-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Conservatives Love Big Government, Hate Paying for It
- Thread starter hakr100
- Start date
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I still dont get how ye feel these flat tax policies and deregulation work
"Yeah the last decade of growth clearly shows they make sense"
hellooooooo
"Yeah the last decade of growth clearly shows they make sense"
hellooooooo
Both sides do it. Hark100 is just VERY blatant about it.
Obviously
Its just brought up with seeming E V E R Y little thing with ye
Anytime you are talking about what government can and can't do, or should and shouldn't do, in the US, you will have to discuss the constitution. That's the basis for all of that.
It's like consulting the rule book when you have a disagreement over a board game. It's (or at least should be) the go to document to resolve these kinds of disputes.
hakr100
Android Expert
I'm not blatant about it. I'm also not making any claims that cannot be easily proved by anyone with minimal search engine capabilities.
Note that I stated I am not interested in the game of "Warring URLs."
We lost our virginity about what is and is not in the Constitution 150 years ago. It's not difficult to make a case for Constitutionality for many positions that are not.
\
You aren't blatant about it... you just make lots of statements that you cannot support with facts.
That's not blatant at all. /sarcasm
You use the statement that you "won't" to hide the fact that you "can't".
That much is obvious, and fine, as long as people reading this thread know that, and can dismiss your statements accordingly.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
So clear? You want a document that clearly addresses every single issue that can come up within the next 300 years? You aren't going to be able to draft any such document. No one will be.
The US Constitution has done amazingly well, considering how much the world has changed in the last 200+ years.
Seriously, when they wrote the constitution, you traveled by walking, or by horseback, firearms were muzzle-loaded, and people flying from place to place was strictly the work of the devil.
I would say the document has held up pretty well for how much the world has changed around it.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
My states consitution is 75 years old
Its very dated
Well, maybe if you get them to rewrite your constitution, then this time they can do it right.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
With respect, if you make a statement, certainly, you must realize that some of us might wisth to take a gander at whatever proof you can manage to muster... Don't you?
Bob Maxey
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Two general proposals: a flat tax that is just that. Your income is taxed at a fixed rate that applies to everyone. If the tax rate is 10%, someone making 10,000 per year pays 1,000 dollars. Oprah pays more because she earns more. Can't get any fairer than that.
The other idea being discussed is a consumption tax with no federal tax. Everything you buy is taxed, from a pack of gum to a new biplane, it is taxed. Some will argue that illegally earned income would also be taxed.
Whatever is decided (if it ever is decided) would require that the 17th amendment be dispatched. Or we run the risk of income tax returning on top of a new tax.
H&R Bob Maxey
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Forget our personal definitions of "rich." If you make $250,000 a year, President Obama considers you to be rich. Not sure how that breaks down specifically; there are lots of people with that kind of money that can't afford much.
Bob Maxey
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
For example?
I would like us to get back to actually following the Constitution. Forget whatever you only think it can be made to say and perhaps we start actually reading and following the document; listening to our founders, and stop all the liberal, country killing BS.
Bob Maxey
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
I prseume you mean federal only - as in the states keep their graduated tax rates
You do realise most economic gains are going to the rich
Their salaries are increasing faster
If you got the federal government doing what its supposed to do, this could work, as the fed gvmnt will spend less
But state taxes would go up
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
I prseume you mean federal only - as in the states keep their graduated tax rates
You do realise most economic gains are going to the rich
Their salaries are increasing faster
If you got the federal government doing what its supposed to do, this could work, as the fed gvmnt will spend less
But state taxes would go up
Yes indeed, I mean federal income tax.
I am not sure what each state should do about taxes. Perhaps we all need to learn to do more with less and do what we have always done in this country: let us loose and stop taxing us to death. If given a chance, we Americans can work wonders and my proof is the historical record.
Part of any tax reduction requires a corresponding reduction in spending. We need to look at many issues to set things right in this country.
The rich. Hmm. What to do with the bloody rich. Forgetting, naturally, that the top few percent pay the majority of federal income tax and the bottom forty odd percent pay zero federal income tax.
Bob Maxey
You you want to read the document... maybe you can tell me what the founders meant by 'promote the general welfare' in section 8?
Listening to which founding father?
You do realize that they had differing opinions of the role of the federal government don't you?
How about we listen to Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton? Are those 3 founding fathers good enough for you?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Military
The top 1% controls more wealth than the bottom 95%
Of all income, the top 10% earns a third, the next 30% another third, and the rest the other third
3 things
1. It seems like the Federal Reserve is your #1 PROBLEM
2. A founding Father had it written into the Constitution that paraphrasing the currency will belong to the Citizens and controlled by the elected members of Senate and NOT a private FOREIGN COMPANY like the Fed
3. So what you are saying is that ALMOST HALF of the POPULATION is POOR.
Bob, seriously I think America started out well (minus slavery and few other injustices such as genocide of the Indians) BUT it seems in recent times namely the last 100 years America is no longer owned by it's citizens.
The US Constitution defines a citizen as a PERSON so how the hell can the Supreme Court now rule that a CORPORATION has the SAME RIGHTS as a PERSON.
Can you not stand back and take the blinders off for a moment and see how that is FLAWED and will leads to ruin. btw- Obama was against this ruling and even mentioned it in his State of the Union speech.
You just saw what those SAME CORPORATIONS have done to your country. Also WALMART is a huge enemy to the American people, it seems just about EVERYONE agrees that Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave with the direction his company has taken.
You want to step up and defend yourself? Keep in mind Russia has already invaded another country in the last couple of years.
Of course, your different. your Europe. There's no way Russia would EVER attack a defenseless Europe like they would a defenseless Georgia.
How DARE THEY?! I mean, HOW DARE THEY START MULTIBILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES AND PROFIT FROM THEM!!
I'm so bleeping mad. How dare they employ millions of people!? That's not right. There's something wrong there. We should take ALL That money, and let the government make jobs instead.
Yeah, that'll work.
The top 10% earns a third of all income.
The top 1% pays almost 40% of all income taxes paid in this nation. That should tell you something.
Umm... not by a long shot.
First off, let's not be deceitful, private companies were not mentioned.
Secondly, let's not be deceitful, the Federal Reserve is not a foreign company. It's not a foreign owned company.
I can say that because, Foreign ownership of the Fed is outlawed. Foreigners can only own trivial amounts of Federal Reserve Stock.
United States Code: Title 12,283. Public subscription to capital stock | LII / Legal Information Institute
The Fed is OWNED by member banks.
Depends on your definition of poor. If by poor you mean can't get what they need to survive? Then absolutely not. If by poor you mean, can't afford luxuries, well, that might be a different story. Although, I afford quite a few luxuries... and my "poor" welfare support friends do too... so I don't really know HOW you would define poor.
Yep, that's why we elected a President who is decidedly ANTI-Business.
I don't know, maybe because a corporation is just a bunch of... People who have rights, and choose to use those rights together.
Yep, giving groups of people rights that they can exert... oh wait... No, I'm for giving people rights.
The Teachers' Union in the State of Alabama spent a million dollars to get a candidate defeated in the Primary. And you are worried about Corporations? Really?
You do know that a recent SC decision granted corporations many of the rights as individuals?
Here is the budget for US Welfare Spending since you are too lazy to just look it up yourself.
Now stop trolling, and actually read the page.
US Welfare Spending 1792-2015 - Charts
I really don't have an opinion one way or the other, I don't really care who is right or wrong, I'm just sick and tired of your stupid attitude towards the whole discussion.
-Mike