| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Maaxx" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 03:39:18 PM |
| Object: |
We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
If you've cruised the net over the last day or so, on the right or left, you
can't help but see ANWR, ANWR, ANWR everywhere. The 51-49 vote in the Senate
to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is causing Liberal
Democrats to gnash their teeth in grief and conservative Republicans to get
more excited than the kid in that Numa Numa Dance video.
We can learn a lot about the priorities of conservatives and liberals by
watching their reaction to ANWR.
Conservatives are happy because they believe we're about to start tapping
into a major, new domestic source of oil even if it will take years to get
the crude flowing out of the ground. That means new jobs for Americans who
handle the drilling and build the pipeline to Alaska. It also means that
we're going to acquire more of the substance that powers our economy without
having to pay out our money to less than friendly countries like Saudi
Arabia & Venezuela. Best of all, the oil is in the absolute middle of
nowhere, so we don't have to inconvenience anyone to drill ANWR. To the
right, developing ANWR is all upside, all positive, an idea that is so
fantastic that they can hardly understand how any rational person could
oppose it.
On the other hand, liberals are enraged that it looks like we may be
drilling ANWR. Part of that is because of their free floating hostility to
the oil industry, but their real beef is that ANWR is such a remote area.
Conservatives may consider that a feature, but to liberals it's a bug. The
very fact that it's a godforsaken region that almost no one visits makes it
so rare and valuable to them that it's worth leaving billions of dollars
worth of oil in the ground and forsaking tens of thousands of jobs just in
case someone wants to ever see what the boonies are like in the future. Oh,
and we mustn't forget, they claim that the pipelines, roads, oilmen and
people going back and forth might -- and I say might because this is heavily
disputed -- disturb the animals. The fact that you could make the exact same
argument about every populated area in North America seems lost on them.
Now you tell me: who's looking out for everyday Americans on this issue?
Conservatives who want more jobs & oil for their fellow countrymen or
liberals who are concerned about future back-packing trips for an
infinitesimal percentage of the population and maybe happier caribou and
polar bears, maybe not. That's not a tough call.
.
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 04:45:56 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.27.15.36.04.344391@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:29:50 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:59:28 -0600, chrisv wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for
anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
Governments do not provide services that we wish to pay such massive
amount of money for. Government run services tend to be horrible,
badly
run services.
Right wing propaganda. Many government services are run more
efficiently than private industry can.
Oh sure, police services, objective courts, large scale armed forces,
diplomatic services, and other such services are done very well. But
those
are among those few services that the government does do well, and is
*supposed* to do in the first place.
Social Security is run more effeciently than almost any mutual fund.
Social Security is in the toilet.
You are a liar.
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead. Although one is still on life support, and the
other we had the good sense to pull the plug on.
And I sure as hell know anyone who puts
in money *today* isn't going to be getting money out.
How much do you want to bet?
Do you do anything but spew right-wing lies and propaganda?
Not propaganda, simple fact. The social security system isn't some
account, it's a tax...the money of which goes to those people who are
drawing it out today.
Since more is coming in than is going out, the surplus is invested and is
available for use in the future.
My generation is pumping massive amounts of money
into it...only to have all of it go to the old people drawing it out
now...
See above.
and even that's not enough, the government has to pull tax money
from other sources to prop Social Security up.
Huh?
What will it be like when
I'm old.....especially with a global depopulation problem.
If Bush has his way, you'll starve.
1) It's true, private businesses do expect a profit...but often the
price is very well worth it.
And often it is not worth it. Especially when the people who have to
pay the difference are the workers.
Ah yes, the workers... Never mind that they are often better paid,
better trained, and held to higher standards to ensure better service...
Except that they're not. They're not held to any standards, are rarely
trained, and are most certainly NOT better paid.
Oh that's *****. In a government job you generally just have to show
up, do your time, and get paid.
Like the CEO of Enron?
It's difficult to get fired from a
government job, so you can be a lazy, worthless, slob and still get paid.
In private industry, people know they can't get away with as much, because
they can be fired so much easier. Government positions are also often
mired in politics, excess paperwork, and bosses who get promoted based on
how long they've been working there...rather than how good they do their
job.
As for training, in those roles requiring highly specilized training they
do in fact tend get the very best....those that do not go out of business
because they can't effectively do their jobs, compared to the competition.
2) Not all *private* services are provided by corporations, many are
provided by charities, religious groups, fraternal organizations, or
donations by the local community.
Which are subsidized by taxpayers. That only hides the true cost.
They don't *need* to be subsidized by tax money to be very effective.
You keep making claims which are obvious *****. Charities depend
upon donations, volunteers, and tax exemptions.
None of which are tax money.
Not having to pay taxes amounts to the same thing. And many charities do
get government grants.
In fact, if anything, government regulation of charities has
done more harm than good, often telling them underwhat circumstances
they
can do this or that, how they can utilise this money or that money,
under
If you want money from the government then you have to play by
government rules.
Which is why I think the government should stay out of the work of
charities.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
Ah yes, the cry of "tax cuts for the rich" where the Democratic
Party defines rich as any family that has a combined income of
$60,000 a year or more.
Stop lying, *****.
I'm not.
Then where's your evidence?
I don't feel like spending the time looking it up right now.
You're a liar, in other words.
No, I just don't feel like wading through google to prove this particular
point. I'm not all that interested in it, unlike the issue of
depopulation, which I have a direct interest in.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 12:47:25 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:29:50 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:59:28 -0600, chrisv wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
Governments do not provide services that we wish to pay such massive
amount of money for. Government run services tend to be horrible, badly
run services.
Right wing propaganda. Many government services are run more
efficiently than private industry can.
Oh sure, police services, objective courts, large scale armed forces,
diplomatic services, and other such services are done very well. But those
are among those few services that the government does do well, and is
*supposed* to do in the first place.
Social Security is run more effeciently than almost any mutual fund.
Social Security is in the toilet.
You are a liar.
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
1) Political grandstanding
2) An excuse to destroy SS
3) Fix the imbalance in SS
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead.
Except for the fact that SS has anough money to keep paying benefits
at the current rate for about four decades, and even after than will
have enough money to pay 75% of benefits.
And I sure as hell know anyone who puts
in money *today* isn't going to be getting money out.
How much do you want to bet?
Do you do anything but spew right-wing lies and propaganda?
Not propaganda, simple fact.
It's a complete lie.
The social security system isn't some
account, it's a tax...the money of which goes to those people who are
drawing it out today. My generation is pumping massive amounts of money
Spare us the propaganda.
What will it be like when
I'm old.....especially with a global depopulation problem.
You're a kook. The world's population is growing at an increasing
rate.
1) It's true, private businesses do expect a profit...but often the
price is very well worth it.
And often it is not worth it. Especially when the people who have to
pay the difference are the workers.
Ah yes, the workers... Never mind that they are often better paid,
better trained, and held to higher standards to ensure better service...
Except that they're not. They're not held to any standards, are rarely
trained, and are most certainly NOT better paid.
Oh that's *****. In a government job you generally just have to show
up, do your time, and get paid.
Your mindless bigotry isn't the truth.
provided by charities, religious groups, fraternal organizations, or
donations by the local community.
Which are subsidized by taxpayers. That only hides the true cost.
They don't *need* to be subsidized by tax money to be very effective.
You keep making claims which are obvious *****. Charities depend
upon donations, volunteers, and tax exemptions.
None of which are tax money.
Donations depend upon tax money.
Tax exemptions ARE tax money.
And again you show yourself to be an irrational kook.
In fact, if anything, government regulation of charities has
done more harm than good, often telling them underwhat circumstances they
can do this or that, how they can utilise this money or that money, under
If you want money from the government then you have to play by
government rules.
Which is why I think the government should stay out of the work of
charities.
Nobody forces charities to accept money from the government.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
Ah yes, the cry of "tax cuts for the rich" where the Democratic
Party defines rich as any family that has a combined income of
$60,000 a year or more.
Stop lying, *****.
I'm not.
Then where's your evidence?
I don't feel like spending the time looking it up right now.
You're a liar, in other words.
No, I just don't feel like wading through google to prove this particular
You're a liar and a coward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 04:50:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:47:25 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
<snip>
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
1) Political grandstanding
2) An excuse to destroy SS
3) Fix the imbalance in SS
Sure, sure...
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead.
Except for the fact that SS has anough money to keep paying benefits
at the current rate for about four decades, and even after than will
have enough money to pay 75% of benefits.
Proof?
And I sure as hell know anyone who puts
in money *today* isn't going to be getting money out.
How much do you want to bet?
Do you do anything but spew right-wing lies and propaganda?
Not propaganda, simple fact.
It's a complete lie.
Proof?
The social security system isn't some
account, it's a tax...the money of which goes to those people who are
drawing it out today. My generation is pumping massive amounts of money
Spare us the propaganda.
What propaganda?
What will it be like when
I'm old.....especially with a global depopulation problem.
You're a kook. The world's population is growing at an increasing
rate.
Yes, as explained...because of third world countries with very high birth
rates. Most of the developed world has stabalized...or fallen below
replacement.
<snip>
Oh that's *****. In a government job you generally just have to show
up, do your time, and get paid.
Your mindless bigotry isn't the truth.
Ok, now this one is rich. Explain to me how that statement that I made
there is bigotry.
<snip>
None of which are tax money.
Donations depend upon tax money.
No they don't.
Tax exemptions ARE tax money.
No they aren't. A tax exemption merely means you do not have to *pay*
taxes on the money you recieve. Idiot.
And again you show yourself to be an irrational kook.
You are showing yourself to be a moron.
<snip>
Nobody forces charities to accept money from the government.
True, but there is often heavy regulation even without government money
involvement.
<snip>
You're a liar and a coward.
No, but you are an idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 08:56:23 PM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
1) Political grandstanding
2) An excuse to destroy SS
3) Fix the imbalance in SS
Sure, sure...
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead.
Except for the fact that SS has anough money to keep paying benefits
at the current rate for about four decades, and even after than will
have enough money to pay 75% of benefits.
Proof?
How about the Social Security Administration?
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
Or an article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/
And I sure as hell know anyone who puts
in money *today* isn't going to be getting money out.
How much do you want to bet?
Do you do anything but spew right-wing lies and propaganda?
Not propaganda, simple fact.
It's a complete lie.
Proof?
See above.
What will it be like when
I'm old.....especially with a global depopulation problem.
You're a kook. The world's population is growing at an increasing
rate.
Yes, as explained...because of third world countries with very high birth
rates.
So the problem isn't depopulation at all. It's racism. You're afraid
that there won't be enough of the right KIND of people.
None of which are tax money.
Donations depend upon tax money.
No they don't.
What a stupid ***** you are. People get tax deductions when they
donate to charities. Those tax deductions are tax money used to
benefit charities by providing incentives for donations.
Taxes money is used to pay people to give to charities.
Tax exemptions ARE tax money.
No they aren't.
Stupid *****.
Nobody forces charities to accept money from the government.
True, but there is often heavy regulation even without government money
involvement.
You're lying again, kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 10:38:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:56:23 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
1) Political grandstanding
2) An excuse to destroy SS
3) Fix the imbalance in SS
Sure, sure...
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead.
Except for the fact that SS has anough money to keep paying benefits
at the current rate for about four decades, and even after than will
have enough money to pay 75% of benefits.
Proof?
How about the Social Security Administration?
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
Of course the Social Security Agency isn't going to tell people that they
are shafting them.
Or an article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/
I thought you didn't trust the media Ray. You certainly like to call
them kooks when I bring them up...
Oh, and I love this quote...
"Not only is Social Security not in crisis, it is as financially sound as
ever, according to the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research,"
Wow, the *liberal* center for economic and policy research....I'm sure
*they* are a unbiased group.
And I sure as hell know anyone who puts
in money *today* isn't going to be getting money out.
How much do you want to bet?
Do you do anything but spew right-wing lies and propaganda?
Not propaganda, simple fact.
It's a complete lie.
Proof?
See above.
Uh huh...
What will it be like when
I'm old.....especially with a global depopulation problem.
You're a kook. The world's population is growing at an increasing
rate.
Yes, as explained...because of third world countries with very high
birth rates.
So the problem isn't depopulation at all. It's racism. You're afraid
that there won't be enough of the right KIND of people.
Yeah....me being concerned about the depopulation problem in Japan, South
Korea, and Thailand really makes me a big time white supremicist....
None of which are tax money.
Donations depend upon tax money.
No they don't.
What a stupid ***** you are. People get tax deductions when they
donate to charities.
Why, yes they do.
Those tax deductions are tax money used to benefit
charities
No, they are used to benefit the people *giving* to charity.
by providing incentives for donations.
I am charitable quite often, not one bit gets put down as deductions. Most
of it would be difficult to quantify. Such incentives, are not necessary
for charity. And large private charity, and large scale donations even,
were quite common long before there even *was* income tax in this country.
Taxes money is used to pay people to give to charities.
Wrong.
Tax exemptions ARE tax money.
No they aren't.
Stupid *****.
Moron.
Nobody forces charities to accept money from the government.
True, but there is often heavy regulation even without government money
involvement.
You're lying again, kook.
No I'm not, you *****, I am intimately familiar with a number of
charitable groups. The government likes to stick it's nose into
everything....which it has no legal right to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 12:04:07 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
1) Political grandstanding
2) An excuse to destroy SS
3) Fix the imbalance in SS
Sure, sure...
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead.
Except for the fact that SS has anough money to keep paying benefits
at the current rate for about four decades, and even after than will
have enough money to pay 75% of benefits.
Proof?
How about the Social Security Administration?
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
Of course the Social Security Agency isn't going to tell people that they
are shafting them.
So you're a right-wing lunatic who complains about vast government
conspiracies who manage to hide the truth from everybody in the
country. The Social Security Administraiton, the Congressional Budget
Office, and even the White House all same the same thing. But you
think that tens of thousands of government workers are all conspiring
to hide the "truth" from you.
Kook.
Or an article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/
I thought you didn't trust the media Ray.
No, you don't think. That's you're problem.
"Not only is Social Security not in crisis, it is as financially sound as
ever, according to the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research,"
Wow, the *liberal* center for economic and policy research....I'm sure
*they* are a unbiased group.
I see that you stopped reading the moment you saw the word "liberal".
Just another bigoted kook.
None of which are tax money.
Donations depend upon tax money.
No they don't.
What a stupid ***** you are. People get tax deductions when they
donate to charities.
Why, yes they do.
Those tax deductions are tax money used to benefit
charities
No,
You're a liar.
Nobody forces charities to accept money from the government.
True, but there is often heavy regulation even without government money
involvement.
You're lying again, kook.
No I'm not,
It's all you do, kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 12:21:33 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Then why are there so many efforts to "save Social Security"?
1) Political grandstanding
2) An excuse to destroy SS
3) Fix the imbalance in SS
Sure, sure...
They'll be about as effective as the efforts to "save Terri Schiavo."
Both are already dead.
Except for the fact that SS has anough money to keep paying benefits
at the current rate for about four decades, and even after than will
have enough money to pay 75% of benefits.
Proof?
How about the Social Security Administration?
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
Of course the Social Security Agency isn't going to tell people that they
are shafting them.
So you're a right-wing lunatic who complains about vast government
conspiracies who manage to hide the truth from everybody in the
country. The Social Security Administration, the Congressional Budget
Office, and even the White House all say the same thing. But you
think that tens of thousands of government workers are all conspiring
to hide the "truth" from you.
Kook.
Or an article from CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/15/retirement/what_crisis/
I thought you didn't trust the media Ray.
No, you don't think. That's you're problem.
"Not only is Social Security not in crisis, it is as financially sound as
ever, according to the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research,"
Wow, the *liberal* center for economic and policy research....I'm sure
*they* are a unbiased group.
I see that you stopped reading the moment you saw the word "liberal".
Just another bigoted kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chrisv" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:05:23 AM |
|
|
Liam Slider wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:59:28 -0600, chrisv wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
Governments do not provide services that we wish to pay such massive
amount of money for. Government run services tend to be horrible, badly
run services. You get more for your money, and *far* better service, when
things are handled privately.
Doesn't excuse the neocons making future generations pay for their
high-flying lifestyle.
If it's broken, fix it. Borrowing money is not fixing anything.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
Ah yes, the cry of "tax cuts for the rich" where the Democratic Party
defines rich as any family that has a combined income of $60,000 a year or
more. Where I live, a husband and wife who are both *teachers* can qualify
as "rich" under the Democrat definition. Most tax cuts are to the middle
class.
Nonsense.
Still, those tax cuts aren't nearly enough. The taxes need to be *slashed*
across the board, for *every* class, and services need to be cut too. Too
many things the Federal government has it's fingers in that it has no
legal business being involved in.
Then cut the services. With the current level of borrowing, by
definition we are paying an *insufficient amount* of taxes.
The Neocons are really just gutless thieves. They don't want to pay
the taxes, but they don't have the guts to make the difficult
decisions to reduce government spending. So, they just borrow the
money and stick future generations with the tab.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 04:19:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:05:23 -0600, chrisv wrote:
The Neocons are really just gutless thieves. They don't want to pay
the taxes, but they don't have the guts to make the difficult
decisions to reduce government spending.
Here we agree. I have repeatedly said I am not a neocon. I am a
libertarian. I say slash services, and taxes. Gut the system down to where
it's supposed to be....a government, not a nanny.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 05:56:33 PM |
|
|
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:k0ua41plfqh90lc2vilb6cm48m81cicmk0@4ax.com:
Ray Fischer wrote:
That's what I just wrote. "They add in taxes to pay for all of the
costs of cars." And those gas taxes mean lower taxes elsewhere.
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut for
the rich?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
27 Mar 2005 08:58:06 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
Ray Fischer wrote:
That's what I just wrote. "They add in taxes to pay for all of the
costs of cars." And those gas taxes mean lower taxes elsewhere.
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut for
the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut for
the poor?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:14:55 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d27rru$4pu$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
That's what I just wrote. "They add in taxes to pay for all of the
costs of cars." And those gas taxes mean lower taxes elsewhere.
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut
for the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut for
the poor?
We're talking about income taxes, not capital gains or dividends. Try to
keep up. The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%. That's a
tax cut for the lowest income bracket.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 10:58:22 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for anything.
If the things that government provides cost to much, they simply
borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax cut
for the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut for
the poor?
We're talking about income taxes, not capital gains or dividends.
LOL! Tax cuts for the rich don't count because they're not "income"
taxes?!?
Just how big an idiot are you?!?
Try to
keep up.
I don't see any mention of the kind of taxes, sucker.
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those tax
cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
If you have $20,000,000 in dividend producing securities then you
don't have to pay ANY taxes on your income. If you earn $10,000,000
in one year on special ececutive stock options, then you get to pay
just a 15% tax rate.
And you're just enough of a sucker to think that you're ahead because
you saved a couple hundred bucks on your income taxes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 11:07:02 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2an9e$gid$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for
anything. If the things that government provides cost to much, they
simply borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax
cut for the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut
for the poor?
We're talking about income taxes, not capital gains or dividends.
LOL! Tax cuts for the rich don't count because they're not "income"
taxes?!?
Just how big an idiot are you?!?
Try to keep up.
I don't see any mention of the kind of taxes, sucker.
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those tax
cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax cuts
given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
If you have $20,000,000 in dividend producing securities then you
don't have to pay ANY taxes on your income. If you earn $10,000,000
in one year on special ececutive stock options, then you get to pay
just a 15% tax rate.
And what does this have to do with the lowest income tax bracket?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 03:06:02 AM |
|
|
In article <4248e276$0$13874$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2an9e$gid$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for
anything. If the things that government provides cost to much, they
simply borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax
cut for the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut
for the poor?
We're talking about income taxes, not capital gains or dividends.
LOL! Tax cuts for the rich don't count because they're not "income"
taxes?!?
Just how big an idiot are you?!?
Try to keep up.
I don't see any mention of the kind of taxes, sucker.
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those tax
cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax cuts
given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
Yes they do. The first $15,000 of income is taxed the same for everybody,
then the next...
There are brackets. You seem to think everybody pays at their marginal
rate.
If you have $20,000,000 in dividend producing securities then you
don't have to pay ANY taxes on your income. If you earn $10,000,000
in one year on special ececutive stock options, then you get to pay
just a 15% tax rate.
And what does this have to do with the lowest income tax bracket?
Well, the tax on dividends and capital gains was also lowered.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
28 Mar 2005 11:42:31 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2an9e$gid$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for
anything. If the things that government provides cost to much, they
simply borrow the money, and let future generations pay for it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax
cut for the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut
for the poor?
We're talking about income taxes, not capital gains or dividends.
LOL! Tax cuts for the rich don't count because they're not "income"
taxes?!?
Just how big an idiot are you?!?
Try to keep up.
I don't see any mention of the kind of taxes, sucker.
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those tax
cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax cuts
given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
If you have $20,000,000 in dividend producing securities then you
don't have to pay ANY taxes on your income. If you earn $10,000,000
in one year on special ececutive stock options, then you get to pay
just a 15% tax rate.
And what does this have to do with the lowest income tax bracket?
Notice that the richest pay just about the same rate as the poorest?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 10:06:42 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2aps7$k0d$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2an9e$gid$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Well, the average retarded American doesn't want to pay for
anything. If the things that government provides cost to much,
they simply borrow the money, and let future generations pay for
it.
More tax cuts for the rich, George! Let someone else pay for my
lifestyle! I want to drive a huge 4WD SUV!
So reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15% to 10% is a tax
cut for the rich?
So reducing capital gains and dividend taxes is a 10% to 15% tax cut
for the poor?
We're talking about income taxes, not capital gains or dividends.
LOL! Tax cuts for the rich don't count because they're not "income"
taxes?!?
Just how big an idiot are you?!?
Try to keep up.
I don't see any mention of the kind of taxes, sucker.
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those tax
cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax cuts
given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will benefit
them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Maybe you think the rich should just pay all taxes.
If you have $20,000,000 in dividend producing securities then you
don't have to pay ANY taxes on your income. If you earn $10,000,000
in one year on special ececutive stock options, then you get to pay
just a 15% tax rate.
And what does this have to do with the lowest income tax bracket?
Notice that the richest pay just about the same rate as the poorest?
No. The very rich pay 35%.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
29 Mar 2005 11:07:42 PM |
|
|
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those tax
cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax cuts
given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will benefit
them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
If you have $20,000,000 in dividend producing securities then you
don't have to pay ANY taxes on your income. If you earn $10,000,000
in one year on special ececutive stock options, then you get to pay
just a 15% tax rate.
And what does this have to do with the lowest income tax bracket?
Notice that the richest pay just about the same rate as the poorest?
No. The very rich pay 35%.
Try not to be an idiot.
If soemone earns $1,000,000 from dividends in a year, do you know what
the tax rate is?
ZERO!
Not 35%. 0%.
If they earn $10,000,000 a year by selling stocks and real estate, do
you know what the tax rate is?
15%.
Not 35%.
Do you know ANYTHING about taxes and who pays them?!? Why do you
think that corporate execs don't get paid $1,000,000/year in salary?
To avoid paying taxes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 12:50:36 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway. Nobody should be taxed at a higher
precentage just because they make more money.
So I guess that "tax cut for the rich" is just a bunch of horseshit after
all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 05:27:54 AM |
|
|
In article <424a4c3c$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway. Nobody should be taxed at a higher
precentage just because they make more money.
Let's tax the middle class at a higher rate than the rich then.
So I guess that "tax cut for the rich" is just a bunch of horseshit after
all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:04:54 AM |
|
|
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2ek04$htv$12@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <424a4c3c$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway. Nobody should be taxed at a
higher precentage just because they make more money.
Let's tax the middle class at a higher rate than the rich then.
I say lets tax everyone at the same rate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 08:41:40 AM |
|
|
In article <424adc36$0$33335$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2ek04$htv$12@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <424a4c3c$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend taxes
were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None of those
tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the tax
cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest brackets
got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions from 35%
to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway. Nobody should be taxed at a
higher precentage just because they make more money.
Let's tax the middle class at a higher rate than the rich then.
I say lets tax everyone at the same rate.
Why? If you make $10,000,000 a year, can't you afford 30% better than
someone with $10,000 a year?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 04:21:31 PM |
|
|
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2evbe$41b$1@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <424adc36$0$33335$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
(Lloyd Parker) wrote in
news:d2ek04$htv$12@puck.cc.emory.edu:
In article <424a4c3c$0$13896$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:d2dc6t$nta$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
The lowest income tax bracket was lowered from 15% to 10%.
The capital gains tax was lowered from 20% to 15%, dividend
taxes were eliminated, inheritance taxes were eliminated. None
of those tax cuts benefit anybody in the lowest income tax
brackets.
And those earning over $100,000 a year didn't benefit from the
tax cuts given to the lowest income bracket. What's your point?
There were more tax cuts and bigger tax cuts for the rich.
Obviously, since wealthy pay more taxes, any general tax cut will
benefit them more than someone making $10,000 a year.
Pay attention:
The rich got bigger tax cuts and MORE tax cuts. Not just in dollar
amounts but also in percentages. While people in the lowest
brackets got a reduction from 15% to 10%, the richest got reductions
from 35% to 0% and from 20% to 15% IN ADDITION to a reduction in
income taxes.
That's good. Taxes are too high anyway. Nobody should be taxed at a
higher precentage just because they make more money.
Let's tax the middle class at a higher rate than the rich then.
I say lets tax everyone at the same rate.
Why? If you make $10,000,000 a year, can't you afford 30% better than
someone with $10,000 a year?
So?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 04:12:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:41:40 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Why? If you make $10,000,000 a year, can't you afford 30% better than
someone with $10,000 a year?
What you can or cannot afford isn't the issue, what's fair is the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 11:37:25 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.30.22.12.57.4889@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:41:40 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
Why? If you make $10,000,000 a year, can't you afford 30% better than
someone with $10,000 a year?
What you can or cannot afford isn't the issue, what's fair is the issue.
And for almost a century, a progressive tax code has been viewed as fair.
Fair is a code that taxes according to a person's ability to pay, and
according to how much a person has benefitted from living in this society.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 06:28:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:37:25 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
And for almost a century, a progressive tax code has been viewed as fair.
Fair is a code that taxes according to a person's ability to pay, and
according to how much a person has benefitted from living in this society.
We vastly overtax, for a bloated, and often unconstitutional (because they
tread on State territory) bunch of government services and authorities. In
fact, Federal taxes on *individual* income is completely screwed up.
Taxing interstate trade, taxing interstate activities, taxing
international activities, taxing the States (which would then tax
the people to pay for it)...fine and dandy, but when it comes to the
individual the Federal government is stepping on a fine line of it's
authority. Yes, the Federal government has a Constitutional right to levy
taxes....but an income tax on levied on individuals was never something
the Founding Fathers would have supported I don't think. Nor would they
approve of numerous things the government has stuck it's nose into over
the years that violate the rights of States.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 03:19:55 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.31.00.28.30.386754@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:37:25 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
And for almost a century, a progressive tax code has been viewed as
fair.
Fair is a code that taxes according to a person's ability to pay, and
according to how much a person has benefitted from living in this
society.
We vastly overtax, for a bloated, and often unconstitutional (because they
tread on State territory)
BS. Cite the section of the constitution that says you get to decide
what's constitutional.
bunch of government services and authorities. In
fact, Federal taxes on *individual* income is completely screwed up.
Taxing interstate trade, taxing interstate activities, taxing
international activities, taxing the States (which would then tax
the people to pay for it)...fine and dandy, but when it comes to the
individual the Federal government is stepping on a fine line of it's
authority.
Except it's in the constitution.
Yes, the Federal government has a Constitutional right to levy
taxes....but an income tax on levied on individuals was never something
the Founding Fathers would have supported I don't think.
They didn't imagine an air force, an internet, an end to slavery, women
voting, and all kinds of other things either.
Nor would they
approve of numerous things the government has stuck it's nose into over
the years that violate the rights of States.
14th amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liam Slider" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 09:12:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:55 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.31.00.28.30.386754@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:37:25 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
And for almost a century, a progressive tax code has been viewed as
fair.
Fair is a code that taxes according to a person's ability to pay, and
according to how much a person has benefitted from living in this
society.
We vastly overtax, for a bloated, and often unconstitutional (because they
tread on State territory)
BS. Cite the section of the constitution that says you get to decide
what's constitutional.
Oh gee, when did I say that I get to decide it? No, the Constitution of
the United States decides it.
bunch of government services and authorities. In fact, Federal taxes on
*individual* income is completely screwed up. Taxing interstate trade,
taxing interstate activities, taxing international activities, taxing
the States (which would then tax the people to pay for it)...fine and
dandy, but when it comes to the individual the Federal government is
stepping on a fine line of it's authority.
Except it's in the constitution.
Yes, they amended it in later, in 1895...and the Founding Fathers would
not have approved of the Amendment...it treads on a very fine line. Which
is why I never said it was strictly unconstitutional. I said "fine line of
it's authority." The Amendment was always a mistake....
Yes, the Federal government has a Constitutional right to levy
taxes....but an income tax on levied on individuals was never something
the Founding Fathers would have supported I don't think.
They didn't imagine an air force, an internet, an end to slavery, women
voting, and all kinds of other things either.
Ah yes, the "they didn't imagine" move...typical leftist position. "Let's
ban guns because the Founding Fathers never imagines the machine gun" is a
common enough argument, for example. But you know what they *did* imagine?
Federal government with lots of power....and they did not like the idea,
because it inherently leads to oppression. The Founding Fathers would have
been delighted with the Internet...the good *and* bad of it, a free, widly
avaliable method of communication, and distribution of information where
free press and speech runs rampant. An end to slavery? Many, like
Ben Franklin, would have welcomed it, and in fact opposed it. Slavery was
a sore issue very early on and nearly kept this country from forming in
the first place. As for women voting, true that didn't cross their minds,
but women *were* politically active, and influential at the time and had a
strong role in shaping our government....though none were the actual
authors of the Constitution, nor delegates.
Nor would they
approve of numerous things the government has stuck it's nose into over
the years that violate the rights of States.
14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment does *not* mean the States don't have rights. Nor does
it mean the Federal Government can do whatever they fucking feel like. The
14th Amendment does not override the *rest* of the Constitution. Stop
using it as a catch all as if it did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
31 Mar 2005 08:53:47 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.31.15.12.03.337943@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:19:55 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.31.00.28.30.386754@NOSPAM.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <liam@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 17:37:25 +0000, Lloyd Parker wrote:
And for almost a century, a progressive tax code has been viewed as
fair.
Fair is a code that taxes according to a person's ability to pay, and
according to how much a person has benefitted from living in this
society.
We vastly overtax, for a bloated, and often unconstitutional (because
they
tread on State territory)
BS. Cite the section of the constitution that says you get to decide
what's constitutional.
Oh gee, when did I say that I get to decide it? No, the Constitution of
the United States decides it.
So why did you label something unconstitutional? That's like me saying
something is unCatholic.
bunch of government services and authorities. In fact, Federal taxes on
*individual* income is completely screwed up. Taxing interstate trade,
taxing interstate activities, taxing international activities, taxing
the States (which would then tax the people to pay for it)...fine and
dandy, but when it comes to the individual the Federal government is
stepping on a fine line of it's authority.
Except it's in the constitution.
Yes, they amended it in later, in 1895...and the Founding Fathers would
not have approved of the Amendment...it treads on a very fine line.
As I said, I doubt they would have approved of a lot we do now. But we're
progressed beyond the 18th century and 18th-century thinking. At least
most of us have.
Which
is why I never said it was strictly unconstitutional. I said "fine line of
it's authority." The Amendment was always a mistake....
Bet you think giving blacks and women the vote was, since the writers in
1789 never authorized that.
Yes, the Federal government has a Constitutional right to levy
taxes....but an income tax on levied on individuals was never something
the Founding Fathers would have supported I don't think.
They didn't imagine an air force, an internet, an end to slavery, women
voting, and all kinds of other things either.
Ah yes, the "they didn't imagine" move...typical leftist position. "Let's
ban guns because the Founding Fathers never imagines the machine gun" is a
common enough argument, for example. But you know what they *did* imagine?
Federal government with lots of power....and they did not like the idea,
because it inherently leads to oppression.
But they also imagined the federal gov't as supreme over the states.
The Founding Fathers would have
been delighted with the Internet...the good *and* bad of it, a free, widly
avaliable method of communication, and distribution of information where
free press and speech runs rampant. An end to slavery? Many, like
Ben Franklin, would have welcomed it, and in fact opposed it.
But the constitutional explicitly authorizes it.
Slavery was
a sore issue very early on and nearly kept this country from forming in
the first place. As for women voting, true that didn't cross their minds,
but women *were* politically active, and influential at the time and had a
strong role in shaping our government....though none were the actual
authors of the Constitution, nor delegates.
So again, it's not something they would have approved of at the time.
Nor would they
approve of numerous things the government has stuck it's nose into over
the years that violate the rights of States.
14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment does *not* mean the States don't have rights. Nor does
it mean the Federal Government can do whatever they fucking feel like. The
14th Amendment does not override the *rest* of the Constitution. Stop
using it as a catch all as if it did.
No, but it means a state cannot abridge the rights of a US citizen. In
other words, US citizenship rights trump state acts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: We Can Learn A Lot From Where People Stand On ANWR |
30 Mar 2005 10:05:08 PM |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
