damn, they just reported that the Obama policies are actually working...funny, this comes out 2 days after the election..oh well.... I guess now the ubercons will now have something to fuck up.......again.
Actually they reported that hiring was up due to the holiday season and that the unemployment rate has not budged.
I have a question. If Clinton had taxes on the rich that was paying the deficit off, and Bush implements a a tax break to the rich that still hasn't expired yet, where does that extra funding come from to pay off the deficit? Does that mean more taxes for people below $250,000 a year salary, or does the deficit just grow?
Great article on The Economist about this mid-term democrat fiasco (page 25-27)... don't know how many of you read that newspaper but I found it to be a great read.
So cutting Rich peoples taxes costs everyone else who doesn't make over 250,000.00 more money? And it somehow stimulates the economy because rich people create jobs? Am I missing something here? Because about 95 % of us should not be voting republican.
OMG!! One political party is a fraud... how did we not realize this sooner!! Oh, wait.. they are both frauds. :breakdance:
I will never understand why people think they are entitled to someone else's money. With that being said I'm going to give you the short short lowdown on progressive federal income taxes. They are unconstitutional. They should never have been allowed to come into existance. They violate the constitutional clause regarding equal protection under the law and would never have been accepted by those who founded our country. What many fail to realize is that the problem is not taxes paid by the rich, but the incredible waste in the federal governement. Much of the vast expendictures of our federal income tax dollars are by agencies that are fundamentally unconstitutional or have been given unconstitutional powers. If you would eliminate these federal agencies and turn their function over to the states or private sector and let free market forces address the issues we would not be experiencing the economic problems of today. Both parties are at fault for allowing the country to get into this situation, the only group that comes close to addressing the real issues is The Tea Party movement. If the federal government were as the founding fathers had suggested a flat tax rate would be sufficient. We wouldn't have incredibly high unemployment rates and the increase in corporate and state contributions to the federal government would make it such that federal income taxes could conceiveably be eliminated altogether. The central issue is that the federal government has gone well beyond the powers granted it by the constitution and this has led us down the path we find ourselves today, huge budgets and incredible overspending.
Here is another thing i don't understand. Without a good old taxing,how are we supposed to afford all those unjustified wars you gop folks love to fight. C'mon now. It's the folks over the 250k mark who love blood for oil,the least they could do is fuel the vessel.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm pretty sure the 16th amendment takes care of the graduated income tax.
This is not accurate. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the right to levy a Federal Income tax on individuals. Prior to this amendment states contributed based on the number of people who resided there. It does not specify the method of taxation. It wasn't until a few years later that Woodrow Wilson implemented the first progressive income tax.
On a lighter note this pretty much sums up the difference between the liberal and conservative view. I wish I can take credit for this but I can't. I do not know the original author.
I don't get it. What makes it unconstitutional? Congress clearly has the right to lay and raise taxes, doesn't it?
Yes, because of the 16th Amendment they have the right to levy taxes. However, progressive taxes are not equal. One person paying 10% and another paying 20% is not equal, and thus violates the equal protection of rights. It also violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property rights of the wealthy less sacred than those of who have less. One of the major unalienable rights referred to in the Constitution is the accumulation of property. But don't get too much or we're going to take it away from you and give it to some other guy.
Even being Canadian, I agree on the hotter chicks and no French .... that would be nice. We do have better Beer. Do you like Beer ?
