a brand new tax, a national sales tax, in addition to keeping alive taxes on income and wages, than working to put our folks in Washington on a diet.

JWK

Read my lips Herman Cain. No new sales tax unless it is apportioned among the States

[Psychoblues]

What are you so upset about PB? Did your state raise the liquor tax on you? Are you saying we are UNDERTAXED in America?

Well, so much for the intelligence of the slop jawed pigboy on board. I could neg you for that bullshit but I won't as I have never negged you for such. You exercise the only pitiful strengths that you have, pigboy, and keep your guard up. You never know when it might get nasty on the board!!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

With the exemption of RSR's swipe at Pb, seems nearly all agree that the OP was off base for most Americans, right and left. How about we build from there?

[Psychoblues]

With the exemption of RSR's swipe at Pb, seems nearly all agree that the OP was off base for most Americans, right and left. How about we build from there?

I'm game for that, Kath. How about we look at genuine and realistic tax policy considerations? We will always disagree as to how much and to whom it is paid but complaining that taxes should be eliminated or are completely illegal indicate a helpless and hopeless mind with which most of us are not equipped to deal with. Although I am not in any favor of class warfare or ripping the rich I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax plan. Herman Cain proposes no such thing.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

I'm game for that, Kath. How about we look at genuine and realistic tax policy considerations? We will always disagree as to how much and to whom it is paid but complaining that taxes should be eliminated or are completely illegal indicate a helpless and hopeless mind with which most of us are not equipped to deal with. Although I am not in any favor of class warfare or ripping the rich I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax plan. Herman Cain proposes no such thing.

Psychoblues

You're in favor of a system where the rich , well actually the upper middle class and above, subsidize the government for the poor, well really the lower middle class and below. You have NO interest in fairness.

[DragonStryk72]

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.”

So yes, hardworking americans going for more than 50-60 hrs a week and struggling to get by would be put to indenture by the government. Oh, and extra douchebag points for the dodge there, bucko. And again, those stats may have worked in the 1770's, but they don't work now. Continue to jump up and down about it doesn't change it.

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.

Oh good, so not only will the working poor be put to indenture, but they'll be fined on top of the money they couldn't otherwise pay. Way to go, now the working poor are doubly screwed.


And yet, here we are today with countless factions seeking to manipulate taxation so as to relieve their identifiable group from its burden, while creating various other groups upon who the burden is placed. And it is well worth to note that in many instances, those who do not share in financing the government are actually rewarded and allowed to feed from the public trough. How sad and discouraging it is to hear the cries and well rehearsed arguments and excuses of those who today support and promote such tyranny. A tyranny under which the force of government is used to transfer the property of one group of citizens to another, which is carried out under the cloak of taxation. But keep in mind, there is no magic wand in the force of government which changes the definition of theft!

So simply not having the money to feed both your kids AND give the government money, and choosing the lives of your children is theft now?

And exactly what was our founding father’s thinking concerning the most fundamental purpose of government? Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=003/llac003.db&recNum=179) sums it up as follows:

"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."

But getting back to Herman Cain’s proposal, keep in mind it would lay a 9 percent tax upon corporate profits, a 9 percent tax upon incomes which includes taxing the wage which working people earn when selling the property each has in their labor, and he would create a whole new tax, a 9 percent tax “national sales tax” which would tax the food a mother buys to feed her child, taxes the clothing she purchases to cloth that child, taxes the fuel used to heat that child’s room during winter months, taxes the medicine a mother needs to care for a sickly child, and then our beloved Herman Cain would tax the coffin used to bury her child because she simply could not afford his national sales tax on every imaginable necessity of life in addition to Mr. Cain taxing the bread she earns when selling the property she has in her labor! [/I][/b]

See, PB? I said he'd use the line, now didn't I? And every time he misses the point that a sales tax would be paid out by the buyer, not the owner. It's a very basic principle, because it's the very reason why when we buy things in stores, we mentally try to calculate how much it will cost with the tax. It is never Wal-Mart's money, it's the state's money, Wal-Mart is simply the recipient of the funds, and transfers the sales tax money to the state.

. In any event, it’s nice to know you are more interested in feeding the beast in Washington with a brand new tax, a national sales tax, in addition to keeping alive taxes on income and wages, than working to put our folks in Washington on a diet.

JWK

Read my lips Herman Cain. No new sales tax unless it is apportioned among the States

It's nice to know you're still so consistently spouting empty rhetoric and dodges to questions. Come back when you're wearing your big boy pants, and we can have a real discussion. So far, this is just a carbon copy of every other thread you've posted. Either say something original, or just give up the ghost.

Now, I don't agree with Cain's tax strategy. After all, our current progressive income tax system started out as a flat tax of 10% against the richest 1% of the nation. I think we can all agree what a bloated that's turned out to be, so no, the income tax is a bogus deal. Hence why I endorse the Fair Tax, a Federal retail sales tax that replaces the income tax entirely. Doing another flat tax rate, while opening a new method of federal taxation will only make things worse down the line, as the government futzes with the flat tax until we get back to what we have now, only with a retail sales tax on top of it.

[ConHog]

It's nice to know you're still so consistently spouting empty rhetoric and dodges to questions. Come back when you're wearing your big boy pants, and we can have a real discussion. So far, this is just a carbon copy of every other thread you've posted. Either say something original, or just give up the ghost.

Now, I don't agree with Cain's tax strategy. After all, our current progressive income tax system started out as a flat tax of 10% against the richest 1% of the nation. I think we can all agree what a bloated that's turned out to be, so no, the income tax is a bogus deal. Hence why I endorse the Fair Tax, a Federal retail sales tax that replaces the income tax entirely. Doing another flat tax rate, while opening a new method of federal taxation will only make things worse down the line, as the government futzes with the flat tax until we get back to what we have now, only with a retail sales tax on top of it.

Bingo. 10% national sales tax at the retail level and done.

[DragonStryk72]

Bingo. 10% national sales tax at the retail level and done.

See, and it would work for those that believe they should be getting taxed more because they'd be able to just go out and stimulate the mom & pops in their area. The rich would pay more tax simply because of the fact they buy more things that are more expensive than what the average American does. The poor get to keep their whole paycheck, and can use it as needs be, holding back money they need to pay for necessities.

[ConHog]

See, and it would work for those that believe they should be getting taxed more because they'd be able to just go out and stimulate the mom & pops in their area. The rich would pay more tax simply because of the fact they buy more things that are more expensive than what the average American does. The poor get to keep their whole paycheck, and can use it as needs be, holding back money they need to pay for necessities.



BUT BUT BUT that's not fair. 10% on purchases is a lot more of a burden on the poor than it is the wealthy. Never mind that the wealthy spend a thousand times more than the poor. Sheesh one would think this is a no brainer.

[Psychoblues]

You're in favor of a system where the rich , well actually the upper middle class and above, subsidize the government for the poor, well really the lower middle class and below. You have NO interest in fairness.

I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax system. 'Tis you that has no interest in fairness or intelligent debate and discourse.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax system.

We have a progressive system, "fair" is subjective. But how "fair" is it when our system discourages investment that would create jobs for the lowest on the income scale?

[ConHog]

I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax system. 'Tis you that has no interest in fairness or intelligent debate and discourse.

Psychoblues

A tax system that allows 47% of wage earners to not pay one red cent in income tax is in noway fair.

[Psychoblues]

We have a progressive system, "fair" is subjective. But how "fair" is it when our system discourages investment that would create jobs for the lowest on the income scale?

I don't really know, fj, but I do remember the '50's and '60's when tax rates soared to 90% and above on certain incomes. Investment was still much healthier then than now, consumer confidence was higher then than now, interest rates were lower then than now, people felt better about their jobs and the health of their companies then than now. I guess I could go on and on. Just what are you trying to say, fj?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

A tax system that allows 47% of wage earners to not pay one red cent in income tax is in noway fair.

Another reichwing myth without reference or explanation. It's more likely that 47% of millionaires and American investors in foreign markets don't pay one red cent in income tax. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax system. 'Tis you that has no interest in fairness or intelligent debate and discourse.

Psychoblues

Really, how is this fair? A part-time bus driver goes to work every day, does her job well, and finally, she get's a pay raise for it. Except, the "progressive" tax system states that she has entered a new tax bracket, granted by only $25/year, but it's the new tax bracket, so more money gets taken out, and she ends up making less than she did before.

There are millions of people who go through this every year, like my mom from the example above, and that is not fair. In fact, it actually punishes those that are actually striving, who perform well at their jobs, and try to move up. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax, and therefore taxes only on what is consumed. The rich pay more, certainly, since they are more likely to buy things that are luxury items, and the poor can save their money and actually feel rewarded when they get a pay raise.

[fj1200]

I don't really know, fj, but I do remember the '50's and '60's when tax rates soared to 90% and above on certain incomes. Investment was still much healthier then than now, consumer confidence was higher then than now, interest rates were lower then than now, people felt better about their jobs and the health of their companies then than now. I guess I could go on and on. Just what are you trying to say, fj?

I think I pretty well said it. Do you know how many exemptions were around back then? Do you realize that in the decade previous every other industrial power had been bombed to the stone age so we had zero global competition? This BS about the 50's being a utopia that we can get back to by hiking tax rates is Nostalgianomics (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124508075585515437.html) that's already been debunked.


Another reichwing myth without reference or explanation. It's more likely that 47% of millionaires and American investors in foreign markets don't pay one red cent in income tax. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

You disagree with the IRS now?

[DragonStryk72]

BUT BUT BUT that's not fair. 10% on purchases is a lot more of a burden on the poor than it is the wealthy. Never mind that the wealthy spend a thousand times more than the poor. Sheesh one would think this is a no brainer.

Hell, you could likely just declare basic grocery items as non-taxable (stores do this already with state taxes).

[fj1200]

Hell, you could likely just declare basic grocery items as non-taxable (stores do this already with state taxes).

No, if you're going to do it then tax everything. You don't want the moneyed interests to get their grubby hands in there, amirite PB? :2up: Besides, all companies would benefit from the simplified tax burdens, even basic food companies, so all goods should be taxed. It's the whole embedded tax argument.

[DragonStryk72]

No, if you're going to do it then tax everything. You don't want the moneyed interests to get their grubby hands in there, amirite PB? :2up: Besides, all companies would benefit from the simplified tax burdens, even basic food companies, so all goods should be taxed. It's the whole embedded tax argument.

Well, the one hole in the Fair Tax is that it gives back a "necessities" budget each month from my reading. All around it's great, but I just think it would be simpler and more efficient to just declare the necessity items as non-taxable, save us some hassle all around.

[fj1200]

Well, the one hole in the Fair Tax is that it gives back a "necessities" budget each month from my reading. All around it's great, but I just think it would be simpler and more efficient to just declare the necessity items as non-taxable, save us some hassle all around.

Yup, that's true but I think the lobbying that would be done to be on the "basic necessity" list would counteract the purpose of the FT. Plus to offset what is NOT taxed causes what IS taxed to be taxed at a higher rate.

[ConHog]

Well, the one hole in the Fair Tax is that it gives back a "necessities" budget each month from my reading. All around it's great, but I just think it would be simpler and more efficient to just declare the necessity items as non-taxable, save us some hassle all around.


No exceptions. You buy it, you pay a tax on it, PERIOD. Simply because once you start exempting certain items, the stampede will be on and everyone would be trying to get THEIR favorite product exempted.

[red states rule]

I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax system. 'Tis you that has no interest in fairness or intelligent debate and discourse.

Psychoblues

We have a progresives system now. Look at how much the "rich" are paying and libs want them to pay more

http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

[red states rule]

I'm game for that, Kath. How about we look at genuine and realistic tax policy considerations? We will always disagree as to how much and to whom it is paid but complaining that taxes should be eliminated or are completely illegal indicate a helpless and hopeless mind with which most of us are not equipped to deal with. Although I am not in any favor of class warfare or ripping the rich I am in favor of a progressive and fair tax plan. Herman Cain proposes no such thing.

Psychoblues

So IF you are opposed to ripping the rich are you against the Dems latest idea to "solve" our debt problem?




Struggling to deliver the big jobs package proposed by President Barack Obama, Senate Democrats are using the issue to force Republican senators to vote on tax increases for millionaires, picking up on a White House theme that the nation's wealthiest Americans aren't paying their fair share.

Senate Democrats said Wednesday they were changing Obama's jobs package to add a 5.6 percent tax on income above $1 million, a proposal that is sure to be blocked by Republicans.
The $447 billion package still includes Obama's proposals to cut payroll taxes and provide money for teachers, firefighters, the unemployed and infrastructure. The tax on millionaires is expected to pay for the package, so it wouldn't add to the budget deficit.

Democrats are banking on Republicans to oppose both the higher taxes on million-dollar earners and the president's call for new spending aimed at reducing joblessness, leaving them open to a charge of protecting the wealthy at the expense of the unemployed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-democrats-rewriting-obamas-jobs-bill-14670019

[johnwk]

A tax system that allows 47% of wage earners to not pay one red cent in income tax is in noway fair.

Well, if you really believe that you would support our Constitution’s rule of apportionment being enforced for any general tax laid among the States. And that rule was to guarantee to the people of those states who would pay the lion’s share under Herman Cain’s tax their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution. The fact is, the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was to cure an evil of “democracy’ under which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. But don’t take my word for it, let our Founding Fathers speak for themselves!

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“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 see:

“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)

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to cure an evil of democracy, and insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share of any general tax laid among the States to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], 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)

Also 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) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Like I said: Herman Cain, read my lips. No new sales tax unless apportioned among the States!

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[chloe]

We have a prpgresives system now. Look at how much the "rich" are paying and libs want them to pay more

http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/toptaxes.jpg

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I looked at it and the tax charts have been the same every year regardless of who was in office with the exception of 2001 and 2002. So does that mean it doesn't matter who is President taxes have always been high for those who earn more money?

[DragonStryk72]

Well, if you really believe that you would support our Constitution’s rule of apportionment being enforced for any general tax laid among the States. And that rule was to guarantee to the people of those states who would pay the lion’s share under Herman Cain’s tax their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution. The fact is, the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was to cure an evil of “democracy’ under which 51 percent of a nation’s population use their vote to tax away the property of the remaining 49 percent of the population. But don’t take my word for it, let our Founding Fathers speak for themselves!

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

“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 see:

“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)

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to cure an evil of democracy, and insure that the people of those states contributing the lion’s share of any general tax laid among the States to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“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 [under the Articles of Confederation], 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)

Also 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) in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112) allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

Like I said: Herman Cain, read my lips. No new sales tax unless apportioned among the States!

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Yup, more bluster, no answers. You're a psuedo-intellectual, you use all the big words, but you have no thoughts of your own on the subject. No one talks the way you write here.

[ConHog]

Yup, more bluster, no answers. You're a psuedo-intellectual, you use all the big words, but you have no thoughts of your own on the subject. No one talks the way you write here.

From reading this one thread, I must say he reminds me of my teenage son. Smart enough , but tries to appear smarter by using words and grammar in a way that outside of books people just don't use. I've tried and tried to explain to him that REAL intelligence is speaking intelligently on a subject but in a way that allows everyone to understand what you are saying. Maybe one they he and this dude will both get it.

[Psychoblues]

Really, how is this fair? A part-time bus driver goes to work every day, does her job well, and finally, she get's a pay raise for it. Except, the "progressive" tax system states that she has entered a new tax bracket, granted by only $25/year, but it's the new tax bracket, so more money gets taken out, and she ends up making less than she did before.

There are millions of people who go through this every year, like my mom from the example above, and that is not fair. In fact, it actually punishes those that are actually striving, who perform well at their jobs, and try to move up. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax, and therefore taxes only on what is consumed. The rich pay more, certainly, since they are more likely to buy things that are luxury items, and the poor can save their money and actually feel rewarded when they get a pay raise.

Without getting too strung out on the details which all of us here at DP are prone to do, I agree with about 90% of what you have to say. But, I continue to believe in a progressive and fair tax system. The one we have meets neither threshold IMHO. There is a partisan philosophy that repeatedly undermines and condemns poor and middle income classes and I've never understood why. I've also never understood why the sheeple continue to vote against their own self interests while chasing some pie in the sky perceived American Dream. Most Americans need to at least visit other nations and see for themselves that many have far more freedom and liberty than us and are happier to boot. They need to take this knowledge and agitate in this country for positive democratic changes. That is the TRUE American Dream.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

But, I continue to believe in a progressive and fair tax system. The one we have meets neither threshold IMHO.

You clearly don't understand the definition of progressive then. Or you think best interest is reliance on a government program that is doomed to fail.

[Psychoblues]

I think I pretty well said it. Do you know how many exemptions were around back then? Do you realize that in the decade previous every other industrial power had been bombed to the stone age so we had zero global competition? This BS about the 50's being a utopia that we can get back to by hiking tax rates is Nostalgianomics (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124508075585515437.html) that's already been debunked.



You disagree with the IRS now?

Batshit, and yes.

Psychoblues

[Abbey Marie]

Other than the over-use of quotes, I don't see anything wrong think johnwk's writing style. In fact, it would be nice if more people could still write so well. IMO.

[fj1200]

Batshit, and yes.

Laughable from you. You have zero specifics to offer.

[Psychoblues]

Laughable from you. You have zero specifics to offer.

I specifically intended to answer your statement and question with all the sincerity you imply for yourself. I do love your debating style and ability to swoon your readers with your seeming knowledge but overall I still think you just come here to stir up crap. That's OK, too. I do that with car sales people all the time. It's my hobby. OK, OK, I do it here, too. Please forgive my indulgence!!!


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I specifically intended to answer your statement and question with all the sincerity you imply for yourself. I do love your debating style and ability to swoon your readers with your seeming knowledge but overall I still think you just come here to stir up crap. That's OK, too. I do that with car sales people all the time. It's my hobby. OK, OK, I do it here, too. Please forgive my indulgence!!!

I don't stir it... unless there's nothing else to do of course. Do you consider merely pointing out your errors as stirring it?

[Psychoblues]

I don't stir it... unless there's nothing else to do of course. Do you consider merely pointing out your errors as stirring it?

My opinions are not errors, dumbo. But they are mine and certainly as valid as your own. And I ain't swooning!!!!!!! I luv ya, cowgirl!!!!!!!

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

My opinions are not errors, dumbo. But they are mine and certainly as valid as your own. And I ain't swooning!!!!!!! I luv ya, cowgirl!!!!!!!

The evidence, and specifics, suggest otherwise.

[Psychoblues]

The evidence, and specifics, suggest otherwise.

That's your opinion, fj, and I could say exactly the same about you and be just as valid. You are obviously not keeping up and off your normal game tonight. I hope you get better tomorrow.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

That's your opinion, fj, and I could say exactly the same about you and be just as valid. You are obviously not keeping up and off your normal game tonight. I hope you get better tomorrow.

Not with any intellectual integrity.

[Psychoblues]

Not with any intellectual integrity.

I've never claimed to be an intellectual and my integrity remains as unblemished as it ever was. Woohoohoo!!!!!!!


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I've never claimed to be an intellectual and my integrity remains as unblemished as it ever was.

With good reason.

[Psychoblues]

With good reason.

No doubt. What are you trying to say, Elvis?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

^I'd say read between the lines but there was only one. :slap:

[Psychoblues]

^I'd say read between the lines but there was only one. :slap:

Thanks, honeybunch. I needed that. I hope to get back tomorrow sometime. Most of my day will be taken up at the VA. They are now my greatest source of income.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Without getting too strung out on the details which all of us here at DP are prone to do, I agree with about 90% of what you have to say. But, I continue to believe in a progressive and fair tax system. The one we have meets neither threshold IMHO. There is a partisan philosophy that repeatedly undermines and condemns poor and middle income classes and I've never understood why. I've also never understood why the sheeple continue to vote against their own self interests while chasing some pie in the sky perceived American Dream. Most Americans need to at least visit other nations and see for themselves that many have far more freedom and liberty than us and are happier to boot. They need to take this knowledge and agitate in this country for positive democratic changes. That is the TRUE American Dream.

Psychoblues

"perceived" American Dream? That sums up your entire outlook on life PB. I guess you never heard of Steve Jobs. He created his company (Apple) in his garage PB. He ws a perfect example of American exceptionalism

He came up with new ideas, was passionate about what he did, worked his ass off to be a success, and shared his dreams with others. He created millions of new jobs by hiring people, and companies that did business with him did the same. He financed the lifestyles of millions of people, and created many millionaires who invested in his company

He improved the lives of millions more with his products

But to you, only government can create wealth. People cannot succeed in life without some government program

Like you PB, Steve Jobs was a big liberal. Unlike you, he followed his passions while you drink yours

[ConHog]

I've never claimed to be an intellectual and my integrity remains as unblemished as it ever was. Woohoohoo!!!!!!!


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues


When a person has no integrity, it's impossible for their integrity to become blemished.

[Psychoblues]

"perceived" American Dream? That sums up your entire outlook on life PB. I guess you never heard of Steve Jobs. He created his company (Apple) in his garage PB. He ws a perfect example of American exceptionalism

He came up with new ideas, was passionate about what he did, worked his ass off to be a success, and shared his dreams with others. He created millions of new jobs by hiring people, and companies that did business with him did the same. He financed the lifestyles of millions of people, and created many millionaires who invested in his company

He improved the lives of millions more with his products

But to you, only government can create wealth. People cannot succeed in life without some government program

Like you PB, Steve Jobs was a big liberal. Unlike you, he followed his passions while you drink yours

When you and others pull the "drinking" card it reflects on yourselves much more than me. You have nothing between your ears but contempt and nothing in your heart but hate and I am damned well glad to be me and not any of you worthless pieces of crap. I could not live with myself holding that much fear and loathing. You? I guess you like it or you wouldn't be that way.

Don't make assumptions about me and false accusations towards me, pigboy. Those also reflect very poorly on yourself.

Psychoblues

[darin]

Put this thread back on-topic, folks.

[chloe]

When you and others pull the "drinking" card it reflects on yourselves much more than me. You have nothing between your ears but contempt and nothing in your heart but hate and I am damned well glad to be me and not any of you worthless pieces of crap. I could not live with myself holding that much fear and loathing. You? I guess you like it or you wouldn't be that way.

Don't make assumptions about me and false accusations towards me, pigboy. Those also reflect very poorly on yourself.

Psychoblues

I agree with everything except the "pigboy" name calling....if you want them to stop name calling you got to stop too.

Besides you both should understand addictions, alcoholics often replace drinking with food....wink. I should know I have had both addictions:rolleyes:


I guess technically I can be called drunk pig girl.....but nobody likes being called names.;)

[Psychoblues]

Put this thread back on-topic, folks.

That's a great idea, dmp. Are there any new comments on the Herb Cain proposals?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

I agree with everything except the "pigboy" name calling....if you want them to stop name calling you got to stop too.

Besides you both should understand addictions, alcoholics often replace drinking with food....wink. I should know I have had both addictions:rolleyes:


I guess technically I can be called drunk pig girl.....but nobody likes being called names.;)

You're making too much sense and now my head is hurting!!!!!!! Thanks for the understanding and encouragement. You are my hero.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I looked at it and the tax charts have been the same every year regardless of who was in office with the exception of 2001 and 2002. So does that mean it doesn't matter who is President taxes have always been high for those who earn more money?

It means libs like PB already have the rich paying their fair share. You can tell by PB ignoring the post he has nothing to offer as a defense

Obama the left are talking about shared sacrifice - so why not have the bottom 50% who are paying less then 3% of all federal income taxes start paying more?

BTW, the amount in federal taxes paid by the "rich" actually went up after the Bush tax cuts. Yes PB evean after a tax cut the "rich" eneded up paying more in taxes to the government

[red states rule]

When you and others pull the "drinking" card it reflects on yourselves much more than me. You have nothing between your ears but contempt and nothing in your heart but hate and I am damned well glad to be me and not any of you worthless pieces of crap. I could not live with myself holding that much fear and loathing. You? I guess you like it or you wouldn't be that way.

Don't make assumptions about me and false accusations towards me, pigboy. Those also reflect very poorly on yourself.

Psychoblues

and you throw yourself a pity party in a lame attempt to ignore the facts the American Dream is still out there for anyone to take

I do not hate you PB. I offerd words of encouragement to you and you in turn lashed out at me. So be it

I do wish you only the best and successs in whatever you do in life.

It is libewrals like you that constantly show nothign but contemot toward those who simply have a different opinioon on the size and role of government

[DragonStryk72]

Without getting too strung out on the details which all of us here at DP are prone to do, I agree with about 90% of what you have to say. But, I continue to believe in a progressive and fair tax system. The one we have meets neither threshold IMHO. There is a partisan philosophy that repeatedly undermines and condemns poor and middle income classes and I've never understood why. I've also never understood why the sheeple continue to vote against their own self interests while chasing some pie in the sky perceived American Dream. Most Americans need to at least visit other nations and see for themselves that many have far more freedom and liberty than us and are happier to boot. They need to take this knowledge and agitate in this country for positive democratic changes. That is the TRUE American Dream.

Psychoblues

Progressive cannot be fair. Why is a person making $50,000 less liable for taxes than the person who makes $50,001? You can move that to any tax bracket anywhere in a progressive tax system, and still have that question, and the answer is, "Because that's the way it is."

I have visited other countries, both through the Navy, and travelling to Ireland with my family. Most other European countries are, effectively, about as free as us. And at this time, most of the EU is in their own economic crisis, so the example you're holding doesn't really match reality either, PB. You talk about the American Dream not being a reality, but neither is this idea that Europe is any freer than we are. Most of those countries, as well as having the progressive tax system, have tacked on a sales tax on top of it, and they're still in trouble economically and financially.

Actually, there is one freedom in the EU I definitely agree with: The freedom to drink at 18. Not kidding, this is really one of the stupidest, least sensible laws we've got over here. If you're mature enough to be expected to handle an M-14, and fight and kill with it, you should be mature enough to handle a single beer.