On August 22 2011 12:43 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know if this has been brought up earlier in the threat, but recently fox news hilariously called Warren Buffett a socialist for his arguments. Yep, Warren Buffett: Socialist.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
The actual phrasing is:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
Thank you, it's amazing how many people criticize a document they A., never read, or B., read for school and didn't actually think about it. it was representation... they knew they couldn't immediately do away with slavery... many of them hated it. as to whether they should have ever allowed it at all? well... they weren't perfect (they DID add amendment procedures). Show me a prefect person, I'll show you a liar.
And the top 10% of earners already pay over 90% of all income tax revenue... the government needs to spend less, not tax more. The money belongs to those who earn it first... if you don't have the money, you have to barrow, but you have to stop borrowing and spending eventually
Ehh, it's not that much, but it seems like everyone is paying their fair share. Assuming this information is correct (from two totally different sites, no less):
The top 1% own 34% of the wealth, and are paying 39% of the taxes. The next 4% own 22% of the wealth, and are paying 20% of the taxes. The next 5% owns 12% of the wealth, and are paying 11% of the taxes.
Can't accurately gauge the remainder from that graph, but these are the kinds of things Republicans are talking about when it comes to this argument, and I have to admit, it's a pretty strong argument. It's hard to justify this class-warfare when everyone seems to be pitching in proportionately.
However, if there's one argument to put forward, it seems that if anyone is really getting screwed here, it's the bottom 50% paying 3% of taxes, when they do not own even close to that amount of the wealth.
Is it too much to ask the wealthiest to pay a little more?
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
Point was not a motivation of the discriminatory passage, just its existence, motivation is quite irrelevant for the point he was making.
Also your explanation makes the whole point even stronger, by actually showing that even as far as motivation goes North was actually as bad in that regard as South as their concern was not for the slaves but for who will have more power.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
The actual phrasing is:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
Thank you, it's amazing how many people criticize a document they A., never read, or B., read for school and didn't actually think about it. it was representation... they knew they couldn't immediately do away with slavery... many of them hated it. as to whether they should have ever allowed it at all? well... they weren't perfect (they DID add amendment procedures). Show me a prefect person, I'll show you a liar.
And the top 10% of earners already pay over 90% of all income tax revenue... the government needs to spend less, not tax more. The money belongs to those who earn it first... if you don't have the money, you have to barrow, but you have to stop borrowing and spending eventually
Ehh, it's not that much, but it seems like everyone is paying their fair share. Assuming this information is correct (from two totally different sites, no less):
The top 1% own 34% of the wealth, and are paying 39% of the taxes. The next 4% own 22% of the wealth, and are paying 20% of the taxes. The next 5% owns 12% of the wealth, and are paying 11% of the taxes.
Can't accurately gauge the remainder from that graph, but these are the kinds of things Republicans are talking about when it comes to this argument, and I have to admit, it's a pretty strong argument. It's hard to justify this class-warfare when everyone seems to be pitching in proportionately.
However, if there's one argument to put forward, it seems that if anyone is really getting screwed here, it's the bottom 50% paying 3% of taxes, when they do not own even close to that amount of the wealth.
Is it too much to ask the wealthiest to pay a little more?
It's deceptive to look at numbers like that because on the face, they look simple and reliable but they omit a lot of data. Payroll taxes for one.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
The actual phrasing is:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
Point was not a motivation of the discriminatory passage, just its existence, motivation is quite irrelevant for the point he was making.
Also your explanation makes the whole point even stronger, by actually showing that even as far as motivation goes North was actually as bad in that regard as South as their concern was not for the slaves but for who will have more power.
I wasn't trying to fuel either side of the argument there, just state some historical facts since redviper was claiming he was 'revising his history'.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
The actual phrasing is:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
Thank you, it's amazing how many people criticize a document they A., never read, or B., read for school and didn't actually think about it. it was representation... they knew they couldn't immediately do away with slavery... many of them hated it. as to whether they should have ever allowed it at all? well... they weren't perfect (they DID add amendment procedures). Show me a prefect person, I'll show you a liar.
And the top 10% of earners already pay over 90% of all income tax revenue... the government needs to spend less, not tax more. The money belongs to those who earn it first... if you don't have the money, you have to barrow, but you have to stop borrowing and spending eventually
Ehh, it's not that much, but it seems like everyone is paying their fair share. Assuming this information is correct (from two totally different sites, no less):
The top 1% own 34% of the wealth, and are paying 39% of the taxes. The next 4% own 22% of the wealth, and are paying 20% of the taxes. The next 5% owns 12% of the wealth, and are paying 11% of the taxes.
Can't accurately gauge the remainder from that graph, but these are the kinds of things Republicans are talking about when it comes to this argument, and I have to admit, it's a pretty strong argument. It's hard to justify this class-warfare when everyone seems to be pitching in proportionately.
However, if there's one argument to put forward, it seems that if anyone is really getting screwed here, it's the bottom 50% paying 3% of taxes, when they do not own even close to that amount of the wealth.
Is it too much to ask the wealthiest to pay a little more?
It's deceptive to look at numbers like that because on the face, they look simple and reliable but they omit a lot of data. Payroll taxes for one.
Aren't payroll taxes constant for everybody? Social Security (6.2%) and Medicare (1.45%)?
At any rate, I'm browsing through http://visualizingeconomics.com/ right now, and it seems to have a lot of good visual representations of recent economic data, without having much of agenda behind it. Such as:
Unfortunately, we're not all paid in stock and can't reap the benefits of a 15% capital gains tax.
Fortunately, we're not all paid in stock, and don't lose a sizable portion of our income if a company goes under. Only our jobs. Wait.
Oh and this one is definitely the most striking. How can there be that many people across all income brackets that owe ZERO income tax? What tax breaks are being given out to afford that kind of tax level?
Oh and this one is definitely the most striking. How can there be that many people across all income brackets that owe ZERO income tax? What tax breaks are being given out to afford that kind of tax level?
Man was I doing something wrong. I was a poor college kid making around 15k a year and somehow I ended up owing money like 3 times I never got close to all my money back when I got a refund.
And the worst part is, when the Republicans keep saying '51% of the country didn't pay income tax at all', they're really only targeting and trying to demonize the lowest 20-40%, when the problem is distributed across the ENTIRE income bracket system.
On August 25 2011 09:24 Bibdy wrote: And the worst part is, when the Republicans keep saying '51% of the country didn't pay income tax at all', they're really only targeting and trying to demonize the lowest 20-40%, when the problem is distributed across the ENTIRE income bracket system.
Exactly, these people actually do pay taxes, it is just refunded to them at the end of the year (during tax time) because the government feels these <15k $ earners could appreciate keeping their tax dollars more than the government can do with it.
On August 20 2011 10:55 gogogadgetflow wrote: Mr. Buffet is a bleeding heart. if he wants to petition the government to tweak the taxes for the top 1% of america so he and his liberal government cronies can all pat themselves on the back and make themselves feel better, he is sure welcome to.
This will all do nothing to remove the cloud of government debt from over america. we are living in a country where 50% of people don't pay taxes. The expansion of the welfare state and the ballooning entitlement complex of americans have reached unsustainable levels, and the super-rich neither have anything to do with it nor can they solve the problem with their money. get real.
In the same vein, why don't all the people arguing for cuts to entitlements drop their "socialist" shackles?
I want all Tea Party/Republicans to drop SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other government funded program, especially the politicians.
Roads are pretty gosh darn socialist too...come to think of it, it seems everything in America maintained by the government is in danger of being labeled socialist by the right.
The roads are in the constitution. SS, Medicare, Medicaid are all bullshit programs.
Say what now? I admit I am just a naturalized citizen and didn't grow up hugging the constitution in bed each night, nor do I have any particular respect for any document that spent a long long time treating black people as 3/5th of a white person.
But how and where are highways in the constitution?
BTW SS, Medicare, Medicaid are entitlements. They are funded by specific taxes on the people and have been since institution. And they are solvent. They don't borrow, infact the treasury borrows from them. And they are necessary, because without them people will not spend as much in anticipation of retirement, further hurting the economy!
A black person was only counted as 3/5ths of a white person because it gave less voting power to the southern states. It is because of this ruling that slavery was contended. You may have been brainwashed to think that the creaters of the constitution were evil because of this, but in the end it made the northern states equal to the southern states in voting power. Highways are in the constitution as part of the post office essentially, You can look it up yourself, I am in a hurry. SS, Medicare and Medicaid make up 2/3's of government spending, they are not solvent, they are a both the hole in the ship and part of the weight dragging it down. Also, w/out medicare and medicaid the prices of medicine and things that those programs support would reduce drastically. SS has been proven to be a failing system and will continue to do so until it is not reliant on a stagnant population.
Revise your history as much as possible but nothing wipes out the shame of keeping black people as 3/5th of a person, essentially subhumans.
Since highways are a post/during ww2 construct they are not provisioned through the constitution. The only provision is that the federal government has to take care of post roads (roads on which the postal service travels). Even that is funded by tax money. And these are services every person in the US, and every business - small or large - takes advantage of.
Without medicare and medicaid the only problem the US will solve is overpopulation and the potential insolvency of SS after 2038 - because the old and retired will be dying in droves. That is certainly one way of approaching the problem, but I highly doubt its a good way.
He is actually right about the 3/5ths vote thing. I was a compromise solution because the south wanted their slaves to count towards population, thus gain more representation and more tax money flowing their way - since there was no income tax, only tariffs, it had to be divvied up somehow. It became fuel for the fire prior to the civil war when the south controlled significantly more power in Congress than they would have without the 3/5ths rule - essentially slave-owners had more representation than other free-peoples because they could easily force their slaves to vote the same way as them.
And the section of the Constitution does not label them as blacks by name, race, or anything specific to them. Only in words to the effect of 'non-free-people' (i.e. slaves).
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Free people, and indentured servants get 1 vote (excluding Indians that don't pay taxes - NOW we're identifying people by race!), and everyone else (slaves) get 3/5ths of a vote.
Of course, the end result, being that damned-near all slaves were black, and being very few free black people (if any) was that black-people got 3/5ths of a vote.
You are both confused. The population of voting peoples and population of people are two different things. What was being decided was the voting rights of the states, through the house of representatives, since the house gave votes based on the population of states. The southern states wanted their property, aka slaves, to count as people for the population census that determines the voting population for the house of representatives, but not as people because people have rights. You can find their argument about it in the federalist papers. In the end, you can't claim property to be both people for population but not for rights in the constitution, so they came to the 3/5s clause which limited the slave states from being able to hold more voting weight by collecting more slaves. It seems you are ignoring the first word in the paragragh "Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union..."
Oh and this one is definitely the most striking. How can there be that many people across all income brackets that owe ZERO income tax? What tax breaks are being given out to afford that kind of tax level?
Man was I doing something wrong. I was a poor college kid making around 15k a year and somehow I ended up owing money like 3 times I never got close to all my money back when I got a refund.
Your taxable income starts at around $9000 for a single independent, you file a W2 and all that stuff. You can put anything on a W2 but if you are wrong when you file your tax return you're going to end up owing money. But if your parents were paying for more than half of your living expenses then you couldn't claim yourself against your tax liability.
To put it simply, tax law is a cluster fuck, and every elected person thinks they can "fix" it by adding more tax law.
On August 25 2011 09:24 Bibdy wrote: And the worst part is, when the Republicans keep saying '51% of the country didn't pay income tax at all', they're really only targeting and trying to demonize the lowest 20-40%, when the problem is distributed across the ENTIRE income bracket system.
Exactly, these people actually do pay taxes, it is just refunded to them at the end of the year (during tax time) because the government feels these <15k $ earners could appreciate keeping their tax dollars more than the government can do with it.
This is incorrect, the only taxes that are refunded are taxes that are overpaid to the government. If you owe taxes you pay them. Everyone pays FICA, then certain property taxes or sales tax, but not everyone pays an Income tax (a tax on the amount of money you make, because the government provides certain cervices which make it possible for you to work and earn a wage).
On August 22 2011 12:43 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know if this has been brought up earlier in the threat, but recently fox news hilariously called Warren Buffett a socialist for his arguments. Yep, Warren Buffett: Socialist.
Republicans like to complain that Democrats practice “class warfare” and “the politics of division,” as House GOP leader Eric Cantor argued on this page Monday. What the Republicans’ position on the payroll tax makes high-definitionally clear is their own class warfare on working- and middle-class Americans. Their double standard couldn’t be more obvious: Tax cuts for the wealthy are sacrosanct; tax cuts for everyone else don’t really matter. Norquist, Cantor, Ryan, Camp, the Journal editorialists and the whole Republican crew give hypocrisy a bad name.
Buffet's quote about job creation from 1980 to the present is a little troubling. He says 40 million jobs were created. But the population of this country increased by 100 million in that time period. The fact is that unemployment is about the same as it was 30 years ago. Higher tax rates may not necessarily hurt job creation in a general sense because the government creates jobs with that tax money. But higher tax rates should theoretically hurt salaries because you are redistributing money that would've otherwise gone to pay for positions in profitable private industries to (often) non-productive public use.
Nietzsche wrote about the psychological effects of receiving benefits from other people--namely that it makes you resentful because by accepting assistance you are being shown that you are inferior. It is a difficult issue because for every case of a person abusing govt handouts there is a person who seems to have legitimately benefited from them. One thing that seems certain is that since we dove into social welfare in the 60s, the traditional family structure has broken down. And so people cannot rely on their families as safety nets. I think generally this fact has proved to be a tremendous burden on our society.
On August 22 2011 12:43 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know if this has been brought up earlier in the threat, but recently fox news hilariously called Warren Buffett a socialist for his arguments. Yep, Warren Buffett: Socialist.
Fuck, I was about to come in here and be all like 'LOLOL how long till Fox News starts running their 'Shady Billionaire Warren Buffet With Links to Communist Regimes All Around The World' campaign? I guess they have officially moved beyond parody. And all the evidence they need is for someone who is related to him to talk to someone who knows a guy who was born in Russia for them to call him the Heir of Stalin.
On August 22 2011 12:43 DoubleReed wrote: I don't know if this has been brought up earlier in the threat, but recently fox news hilariously called Warren Buffett a socialist for his arguments. Yep, Warren Buffett: Socialist.
Oh and this one is definitely the most striking. How can there be that many people across all income brackets that owe ZERO income tax? What tax breaks are being given out to afford that kind of tax level?
They still pay other taxes, especially social security and sales tax. While it's true that they pay no net federal income tax, that figure is usually cited to suggest they pay zero taxes, which is false.
![[image loading]](http://zerne.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/wealth.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://nomoreclasswarfare.com/images/2005PercentageofTaxbyIncomeLevel.gif)
![[image loading]](http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/IncomeDistributionMaster1-650x436.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/MINT-TAXES-R4.png)
![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2009/0610-leonhardt/0610-web-leonhardt.gif)
EPT
