Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/24/2010, 8:27 pm

At what point do we stop raising taxes and fees?

The nut of the Tea Party is they feel we are already there and I agree. I'm sure unions can't be too happy about stiff taxes on their healthcare plans if Obama-Care were to pass. And I could cite proposed additional fees on energy, for example. It seems like all we see is more & more taxes & fees while new spending is killing us. Obama has already made mention of having to drum up some other new tax to start to make up for additional spending we are already committed to aside from whatever Obama-Care will additionally cost besides what we are being told.

Should an embassy in England REALLY cost $1bil no matter how energy efficient it may be? I wonder if the moat is for defensive purposes in case the Brits attack. Razz

As a side note I haven't heard anybody else mention this so perhaps I will be the 1st but the design bares a striking resemblance to the city of God described in the book of Revelations. I wonder if it's merely a coincidence? :usa:

Do we really have to wait for foreign countries such as China to refuse to buy any more of our debt or set terms on which they will extend us any more credit before we begin to treat the spending crisis like a crisis? It's no wonder that so many people talk of secession because even though 1 party has the White House and Congress these monetary problems continue to worsen, the taxes continue to increase, and don't even get me started with the social engineering agenda.

Since you guys will probably dispute any breakdown I might provide you tell me how much of your pay goes to taxes and fees across all levels of government and including the cost of basic needs such as the NIPSCO gas & electric bill and then tell me now at what point can we all agree taxes can go no higher, no mo.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/25/2010, 3:33 am

So far no answer? Surely this isn't too difficult. Is this the 1st time anyone challenged you to consider how much is too much taxation?

BTW it now dawns on me that not everyone has seen this new embassy proposal. I hope this linky works.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7302771/US-London-embassy-trades-Mayfair-mansion-for-futuristic-cube-in-Battersea.html

Revelations 21
[16] And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
[17] And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
[18] And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.

Revelations 22
[1] And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/25/2010, 8:23 am

Mirage wrote:
As a side note I haven't heard anybody else mention this so perhaps I will be the 1st but the design bares a striking resemblance to the city of God described in the book of Revelations. I wonder if it's merely a coincidence? :usa:

Prepare to be disappointed.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/25/2010, 8:30 am

I think it's far more likely to be the prelude to a Borg invasion.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 6:36 am

Still no answer for the topic question? Can we even agree that 100% taxation is enough? Rolling Eyes

Oh wait! What about that proposed tax of over 100% for some media broadcasters, unless they are minority owned of course. lol!
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 8:23 am

Obama has already cut taxes for 98.6% of working households.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 10:00 am

Mirage wrote:
Still no answer for the topic question?

Not really. If the system doesn't have enough resources to operate then obviously the rates aren't high enough. So the real issue is whether or not such components are necessary. But I have a poor grasp of budgets, policy, and taxes and all that jazz, so I can't help ya there. I think we're on the downside of the diminishing returns curve, so everything's going to cost more to do less anyway. Like I said... we're boned.

And yes, the moat is a security measure for the embassy, which they've been looking to move since 2003:

Quote :
A moat 30 metres (100ft) wide and rolling parkland will separate the building from the main road, protecting it from would-be bombers and removing the need for the blast barriers that so dismayed the people of Mayfair.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 10:43 am

Heretic wrote:
I think we're on the downside of the diminishing returns curve, so everything's going to cost more to do less anyway. Like I said... we're boned.

You live in Illinois too? Mad
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 12:12 pm

Mirage wrote:


At what point do we stop raising taxes and fees? The nut of the Tea Party is they feel we are already there and I agree.

Exactly what tax hikes are you talking about?

Mirage wrote:
I'm sure unions can't be too happy about stiff taxes on their healthcare plans if Obama-Care were to pass

Perhaps not, but Health Insurance reform must be enacted or the country will end up going bankrupt because Health Care costs are spiraling out of control,

Quote :
. And I could cite proposed additional fees on energy, for example.

It's not at all clear that we will be negatively impacted by the energy bill. We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. I don't think there is any question that we need to deal with the transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as we can.

Mirage wrote:

It seems like all we see is more & more taxes & fees while new spending is killing us.

What new taxes? What new fees? What spending do you want to eliminate?

Mirage wrote:

Obama has already made mention of having to drum up some other new tax to start to make up for additional spending we are already committed to aside from whatever Obama-Care will additionally cost besides what we are being told.

Can you be a bit more specific?

As for "Obama Care," the CBO actually projects that it will cut our deficit by a trillion dollars over 10 years.

Mirage wrote:

What about that proposed tax of over 100% for some media broadcasters, unless they are minority owned of course.

Do you have a link on this?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9380

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 2:27 pm

Scorpion wrote:
Mirage wrote:

What about that proposed tax of over 100% for some media broadcasters, unless they are minority owned of course.

Do you have a link on this?
The only tax proposal I could find is this one H.R.848 - Performance Rights Act.
Quote :
2/4/2009--Introduced.Performance Rights Act - Amends federal copyright law to: (1) grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters; (2) establish a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations
Of course the righties will try to spin this as some nefarious plot to shut down conservative or Christian talk radio.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/26/2010, 6:51 pm

Yeah. well thanks for looking, but I sure as hell don't see how that proposed bill has anything at all to do with Mirage's dubious claim about a "proposed tax of over 100% for some media broadcasters, unless they are minority owned of course."

The claim sounds completely bogus to me.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/27/2010, 7:58 am

Still no answer!

I didn't ask what the needs are. I asked at what point is total taxation too much. There has to be some magic number we can agree is too high regardless of what the perceived need is because who in their right mind would bother to earn wages if the whole check gets taken away by the government? But if you're rich is a 90% income tax on top of all other taxes too high?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/27/2010, 9:10 am

About that broadcaster tax:

Freedom of speech... is a distraction?

Localism boards are being created. Our diversity "czar" has just proposed that radio companies pay 100 percent of their operating budget, yearly. A 100 percent tax which would then be transferred to the state-run radio of NPR. If you can't pay that, you'd lose your license and it would be sold to minority group.

(In a completely unrelated fact, the FCC just approved the sale of another radio station — this one on Long Island — to ACORN.)


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543341,00.html

If you wanna look it up fine. I'm not. But I think the citation references to the proposal are in this document filed with the FCC in opposition.

http://www.catholicradioassociation.org/Documents/CRA%20Localism%20Comments%20-%20Final.pdf

1 Broadcast Localism, MB Docket No. 04-233, Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-218 (2008). Pursuant to the Commission’s request that
comments on the Staffing Proposal (defined below) as it pertains to radio be filed in the Digital
Audio NPRM, CRA is filing a copy of these Comments in that proceeding, as well. Localism
NPRM at ¶¶28-29, citing Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial
Broadcast Service, Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 99-325, 22 FCC Rcd 10344, 10391 ¶119 (2007)
(hereinafter “Digital Audio NPRM”).
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3109

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/27/2010, 10:10 am

Mirage wrote:
Still no answer!

I didn't ask what the needs are. I asked at what point is total taxation too much.

Which really can't be answered with as little information provided. If the taxes provide a lot of necessary services overall with the net result of saving the public money, the that can be a lot higher than if they don't provide anything at all, right?

You're question just isn't as simple as "pick a number".
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/28/2010, 3:12 am

So you are saying that the needs of government spending dictates the max income tax rate and surtaxes regardless of how high those taxes have to be? You do understand that if we do nothing to address the national debt soon the interest alone won't take long to push us past the brink, especially if nobody will buy our debt besides the FED, and most especially with new proposed spending, so the point clearly is valid just as it was in pre-Hitler Germany with them wheel barrels of money just to buy bread.

But so far I have not even seen agreement that a 100%+ tax is too high. In the proposal cited I believe they would ALSO be liable for business income taxes pushing a private business to over 100% merely to impose a debatable social chance. And if they couldn't write them off as an expense additionally property taxes plus taxes on the utilities. Never mind why they want to do it or if it's even legal the fact that the government even considered doing it outta scare the hell out of you.

So again I ask how much is too much? If Fed, state, local income taxes were 90% of your earnings and your property taxes and taxes on utilities pushed you over 100% of what you make would that be too much taxation? Oh I forgot about the proposed mandatory health insurance policy and that you could go to jail for failing to pay premiums.

I suppose I could cloud the issue by mentioning that some people are already in that bucket of over 100% taxation because between property taxes and utilities and with high unemployment and a weak housing market they are in a bad place with little hope in sight. But you work 40 hours and still can't afford to eat because you have to keep the government spending like mad and before long you will be ripe for revolution, or do you disagree?
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   2/28/2010, 12:23 pm

Mirage wrote:
So you are saying that the needs of government spending dictates the max income tax rate and surtaxes regardless of how high those taxes have to be?

I could be wrong, but I believe what Heretic is saying is that an acceptable level of taxation depends on the quality and amount of services provided. Simply characterizing that as the "needs of government spending" is not the same thing.

Mirage wrote:

You do understand that if we do nothing to address the national debt soon the interest alone won't take long to push us past the brink, especially if nobody will buy our debt besides the FED, and most especially with new proposed spending, so the point clearly is valid just as it was in pre-Hitler Germany with them wheel barrels of money just to buy bread.

Yeah. Well that's why you don't start a war without providing a mechanism to pay for it. It's why you don't pass a prescription drug plan for seniors without a means to finance the extra spending.


Mirage wrote:

But so far I have not even seen agreement that a 100%+ tax is too high. In the proposal cited I believe they would ALSO be liable for business income taxes pushing a private business to over 100% merely to impose a debatable social chance. And if they couldn't write them off as an expense additionally property taxes plus taxes on the utilities. Never mind why they want to do it or if it's even legal the fact that the government even considered doing it outta scare the hell out of you.

Beck is a serial liar and your "example" is completely bogus. I'm still doing research, but here is a link to the actual proposal, if you want to educate yourself beforehand...

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-218A1.pdf

Mirage wrote:

So again I ask how much is too much? If Fed, state, local income taxes were 90% of your earnings and your property taxes and taxes on utilities pushed you over 100% of what you make would that be too much taxation? Oh I forgot about the proposed mandatory health insurance policy and that you could go to jail for failing to pay premiums.

Yeah, well if you had to pay more than you make just for taxes, that would not be sustainable unless everything else was paid for by the taxing entity.

Mirage wrote:

I suppose I could cloud the issue by mentioning that some people are already in that bucket of over 100% taxation because between property taxes and utilities and with high unemployment and a weak housing market they are in a bad place with little hope in sight.

No, you can't say that without a radical new definition of what constitutes "taxation." As for many people being in a "bad place," I think that's true because of current economic conditions, but I'd really like to see you explain how the housing crisis and high unemployment is a result of government spending.

It's pretty clear at this point what caused the current economic downturn. And it sure as hell wasn't the stimulus plan that you constantly rail against. In fact, there is plenty of credible evidence that the stimulus plan has kept the recession from getting much, much worse.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   3/1/2010, 10:20 am

I could be wrong, but I believe what Heretic is saying is that an acceptable level of taxation depends on the quality and amount of services provided. Simply characterizing that as the "needs of government spending" is not the same thing.

Except we are at the brink of not having the money no matter how high you wanna tax. There are efforts to have the IMF shift from the US Dollar as a reserve currency so just printing dollars won't work anymore.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091112/imf-economists-review-reserve-currency-alternatives.htm

Yeah. Well that's why you don't start a war without providing a mechanism to pay for it. It's why you don't pass a prescription drug plan for seniors without a means to finance the extra spending.


And can we agree that all 3 of the current proposals are seriously underfunded? CBO wouldn't even score Obama's plan from his website because it didn't fully address funding.

Beck is a serial liar and your "example" is completely bogus. I'm still doing research, but here is a link to the actual proposal, if you want to educate yourself beforehand...

And yet you ignore the proof I provided to the contrary on this issue. I skimmed through the link you provided. You sure that's the one you meant to use? I saw that it seemed pretty sparing about what stations should be exempt from public interest must carry and a reference concerning Jesse Jackson but no reference a means to effecting more minority ownership. It also seemed to want to tighten up Low Power frequencies which I know would affect a few religious re-transmitters such as 3ABN.

As a side note I saw a passage that referred to live transmissions having a pass because a broadcaster can't always control live events, yet I heard recently that the FCC is still on CBS over the Janet Jackson "equipment malfunction." lol

Yeah, well if you had to pay more than you make just for taxes, that would not be sustainable unless everything else was paid for by the taxing entity.

That is an impossibility! That suggests that if you turn over all you have to the government it can run your life more cheaply than you can when we know that even under communism government is wasteful so there would be no such savings.

No, you can't say that without a radical new definition of what constitutes "taxation."


Really? Any time the government gets some of your money that's a tax or a surtax. The definition doesn't sound all that radical to me. BTW I heard on Fox News that 3 Senators may be ready to introduce a carbon tax bill to add more taxes on gasoline and other things that produce carbon because the term cap in trade is so unpopular they wanna call it a climate change bill. But a tax by any other name STILL costs you money. lol
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   3/1/2010, 1:45 pm

Let's address the "Broadcast Localism" issue separately, or we'll just end up talking past each other.

Scorpion wrote:
Beck is a serial liar and your "example" is completely bogus. I'm still doing research, but here is a link to the actual proposal, if you want to educate yourself beforehand...

Mirage wrote:

And yet you ignore the proof I provided to the contrary on this issue. I skimmed through the link you provided. You sure that's the one you meant to use?

Yes. that's the correct link. It's specifically referenced in your link.

"Report on Broadcast Localism and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-218 (2008)."

I did not "ignore the proof that you provided." I read the entire objection from the Catholics, and I understand their objection, but this proposed rule has absolutely nothing to do with taxation.

Mirage wrote:

I saw that it seemed pretty sparing about what stations should be exempt from public interest must carry and a reference concerning Jesse Jackson but no reference a means to effecting more minority ownership.

That's because, like I said, Beck is a frickin' liar. There is absolutely nothing in the proposal that talks about "more minority ownership" as a goal of this proposal. It's about providing local programming to all local communities, including rural communities.

Currently, many transmitters are not staffed by anyone. They are being used to "beam in" signals from outside into local communities. The proposal requires that these transmitters be staffed by local people in each local market. It would require the hiring of full time, local employees. That's where the increase in costs comes in...

It doesn't matter whether you think it's a good or bad idea. The point is that it is not a "100% tax increase," and it sure as hell isn't about "increasing minority ownership."
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   3/1/2010, 3:55 pm

Mirage wrote:

And can we agree that all 3 of the current proposals are seriously underfunded?

No, that's not correct. Both the House bill and the Senate bill were scored by CBO to actually cut the budget deficit by rougnly 1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

That sure sounds good to me. How can you be against that?

Mirage wrote:

CBO wouldn't even score Obama's plan from his website because it didn't fully address funding.

True, that. But the "plan" that President Obama put up on the website was for the purpose of finding common ground at the Health Insurance Reform summit. The plan that he presented was largely based upon the Senate Plan, which has already been scored by the CBO. if the changes he proposed are adopted, then the resulting bill will be scored by the CBO, and there is no reason to believe that it won't also reduce the deficit.

Mirage wrote:

Yeah, well if you had to pay more than you make just for taxes, that would not be sustainable unless everything else was paid for by the taxing entity.

That is an impossibility! That suggests that if you turn over all you have to the government it can run your life more cheaply than you can when we know that even under communism government is wasteful so there would be no such savings.

Never made any claim or "suggestion." I was simply pointing out the obvious, which is that you can't levy taxes on "more than you make." It's simply ridiculous to even imply that we're approaching 100% taxation.

Mirage wrote:


No, you can't say that without a radical new definition of what constitutes "taxation."


Really? Any time the government gets some of your money that's a tax or a surtax. The definition doesn't sound all that radical to me. BTW I heard on Fox News that 3 Senators may be ready to introduce a carbon tax bill to add more taxes on gasoline and other things that produce carbon because the term cap in trade is so unpopular they wanna call it a climate change bill. But a tax by any other name STILL costs you money. lol

You were talking about the fact that some people are in a "bad place" because they are behind on their mortgages. That is not because of taxation. Taxation is not the reason that unemployment is high, either.

As for the "carbon tax," like I said earlier, we have no idea how that will ultimately impact ordinary folks. The energy bill won't pass if it places an undue burden on the middle class, so it's kind of silly to get all worked up over it, don't you think?

It sounds to me like you're against any taxes. period. That just isn't realistic if you really want to get the deficit under control. Hey, I don't like taxes either, but I don't think opposing them solely on ideological grounds is rational.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   3/2/2010, 1:49 am

This just in - you have to start accepting what Glenn beck has to say cause your bro Van says that he loves the guy, so I guess you gotta take what Beck has to say as if it came from Rev Jesse Jackson's own lips. Liberal rules! Razz
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me   

Back to top Go down
 
I Want the Dems to Answer 1 Very Simple Question for Me
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: