Wow Americans, kiss your 4th Amendment rights goodbye.

[Twist]

Why did america even kick englands ass 300 years ago? (no offence to the uk residents here lol) Our forefathers would be turning in their graves if they saw what these liberal socialists were doing to our country

You do realize that if anyone is going to call a police state it would be a republican like Bush not a democrat like Obama...

Not that I'm a liberal socialist but what exactly are these liberal socialists doing to our country?

[Nooomoto]

The Obama administration seems very concerned with limiting our ability to do certain, seemingly small things. Freedom isn't lost overnight.

But really it's probably the Tea Party's fault...right?

[Twist]

The Obama administration seems very concerned with limiting our ability to do certain, seemingly small things. Freedom isn't lost overnight.Agreed. So does every single administration though. I don't think Obama is a super hero immune to the corruption - far from it.

But really it's probably the Tea Party's fault...right?

Nope not at all. I just think that most people in the tea party have absolutely no clue what they are voting for so I like ****ing with them. The thing with plutonomy (a truly intriguing aspect imo) is that the very people the system takes advantage of are manipulated into supporting it. It's a crazy thing. It's also very sad.

I recently lost a good friend because she blindly supports the republican party. She sent me texts with 'facts' about the democratic party (even after I told her a million times I'm not a democrat) and so I responded with hardcore evidence refuting or challenging those facts; similar to what I would do with religion, not because I give a shit about what someone else believes, just because they started it lol. She ran out of things to say long before I did and that turned her to insulting me. So I told her to grow up and we haven't spoken since. Even when I poked holes in everything she said instead of doing the logical thing, change opinions, she would rather silence me and shut herself off to all constructive debate. She learned nothing and unfortunately I did; she deserves everything her vote get's her.
Btw she is a single mother with a terminal illness and no job living off of the donations from her ex-husband. If that's not a democratic candidate idk what is.

[thegodfather]

This is a bad ruling, in that the wording used by the majority holding is worded so as to imply that police can make as many errors as they want, and have only civil lawsuits to fear. I think that this ruling disenfranchises people of lower socioeconomic status' because they are unlikely to bring civil suits because of the significant amount of money involved with retaining a lawyer, and they are also more unlikely to know that thier rights have been violated. They lack the RESOURCES to properly defend themselves against government over reach, because they spend the majority of their time working to live.

There is an important phrase that is often uttered, and I think it was the INTENT of the majority, however poorly worded, to convey that "You don't argue cases on the street, you argue them in a courtroom." For instance, with illegal searches&seizures of vehicles and other property, you NEVER RESIST those searches on the spot, you simply voice your objection and never give consent for such a search. These searches are thrown out ALL THE TIME, based on dash cam video and so forth, because the officer lacked the necessary probable cause to search property, and the suspect/victim failed to give consent.

You don't resist the police when they make an error. If this were to happen, then scenarios such as police holding the wrong person at gun point, would degrade into citizens shooting back at police in 'self-defense' when police mis-identified a suspect (one of the most common scenarios in which an innocent person is given undue police attention). These scenarios are usually resolved peacefully outside of a courtroom, and most never see the inside of a courtroom once the misidentification is cleared up. What some of the posters suggest, is that when police make such errors, they start firing back and killing them. This is not acceptable, as government has the legitimate monopoly on violence. We may use violence when acceptable and according to state law, but only in those situations which are defensive in nature.

[zaggahamma]

the police should be held to the same motto "ignorance of the law......"


agree with never resist but believe in less government...

..i believe the current probably cause/imminent danger/need for warrant laws put in place for a reason

[Nooomoto]

Nope not at all. I just think that most people in the tea party have absolutely no clue what they are voting for so I like ****ing with them. The thing with plutonomy (a truly intriguing aspect imo) is that the very people the system takes advantage of are manipulated into supporting it. It's a crazy thing. It's also very sad.

I recently lost a good friend because she blindly supports the republican party. She sent me texts with 'facts' about the democratic party (even after I told her a million times I'm not a democrat) and so I responded with hardcore evidence refuting or challenging those facts; similar to what I would do with religion, not because I give a shit about what someone else believes, just because they started it lol. She ran out of things to say long before I did and that turned her to insulting me. So I told her to grow up and we haven't spoken since. Even when I poked holes in everything she said instead of doing the logical thing, change opinions, she would rather silence me and shut herself off to all constructive debate. She learned nothing and unfortunately I did; she deserves everything her vote get's her.
Btw she is a single mother with a terminal illness and no job living off of the donations from her ex-husband. If that's not a democratic candidate idk what is.

I'm not with the Tea Party movement, I just find it hilarious that a minority of a minority of a group of voters are getting so much attention from so many people in positions of power. The more the Tea Party movement is attacked, the more powerful they become. So everytime some Union rep or leftist senator/congressman gets on TV and starts yelling about the Tea Party, every time a liberal professor publishes a study "proving" that the Tea Party is racist, it just validates them all the more.

[brad1986]

You do realize that if anyone is going to call a police state it would be a republican like Bush not a democrat like Obama...

Not that I'm a liberal socialist but what exactly are these liberal socialists doing to our country?

They are distroying the govnt in which our land was founded on by trying to eccorperate these "scare tatics" to give up more and more rights each year. We are being led to believe that we need the govt tomake decisions for us and that they know better. Look at what our war was about against england 300 years ago and look where we are heading now. We are almost right back to where we started before we gained independnce. Look at how much money is taken out of our checks then look at the guy with diamond watch and a car nicer then yours going into the store and paying with ebt cards. Look at all the money we toss away for "the greater good" And now look at the laws giving police more authority and power to abuse with little accountablility.

[Flagg]

I can't believe that Lefties and Righties are still arguing, as if to say "my party would never do this".

When will you all learn, they are as bad as each other. They all went to Harvard, they all go to the same Country Clubs. Really, it's like arguing which is better, Pepsi or Coca Cola.

[brad1986]

I can't believe that Lefties and Righties are still arguing, as if to say "my party would never do this".

When will you all learn, they are as bad as each other. They all went to Harvard, they all go to the same Country Clubs. Really, it's like arguing which is better, Pepsi or Coca Cola.

I do agree and i dont clasify myself in a "party" because each have points I agree with and disagree with but when it comes to our rights and finance's I def think the "right wing" community generaly has the better more american ideas

[Twist]

They are distroying the govnt in which our land was founded on by trying to eccorperate these "scare tatics" to give up more and more rights each year. We are being led to believe that we need the govt tomake decisions for us and that they know better. Look at what our war was about against england 300 years ago and look where we are heading now. We are almost right back to where we started before we gained independnce. Look at how much money is taken out of our checks then look at the guy with diamond watch and a car nicer then yours going into the store and paying with ebt cards. Look at all the money we toss away for "the greater good" And now look at the laws giving police more authority and power to abuse with little accountablility.

The above is answered by the below. Look at how our rights have been stripped away and it's pretty even between parties. Republicans are no better than democrats.

they are as bad as each other. They all went to Harvard, they all go to the same Country Clubs.

I do agree and i dont clasify myself in a "party" because each have points I agree with and disagree with but when it comes to our rights and finance's I def think the "right wing" community generaly has the better more american ideas

I think you are mistaken. During our boom Bush lowered taxes. That's the opposite of what you are supposed to do during a boom. You tax to pump the brakes and spend to speed things up. Right now Democrats want to spend, although I disagree with this for other reasons. Republicans want to cut spending. Once again, that's the opposite of what should be done. Also go to politifact.com if you want to fact check what the republicans or democrats say, you will be surprised. Most of what both parties say is bs. But as far as basic principles go I think republicans are off more than democrats. My biggest issue with republicans is with the cutting regulatory power of the government. We all know what happens when you do that so why do we keep on testing it out?

[bjpennnn]

Yep, totally stupid. They do profile, but politically they can't own up to it, and they have to continue this farce of putting their hands up kids crotches, and harassing 90 year old women. Bottom line is profiling is the real answer to airport security. The other issue is that TSA are hired out of a pool of uneducated, non security people. Israels profilers are equivalent to ex FBI interrogates. Very skilled people who are not from the Walmart gene pool. Our TSA on the other hand is full of stupid people hoping to get a gov job with no security backgrounds.

It's sad...

so ****en true man.

[brad1986]

The above is answered by the below. Look at how our rights have been stripped away and it's pretty even between parties. Republicans are no better than democrats.



I think you are mistaken. During our boom Bush lowered taxes. That's the opposite of what you are supposed to do during a boom. You tax to pump the brakes and spend to speed things up. Right now Democrats want to spend, although I disagree with this for other reasons. Republicans want to cut spending. Once again, that's the opposite of what should be done.
Also go to politifact.com if you want to fact check what the republicans or democrats say, you will be surprised. Most of what both parties say is bs. But as far as basic principles go I think republicans are off more than democrats.
I will def check it out. I am a ron paul fan persoanlly so Technically im not republican or democrat i feel there is common ground to be found
My biggest issue with republicans is with the cutting regulatory power of the government. We all know what happens when you do that so why do we keep on testing it out?

What do you mean by this?

[brad1986]

Sorry... above post is asking what you mean by last sentance in bold.

First bold response- I will check out that link for sure. I am a ron paul fan persoanlly so i dont consider myself on either party. there is def common ground to be found

[Manteca]

Another thinly veiled move down the road towards a police state, and less individual rights. Settling the legality of the search in court is a cop-out (no pun).

Ever refuse consent to search in a vehicle? I have, for no other reason than I was in a hurry to a meeting and just wanted my ticket for speeding, and felt that my rights protected me from an unreasonable search. Had absolutely nothing to hide, but the jerk made it a point to detain me and tear the interior of my car apart, while I sat in the back of his cruiser for an hour or so. In the end, I had nothing to worry about or sort out in court, but felt raped of my rights.

The truth is, they will enter your house if they want to, regardless of the "legality". Tell them no, and it's even more reason to use their power. Fight back, and you are a wacko nutjob or labeled a terrorist.

[Twist]

What do you mean by this?

We have regulation for a reason. Simply put, the interests of corporations do not align with the interests of citizens in many cases. So if corporations are left to do what they want without strict regulation there will be major problems. Some simple examples are overfishing, pollution, safety, insurance coverage, unsafe working environments, and the recent banking crisis along with the housing market crash that took our whole economy down.

I was listening to the radio today and they asked for business owners to call in and tell them why they aren't hiring and what they can do to help them hire. There was only one guy who said regulation and that was because he was a fisherman who is restricted on the amount of fish he can catch. This is good because companies will compete for profits by fishing as much as they can and the result will be extinction. People even called the radio station and said things like, "Cut my taxes and I won't hire. Deregulate and I won't hire. I won't hire unless demand exceeds my current operating capacity forcing me to expand." Unless you address the demand side of the equation nothing is going to happen with hiring.

Side note: Did anyone hear the Obama speech? I thought it was really good. The points he addressed in the speech are the reason I voted for him. Listen to the speech if you haven't. It's addresses what really needs to be done. Now him actually doing it is a whole different story...

[zaggahamma]

We have regulation for a reason. Simply put, the interests of corporations do not align with the interests of citizens in many cases. So if corporations are left to do what they want without strict regulation there will be major problems. Some simple examples are overfishing, pollution, safety, insurance coverage, unsafe working environments, and the recent banking crisis along with the housing market crash that took our whole economy down.

I was listening to the radio today and they asked for business owners to call in and tell them why they aren't hiring and what they can do to help them hire. There was only one guy who said regulation and that was because he was a fisherman who is restricted on the amount of fish he can catch. This is good because companies will compete for profits by fishing as much as they can and the result will be extinction. People even called the radio station and said things like, "Cut my taxes and I won't hire. Deregulate and I won't hire. I won't hire unless demand exceeds my current operating capacity forcing me to expand." Unless you address the demand side of the equation nothing is going to happen with hiring.

Side note: Did anyone hear the Obama speech? I thought it was really good. The points he addressed in the speech are the reason I voted for him. Listen to the speech if you haven't. It's addresses what really needs to be done. Now him actually doing it is a whole different story...

yeh i heard where he said it was paid for...guess the check's in the mail

[brad1986]

We have regulation for a reason. Simply put, the interests of corporations do not align with the interests of citizens in many cases. So if corporations are left to do what they want without strict regulation there will be major problems. Some simple examples are overfishing, pollution, safety, insurance coverage, unsafe working environments, and the recent banking crisis along with the housing market crash that took our whole economy down.

I was listening to the radio today and they asked for business owners to call in and tell them why they aren't hiring and what they can do to help them hire. There was only one guy who said regulation and that was because he was a fisherman who is restricted on the amount of fish he can catch. This is good because companies will compete for profits by fishing as much as they can and the result will be extinction. People even called the radio station and said things like, "Cut my taxes and I won't hire. Deregulate and I won't hire. I won't hire unless demand exceeds my current operating capacity forcing me to expand." Unless you address the demand side of the equation nothing is going to happen with hiring.

Side note: Did anyone hear the Obama speech? I thought it was really good. The points he addressed in the speech are the reason I voted for him. Listen to the speech if you haven't. It's addresses what really needs to be done. Now him actually doing it is a whole different story...

Those are good points... Let me ask you this though twist... If you had to do it over again would you have still voted for obama?

[Lemonada8]

Yea obamas speech was great, but that's all he has been IMO. Very arousing public speaker and appears to be very profound and dedicated, which he may be, but there hasn't been much of a result to the common person. Interestingly enough he is the exact opposite of g bush as a public figure.

[brad1986]

bush was terrible as well. Idk if im even going to vote next go around because other than ron paul i dislike all canidates so far... and we all know ron wont win

[zaggahamma]

bush was terrible as well. Idk if im even going to vote next go around because other than ron paul i dislike all canidates so far... and we all know ron wont win

ron paul will say..."well, thats just BAD" LOL ....loved that in the debate....."thats just bad" ....i like the fact that he's against govt intervention but could u imagine the state of the union address coming from him

[Twist]

Those are good points... Let me ask you this though twist... If you had to do it over again would you have still voted for obama?

Yes. Given the alternatives Obama was by far the best candidate. He will be in the next election also so I will vote for him again.

Yea obamas speech was great, but that's all he has been IMO. Very arousing public speaker and appears to be very profound and dedicated, which he may be, but there hasn't been much of a result to the common person. Interestingly enough he is the exact opposite of g bush as a public figure.

The point of the speech is that he is talking about all the right things. At least he realizes what needs to be done. I think we all agree that the way our system is set up (checks and balances) makes doing anything extremely difficult and very slow. So all we can really do as voters at this point is look at who is talking about the right things. If someone isn't even talking about the right things then there is no point in voting for them cuz even if the candidate could part seas and streamline everything they campaigned about it wouldn't matter because they aren't talking about the right stuff in the first place.

bush was terrible as well. Idk if im even going to vote next go around because other than ron paul i dislike all canidates so far... and we all know ron wont win

I think you should vote bro. You seem interested in politics and intelligent so you should vote. Think about all the stupid people who vote. How will we ever offset their voting power if the smart people don't vote because they are frustrated?

I know I seem very democratic but I get in arguments with my democratic mother in the same way. Neither of the parties have it right. All we can do is look closely at who has it better. Right now Obama has it better. Just look at ALL of the republican talking points and tell me if you give a shit about even one of them. Not one of them is even right. Idk if you guys have ever taken a macroeconomics class but most of this stuff is taught day 1.
Here's a game you can play to see what you do with interest rates when inflation increases or employment increases etc. Same thing goes for tax rates. if the economy is going well, you increase taxes (not cut them for the rich and the corporations).
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activ...man/index.html

Also you guys need to see this and think about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy87k...eature=related
Those "tax cuts" that are always being campaigned about. Who do you think those benefit? Hint: we already know, and it's not those making less than $400,000 per year or the small businesses that provide most of the employment opportunities.
How about the "regulations"? Is your mom and pop shop a big polluter? Is your little fishing boat overfishing our vast seas? No, it's the oil and gas companies who dump their oil into our drinking water (chevron dumps theirs into the amazon river, we know how well BP was regulated) and the HUGE ships that just drag gigantic nets along the sea floor killing everything within a hundred miles. How about the loans you make to your kids or friends? Is there some sort of regulation that is hurting your ability to loan money? Once again its the HUGE banks that are trading with such complicated instruments that regulators can't keep up - btw if you are a regulator and you are found to be able to figure their system out, they hire you. NONE of these regulations even effect us yet we are tricked into voting for them. Tax cuts don't effect us yet we hate being taxed so we vote against those too; hoping one day that we too will make half a million per year...

Watch this also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=TabCJKHtarc

[zaggahamma]

about taxes

tbh, i dont really know who pays what % right now, how much the rich pay nor the poor, percentage wise...BUT

i think that people should be taxed at the same % regardless of income....thus, doesnt that make the wealthy pay MORE total taxes since they make more?

should they also pay a higher percentage?

if they are paying a less percentage than the rest NOW then i am in favor of them paying more to equal percentage..

but if they are paying equal PERCENTAGE now which yields more taxes HOW IN GODS NAME COULD YOU ASK THEM TO PAY MORE????

Rob peter to pay paul cuz theres more pauls?

[brad1986]

about taxes

tbh, i dont really know who pays what % right now, how much the rich pay nor the poor, percentage wise...BUT

i think that people should be taxed at the same % regardless of income....thus, doesnt that make the wealthy pay MORE total taxes since they make more?

should they also pay a higher percentage?

if they are paying a less percentage than the rest NOW then i am in favor of them paying more to equal percentage..

but if they are paying equal PERCENTAGE now which yields more taxes HOW IN GODS NAME COULD YOU ASK THEM TO PAY MORE????Rob peter to pay paul cuz theres more pauls?

This is how i feel too. We should all be paying an equal % of our income. We shouldnt be punishing people for being succesfull in America.

[thegodfather]

Yes. Given the alternatives Obama was by far the best candidate. He will be in the next election also so I will vote for him again.


The point of the speech is that he is talking about all the right things. At least he realizes what needs to be done. I think we all agree that the way our system is set up (checks and balances) makes doing anything extremely difficult and very slow. So all we can really do as voters at this point is look at who is talking about the right things. If someone isn't even talking about the right things then there is no point in voting for them cuz even if the candidate could part seas and streamline everything they campaigned about it wouldn't matter because they aren't talking about the right stuff in the first place.


I think you should vote bro. You seem interested in politics and intelligent so you should vote. Think about all the stupid people who vote. How will we ever offset their voting power if the smart people don't vote because they are frustrated?

I know I seem very democratic but I get in arguments with my democratic mother in the same way. Neither of the parties have it right. All we can do is look closely at who has it better. Right now Obama has it better. Just look at ALL of the republican talking points and tell me if you give a shit about even one of them. Not one of them is even right. Idk if you guys have ever taken a macroeconomics class but most of this stuff is taught day 1.
Here's a game you can play to see what you do with interest rates when inflation increases or employment increases etc. Same thing goes for tax rates. if the economy is going well, you increase taxes (not cut them for the rich and the corporations).
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activ...man/index.html

Also you guys need to see this and think about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy87k...eature=related
Those "tax cuts" that are always being campaigned about. Who do you think those benefit? Hint: we already know, and it's not those making less than $400,000 per year or the small businesses that provide most of the employment opportunities.
How about the "regulations"? Is your mom and pop shop a big polluter? Is your little fishing boat overfishing our vast seas? No, it's the oil and gas companies who dump their oil into our drinking water (chevron dumps theirs into the amazon river, we know how well BP was regulated) and the HUGE ships that just drag gigantic nets along the sea floor killing everything within a hundred miles. How about the loans you make to your kids or friends? Is there some sort of regulation that is hurting your ability to loan money? Once again its the HUGE banks that are trading with such complicated instruments that regulators can't keep up - btw if you are a regulator and you are found to be able to figure their system out, they hire you. NONE of these regulations even effect us yet we are tricked into voting for them. Tax cuts don't effect us yet we hate being taxed so we vote against those too; hoping one day that we too will make half a million per year...

Watch this also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=TabCJKHtarc

The problem with your microeconomics class is that everything being taught to you is based on Keynesian economic theory, which has proven itself to be a failure in practice. You cannot artificially manipulate the market without creating unforseen problems which you can't mitigate, and everything you try to "do" to make it better, makes it worse. You don't bail company's out who make poor business decisions (thats called moral hazard), and you don't support toxic debt, you liquidate it. You don't "SET" interest rates, the MARKET sets interest rates. Bubbles are created when the people who are investing & lending, make decisions based on a market that doesn't actually exist. If the true reflection of interest rates in the market is 6%, and the "Fed" magically says that the interest rates are 1%, the investors&lenders make decisions based on the fake number of 1%, and not the true number of what the market can actually bare. This invariably leads to the situation we saw with the collapse of the housing market, and the false and completely wrong notion that "deregulation" and "greedy Wall-streeters" with their credit-default swaps were solely to blame for the problem. They were simply playing on the field that the government had created, through their pursuit of an inflationary monetary policy and EASY CREDIT (i.e.- fake credit).

So unequivocally, absolutely, the worst decision that can be made, is to intervene even FURTHER in an already MANIPULTED market, and decide to pump billions of dollars into toxic companies and toxic debt. You have encouraged companies to continue their bad business practices (they have no incentive to behave properly if they know you will bail them out) and you keep billions of toxic assets on the books. You don't need complex models on a macro scale to figure out that you cannot spend your way out of debt. All you need to do, and I propose you try this, is to get yourself heavily indebted to creditors for a mortage, car payment, and a few credit cards, and then try to borrow MORE MONEY to spend your way out of that debt, and please let me know how that works out for you. Spending does not create wealth or jobs, SAVING does (unless the Fed is inflating your dollar value away faster then you can accumulate it, then you need to hedge your risk in precious metals). You have a choice in theses situations, alot of pain in a short period of time, or a lot of pain over a long period of time. You either allow the market to correct itself, or you continue to intervene and 3 years later still have unemployment rates hovering around 9% +/-.

Another issue that is important to understand is that government cannot create wealth by increasing the number of government jobs. Government, by its very nature, is somewhat destructive to the economy, because it uses tax dollars to fund its programs and its jobs. We know from history, that government cannot run businesses. Amtrak, USPS, and numerous other government agency's constantly run a deficit every year, and that is perhaps the most damaging thing that government does that private enterprise CANT do. The government can run deficits to infathomable numbers, with really nothing to reign in their spending, whereas a private enterprise is dissolved if it cannot show a profit. Government jobs do not contribute to wealth, you are simply shuffling money around.

Obama is a disaster. He had a Democratically controlled House&Senate for two years of his term, and failed to accomplish ANY OF HIS GOALS. Additionally, and what should be the MOST upsetting thing to Democrats and those who voted for him, is that his foreign policy is identical to that of the Neo-conservative Republicans. He increased the number of troops in Iraq, he spoke eloquently about "transparency," yet he didn't release the torture photos and tapes. Additionally, he spoke about having time to read every bill thoroughly, and then tried to ram a 2,500 page piece of legislation down the American peoples throats. Even worse, he talked about respect for the constitution and the rule of law, but CONTINUED the BUSH ERA POLICIES OF EXTREME RENDITION. As a conservative Republican, I do not agree with Rendition, Special detainee status, or the denial of Habeas Corpus to people in our custody who we will not grant prisoner of war status, and essentially deny these people have any rights or classifications. Our nation can be judged by how we treat our enemies, and I would say that our record is abysmal since 9/11.

[Twist]

about taxes

tbh, i dont really know who pays what % right now, how much the rich pay nor the poor, percentage wise...BUT

i think that people should be taxed at the same % regardless of income....thus, doesnt that make the wealthy pay MORE total taxes since they make more?

should they also pay a higher percentage?Yes

if they are paying a less percentage than the rest NOW then i am in favor of them paying more to equal percentage..

but if they are paying equal PERCENTAGE now which yields more taxes HOW IN GODS NAME COULD YOU ASK THEM TO PAY MORE????

Rob peter to pay paul cuz theres more pauls?

The thing about the rich is that although they pay a higher tax rate on paper, there are so many loopholes to sneak through. Check this out:
Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

*Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
*Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
*In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
*In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.
Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.
*In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to 26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the 1986 reforms.

In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the 1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting firms.

Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate tax-sheltering activities.

Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of federal expenses.

Billions and billions
Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of their profits - $557 billion - to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent.

In 2002 and 2003, the 275 companies sheltered more than half of their profits from tax. They told their shareholders they earned $739 billion in those two years, but they paid taxes on less than half of that, only $363 billion.

Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by $43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003, for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years.

Half of the total tax-break dollars over the three years - $87.1 billion - went to just 25 companies, each with more than a billion-and-a-half dollars in tax breaks.

General Electric topped the list of corporate tax break recipients, with $9.5 billion in tax breaks over the three years.

what we need to do is lower the overall rate but get rid of 99% of all loopholes. Progressive tax system with little to no exceptions.

[Twist]

The problem with your microeconomics class is that everything being taught to you is based on Keynesian economic theory, which has proven itself to be a failure in practicealong with all economics, economists rarely predict things correctly. You cannot artificially manipulate the market without creating unforseen problems which you can't mitigate, and everything you try to "do" to make it better, makes it worse. You don't bail company's out who make poor business decisions (thats called moral hazard), and you don't support toxic debt, you liquidate it. You don't "SET" interest rates, the MARKET sets interest rates. Bubbles are created when the people who are investing & lending, make decisions based on a market that doesn't actually exist. If the true reflection of interest rates in the market is 6%, and the "Fed" magically says that the interest rates are 1%, the investors&lenders make decisions based on the fake number of 1%, and not the true number of what the market can actually bare. This invariably leads to the situation we saw with the collapse of the housing market, and the false and completely wrong notion that "deregulation" and "greedy Wall-streeters" with their credit-default swaps were solely to blame for the problem. They were simply playing on the field that the government had created, through their pursuit of an inflationary monetary policy and EASY CREDIT (i.e.- fake credit).
The Fed can set interests rates the same way a market does. They don't declare that "rates have to be lower or else," they lower their rates which essentially lowers all the rates. The problem with our market is that banks (not government) got out of control with their lending practices. The banks marketing securities inaccurately screwing over those whose pension funds bought into said deals. Not to mention the banks short-selling their own securities. The FDIC will take over a bank when it is in danger of not having enough capital to meet their financial obligations. This is to protect the people. THe FDIC will then sell off the asset later (usually at a loss). If the banks are allowed to fail will only cost the people more money. The Gov. allowed Lehman to fail and that was said to be a huge mistake that could have prevented this whole disaster. I know you do not believe that the government bailing out the banks is what caused this disaster. The Wall-Streeters were not playing on a field that the government created. In fact they were playing on a field so complicated that government couldn't even keep up. This made regulation and oversight impossible. Look at Enron; they are a great example. Crappy regulation, creative accounting procedures made the company look like it was in great shape, population told to buy their stock (and they did - with their retirement accounts) --> eventually Enron collapsed exposing what really was going on, companies went out of business and the stock plummeted to worthless. Nobody came in to save Enron and bail them out. Is this good? In both of our opinions, yes. However who got hurt? the executives at the top? A little. The people who got really hurt were those who had all of their retirement in this "amazing" company. These are the Peters and Pauls. They lost everything. Sure the top management is no longer worth 10million and now only worth 2 million but they can still put food on their plates. Poor them having to sell their yachts. Now had the government had the necessary regulations in place this would never happen. Free Market economy will not work in our favor. We need regulation and government intervention.

So unequivocally, absolutely, the worst decision that can be made, is to intervene even FURTHER in an already MANIPULTED market, and decide to pump billions of dollars into toxic companies and toxic debt. You have encouraged companies to continue their bad business practices (they have no incentive to behave properly if they know you will bail them out)True. This is where we screwed up. What we needed to do was bail them out with strict strings attached. I bail you out and now you have to help the American citizens. That's what we should have done. too bad our gov. is incompetent. and you keep billions of toxic assets on the books. You don't need complex models on a macro scale to figure out that you cannot spend your way out of debt. All you need to do, and I propose you try this, is to get yourself heavily indebted to creditors for a mortage, car payment, and a few credit cards, and then try to borrow MORE MONEY to spend your way out of that debt, and please let me know how that works out for you. Spending does not create wealth or jobs, SAVING does (unless the Fed is inflating your dollar value away faster then you can accumulate it, then you need to hedge your risk in precious metals). You have a choice in theses situations, alot of pain in a short period of time, or a lot of pain over a long period of time. You either allow the market to correct itself, or you continue to intervene and 3 years later still have unemployment rates hovering around 9% +/-.
You can't spend your way out of debt USING more debt. You can spend your way out of debt by using savings. But since we cut taxes when we should have increased them and funded multiple wars in other countries that we started for no reason and give hundreds of millions in foreign aid and create loopholes allowing corporations to pay next to nothing in taxes WE HAVE NO ****ING SAVINGS. Right thing to do if we prepared correctly.

Another issue that is important to understand is that government cannot create wealth by increasing the number of government jobs. Government, by its very nature, is somewhat destructive to the economy, because it uses tax dollars to fund its programs and its jobs. We know from history, that government cannot run businesses. Amtrak, USPS, and numerous other government agency's constantly run a deficit every year, and that is perhaps the most damaging thing that government does that private enterprise CANT doOMG do I agree with this. This needs to be fixed!. The government can run deficits to infathomable numbers, with really nothing to reign in their spending, whereas a private enterprise is dissolved if it cannot show a profit. Government jobs do not contribute to wealth, you are simply shuffling money around. Although I agree somewhat, cutting government jobs (the biggest employer btw) in a time when we need to create jobs is not going to fix the unemployment numbers. You can't fix unemployment by firing more people. But yeah, the government does need to get their houses in order. Maybe the bottom of a recession isn't the time to start firing people. Government does create wealth via the multiplier effect. Some things should be privatized. Imo there are certain things that should not be for profit. One of them is medical insurance companies. I don't think that pain of our own citizens should be viewed as a dollar amount.

Obama is a disaster. He had a Democratically controlled House&Senate for two years of his term, and failed to accomplish ANY OF HIS GOALS. Additionally, and what should be the MOST upsetting thing to Democrats and those who voted for him, is that his foreign policy is identical to that of the Neo-conservative Republicans. He increased the number of troops in Iraq, he spoke eloquently about "transparency," yet he didn't release the torture photos and tapes. Additionally, he spoke about having time to read every bill thoroughly, and then tried to ram a 2,500 page piece of legislation down the American peoples throatsI'm only glad for this because it was the healthcare bill but in principle it was not the right thing to do. However the american people are too stupid to realize he's trying to help so they probably wouldn't have supported it anyway. Even worse, he talked about respect for the constitution and the rule of law, but CONTINUED the BUSH ERA POLICIES OF EXTREME RENDITION. As a conservative Republican, I do not agree with Rendition, Special detainee status, or the denial of Habeas Corpus to people in our custody who we will not grant prisoner of war status, and essentially deny these people have any rights or classifications. Our nation can be judged by how we treat our enemies, and I would say that our record is abysmal since 9/11.

I totally agree with this last paragraph. I have a good friend who is a military lawyer (JAG or something) and she explained it to me once why they can't bring it to trial and show the tapes. It was a lot of red tape from what I remember. It was over my head. Things need to be simpler.

[zaggahamma]

i do agree that the loop holes need to be patched

[Lemonada8]

I agree with closing loopholes, but not a true progressive tax system.

Most of the loopholes are in place when 'the rich *that really aggrevates me but thats a diff issue*" help out those less fortunate, or have to spend money to relocate to help keep their income flow available.

And since network includes property, and not based on income (which is fair but is also a double edged sword) it would be unfair for those with more 'physical' worth and less income to have to pay more taxes.

Im def for a flat rate tax across the board. However those with lower incomes would complain because it would ultimately raise their taxes while lowering the 'rich' taxes and everyone wants a piece of the rich's money.

[Twist]

I agree with closing loopholes, but not a true progressive tax system.

Most of the loopholes are in place when 'the rich *that really aggrevates me but thats a diff issue*" help out those less fortunate, or have to spend money to relocate to help keep their income flow available.
Can you elaborate on this? I am interested but can't say I understand fully.

And since network includes property, and not based on income (which is fair but is also a double edged sword) it would be unfair for those with more 'physical' worth and less income to have to pay more taxes.
Elaborate? Are you talking about specific taxes now?

Im def for a flat rate tax across the board. However those with lower incomes would complain because it would ultimately raise their taxes while lowering the 'rich' taxes and everyone wants a piece of the rich's money.

I was in favor of a flat rate for so long also. I got into an argument about tax rates and I was arguing that we should have a flat rate because that seems to me like the fairest and easiest alternative. The person I was arguing with is very wealthy and explained to me that poor people can basically live under the rule of any government, as long as their basic needs are met, as they don't participate much in the free market interactions other than basic land/minimum-wage labor/food interactions. So they really don't benefit much from our capitalist society. *Note: this does not mean they would rather live in Russia/China/North Korea etc., it merely means they do not have as much to lose from degrading infrastructure etc.
He argued that poor rarely travel outside of their 'hometown' and therefore do not benefit much from the taxes they pay to keep up railways, interstate highways, airports etc. The corporations, medium businesses, and middle/upper class progressively benefit from the services provided by the government. This is why a progressive tax system is more logical than a flat rate system.
That's what made me change my mind on the issue. Basically the more you benefit from the upkeep, the more you should pay into it.
(This of course leaves out the welfare recipients who benefit entirely from the system but pay nothing into it. That's a whole separate issue that needs it's own thread.)

[Twist]

I am enjoying this intelligent debate very much. You guys have brought up some great points and really got me thinking.

[Lemonada8]

Tax breaks for charitable donations, moving expenses are 2 big ones, then for employers tax breaks for having good 'perks' for jobs: insurance is a big one. Im looking at this, not as a corporation however, but as a service provider maintaining own business. Also tax break for being a rental home owner, where you rent to others. This is huge in college areas which cuts down on costs the university has to spend. Same with just pure rentals to lower income people, owning these properties there is a tax break.
Corporation taxation seems corrupt for the most part and needs to be revamped.

Then the taxation is based on networth, this example is primarily aimed at farmers. They have alot of land and machinery which can be valued at high $$ but depending on the growth of their crop their income is vairable. So if they have a bad year due to unforseen circumstances, they can have their stuff taken from them which only hurts their possibility to pay the tax the following year. Now this is a loophole for those who own multiple vacation properties which IMO should be taxed because its a pleasure property, not a essential living quarters for some family. Like i said a double edged sword.

And, that example doesnt really work much anymore. Nearly everyone drives to work, or takes some sort of transportation which uses the infrastructure. And with the availability of credit to the lower income people, they are taking vacations when they normally couldnt afford it which gets them into a rut of debt then eventually declare bankruptcy or get a 'special' deal to pay back not even half of what they 'borrowed' on credit.
I liked obamas thoughts on increasing public transit, railroads to be precise. It provides a long distance travel at a discounted price and not have the time of a bus ride or cost of a airline ticket. but that has failed so far.
A progressive tax for business and corporations i am infavor for but not income tax. Progressive tax would be based on how well the business did, and since they already have their 'overhead' accounted in their records and are about maximizing gains, this shouldnt be a big problem.

the biggest issue is people tend to live outside their means which gets everyone in trouble someway, somehow.

http://energy.gov/savings site for many tax breaks available

[spywizard]

nope..

politicians and lawyers are the ones that can effect change.. not cops..

[zaggahamma]

agree twist good debate...

also maybe a diff thread or maybe not but in addition to what lemonada said about ppl living beyond their means or borrowing then not paying back....

i heard recently non citizens collecting on earned income credit for the children they have here....using a tax id number to claim however many kids they allow per applicant ...i know they used to allow only 2 children per filing but i know its more than 2 now....is this not black and white wrong?

[Lemonada8]

^^ politicians are scared of hispanics. just cuz they are the fastest growing population, and they want their votes

[thegodfather]

Look guys, progressive taxation is total garbage. A flat tax IS progressive in its very nature, if you make 10,000 per year and pay a 10% income tax, you are paying $1,000 dollars, if you make 1 million dollars you pay $100,000 dollars in taxes. Ergo, the rich person has payed 100x more in taxes than the poor person. But I do agree with what Lemondada said, income taxation is not permissible. Originally, only excise and apportioned taxes were permissible in our government. A taxation on income was seen as inheritently immoral, and more to the fact that in the times that this amendment was passed, the word "INCOME" was meant to mean Profits&Gains (for corporations). When you work for someone for an hourly/yearly rate, you are not making profits&gains, you are performing an EXCHANGE, therefore, this is NOT to be considered "INCOME" in the traditional sense of the word. However, the word has been bastardized considerably. When you perform this exchange for 1 hour of work, how can you properly deliniate which part of the hour was an exchange, and which part a profit&gain? You cannot, and therefore makes it morally unjustifiable to tax a persons so called 'income'.

Politicians talk a lot about people 'paying their fair share,' but the Democrats really have a twisted view of what that is. If politicians on BOTH sides meant what they said, they would pass a flat-tax unanimously (Although, I admit, I would like to see the income tax abolished completely). There are so many straw-man arguments against getting rid fo the income tax. The problem is that people have been so conditioned over the past 20 years to ACCEPT government largesse, and not to ask the most fundamental question, "What ought to be the size of the Federal government?" and the answer is, AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE! We have what is known as the 'framework' style of government (or we did), where the United States provides the framework for which to live in a society, and to be propserous, if one so desires. It flippantly ignores this principle when it intrudes into matters of personal life (such with gay rights, marriage, stem cell research, etc), has an offensively postured foreign policy, and tries to create a "cradle to grave" society but implementing healthcare reform as proposed by Obama. Two different schools of thought, but only one has proven to be a failure throughout history, over and over again.

No matter what, socialist government never propsper, and "socialist-lite" Democracy's like those in Europe now, they dont propser either, it just takes longer for the wounds to become appearent. There are more MRI machines in the state of Ohio than in all of England. Additionally, the number of administrators in England's NHS outnumber the number of medical practioners, i.e.- more chiefs than indians. The system in Europe is about to implode. This happens because of VERY simple mathematical, ideological, and social phenomonea. At some point, given enough time, ENTITLEMENTS WILL ALWAYS OUTSTRIP THE AVAILABLE CAPITAL TO PAY FOR THEM! And what happens when government goes bankrupt? NO ONE GETS BENEFITS, not even the poorest person who 'needs' them the most from our government. The idea of 'safety nets' and such sound pretty and make you feel warm and fuzzy when you talk about them about this eutopian society where no one is allowed to fall through the cracks and everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave, however, it is a society I do not want to live in, as it is itself inherently immoral, as it requires legalized STEALING from one group of people in order to provide services/goods for ANOTHER group of people.

[zaggahamma]

Look guys, progressive taxation is total garbage. A flat tax IS progressive in its very nature, if you make 10,000 per year and pay a 10% income tax, you are paying $1,000 dollars, if you make 1 million dollars you pay $100,000 dollars in taxes. Ergo, the rich person has payed 100x more in taxes than the poor person. But I do agree with what Lemondada said, income taxation is not permissible. Originally, only excise and apportioned taxes were permissible in our government. A taxation on income was seen as inheritently immoral, and more to the fact that in the times that this amendment was passed, the word "INCOME" was meant to mean Profits&Gains (for corporations). When you work for someone for an hourly/yearly rate, you are not making profits&gains, you are performing an EXCHANGE, therefore, this is NOT to be considered "INCOME" in the traditional sense of the word. However, the word has been bastardized considerably. When you perform this exchange for 1 hour of work, how can you properly deliniate which part of the hour was an exchange, and which part a profit&gain? You cannot, and therefore makes it morally unjustifiable to tax a persons so called 'income'.

Politicians talk a lot about people 'paying their fair share,' but the Democrats really have a twisted view of what that is. If politicians on BOTH sides meant what they said, they would pass a flat-tax unanimously (Although, I admit, I would like to see the income tax abolished completely). There are so many straw-man arguments against getting rid fo the income tax. The problem is that people have been so conditioned over the past 20 years to ACCEPT government largesse, and not to ask the most fundamental question, "What ought to be the size of the Federal government?" and the answer is, AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE! We have what is known as the 'framework' style of government (or we did), where the United States provides the framework for which to live in a society, and to be propserous, if one so desires. It flippantly ignores this principle when it intrudes into matters of personal life (such with gay rights, marriage, stem cell research, etc), has an offensively postured foreign policy, and tries to create a "cradle to grave" society but implementing healthcare reform as proposed by Obama. Two different schools of thought, but only one has proven to be a failure throughout history, over and over again.

No matter what, socialist government never propsper, and "socialist-lite" Democracy's like those in Europe now, they dont propser either, it just takes longer for the wounds to become appearent. There are more MRI machines in the state of Ohio than in all of England. Additionally, the number of administrators in England's NHS outnumber the number of medical practioners, i.e.- more chiefs than indians. The system in Europe is about to implode. This happens because of VERY simple mathematical, ideological, and social phenomonea. At some point, given enough time, ENTITLEMENTS WILL ALWAYS OUTSTRIP THE AVAILABLE CAPITAL TO PAY FOR THEM! And what happens when government goes bankrupt? NO ONE GETS BENEFITS, not even the poorest person who 'needs' them the most from our government. The idea of 'safety nets' and such sound pretty and make you feel warm and fuzzy when you talk about them about this eutopian society where no one is allowed to fall through the cracks and everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave, however, it is a society I do not want to live in, as it is itself inherently immoral, as it requires legalized STEALING from one group of people in order to provide services/goods for ANOTHER group of people.

well said godfather

reading that was like reading the alphabet...from a-z

[Twist]

Tax breaks for charitable donations, moving expenses are 2 big ones, then for employers tax breaks for having good 'perks' for jobs: insurance is a big one. Im looking at this, not as a corporation however, but as a service provider maintaining own business. Also tax break for being a rental home owner, where you rent to others. This is huge in college areas which cuts down on costs the university has to spend. Same with just pure rentals to lower income people, owning these properties there is a tax break.
Corporation taxation seems corrupt for the most part and needs to be revamped.

Then the taxation is based on networth, this example is primarily aimed at farmers. They have alot of land and machinery which can be valued at high $$ but depending on the growth of their crop their income is vairable. So if they have a bad year due to unforseen circumstances, they can have their stuff taken from them which only hurts their possibility to pay the tax the following year. Now this is a loophole for those who own multiple vacation properties which IMO should be taxed because its a pleasure property, not a essential living quarters for some family. Like i said a double edged sword.

And, that example doesnt really work much anymore. Nearly everyone drives to work, or takes some sort of transportation which uses the infrastructure. And with the availability of credit to the lower income people, they are taking vacations when they normally couldnt afford it which gets them into a rut of debt then eventually declare bankruptcy or get a 'special' deal to pay back not even half of what they 'borrowed' on credit.
I liked obamas thoughts on increasing public transit, railroads to be precise. It provides a long distance travel at a discounted price and not have the time of a bus ride or cost of a airline ticket. but that has failed so far.
A progressive tax for business and corporations i am infavor for but not income tax. Progressive tax would be based on how well the business did, and since they already have their 'overhead' accounted in their records and are about maximizing gains, this shouldnt be a big problem.

the biggest issue is people tend to live outside their means which gets everyone in trouble someway, somehow.

http://energy.gov/savings site for many tax breaks available

Getting into individual tax breaks/laws is way over my head. It's so complicated that every time I try to understand our tax code I just get really frustrated and angry. From what I understand is that there are reasons (good reasons too) for many of the tax breaks/loopholes. But for every person that benefits there is a handful that exploit. The only thing I can think of with my current level of knowledge on the matter is to say screw it, simplify everything, some people will get screwed but at least the situation will be structured in a way that corruption or avoidance will be highlighted. As it stands only those who can hire lobbyists or very expensive creative accountants and have a presence are the ones reaping the real benefits. I go to college and can tell you that the dorms are more expensive than an apartment, the tuition is only going up, and the students are not benefitting from any tax breaks because the school system is plagued with inefficiencies that are eating away at any potential savings. We could go back and forth for hours on any one of the thousands of loopholes but I don't think either of us care to without getting paid lol.

agree twist good debate...

also maybe a diff thread or maybe not but in addition to what lemonada said about ppl living beyond their means or borrowing then not paying back....

i heard recently non citizens collecting on earned income credit for the children they have here....using a tax id number to claim however many kids they allow per applicant ...i know they used to allow only 2 children per filing but i know its more than 2 now....is this not black and white wrong?

Didn't see that article but I'm sure it's wrong. The system is a mess atm.
Welfare alone is actually not as bad as you guys think. There's a 5 year limit to welfare recipients (signed by Clinton btw) and in places like Arizona it's like 2 years. Also from the second child on I think the recipient get's something like $80 extra per month. Hardly making having another child worth it. Anyway we have a thread on this somewhere also. I tried to get a debate going on this but not many participated...

Look guys, progressive taxation is total garbage. A flat tax IS progressive in its very nature, if you make 10,000 per year and pay a 10% income tax, you are paying $1,000 dollars, if you make 1 million dollars you pay $100,000 dollars in taxes. Ergo, the rich person has payed 100x more in taxes than the poor person. But I do agree with what Lemondada said, income taxation is not permissible. Originally, only excise and apportioned taxes were permissible in our government. A taxation on income was seen as inheritently immoral, and more to the fact that in the times that this amendment was passed, the word "INCOME" was meant to mean Profits&Gains (for corporations). When you work for someone for an hourly/yearly rate, you are not making profits&gains, you are performing an EXCHANGE, therefore, this is NOT to be considered "INCOME" in the traditional sense of the word. However, the word has been bastardized considerably. When you perform this exchange for 1 hour of work, how can you properly deliniate which part of the hour was an exchange, and which part a profit&gain? You cannot, and therefore makes it morally unjustifiable to tax a persons so called 'income'.

Politicians talk a lot about people 'paying their fair share,' but the Democrats really have a twisted view of what that is. If politicians on BOTH sides meant what they said, they would pass a flat-tax unanimously (Although, I admit, I would like to see the income tax abolished completely). There are so many straw-man arguments against getting rid fo the income tax. The problem is that people have been so conditioned over the past 20 years to ACCEPT government largesse, and not to ask the most fundamental question, "What ought to be the size of the Federal government?" and the answer is, AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE! We have what is known as the 'framework' style of government (or we did), where the United States provides the framework for which to live in a society, and to be propserous, if one so desires. It flippantly ignores this principle when it intrudes into matters of personal life (such with gay rights, marriage, stem cell research, etc), has an offensively postured foreign policy, and tries to create a "cradle to grave" society but implementing healthcare reform as proposed by Obama. Two different schools of thought, but only one has proven to be a failure throughout history, over and over again.

No matter what, socialist government never propsper, and "socialist-lite" Democracy's like those in Europe now, they dont propser either, it just takes longer for the wounds to become appearent. There are more MRI machines in the state of Ohio than in all of England. Additionally, the number of administrators in England's NHS outnumber the number of medical practioners, i.e.- more chiefs than indians. The system in Europe is about to implode. This happens because of VERY simple mathematical, ideological, and social phenomonea. At some point, given enough time, ENTITLEMENTS WILL ALWAYS OUTSTRIP THE AVAILABLE CAPITAL TO PAY FOR THEM! And what happens when government goes bankrupt? NO ONE GETS BENEFITS, not even the poorest person who 'needs' them the most from our government. The idea of 'safety nets' and such sound pretty and make you feel warm and fuzzy when you talk about them about this eutopian society where no one is allowed to fall through the cracks and everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave, however, it is a society I do not want to live in, as it is itself inherently immoral, as it requires legalized STEALING from one group of people in order to provide services/goods for ANOTHER group of people.

No form of government lasts very long. Godfather what you are suggesting seems to be to go to completely free-market society? There would be anarchy and a massive redistribution of wealth. There are way too many people in this country who have nothing. IF you were to tell them all to fend for themselves they would take what they need/want.
I agree with most all of your points but your solution doesn't seem viable.

I support a progressive tax, if you can get a flat tax to cover everything we need then I would certainly not object.
The government needs to be small but ACTIVE. Active with oversight and regulation. I have already stated why we need this.
Something needs to be done about the pyramid scheme (re: entitlements) but there is no solution I see. Technological progression makes the amount of workers needed very small. Therefore the number of jobs are very limited and the number of occupants are small. So now the result is a small group of people raking in the profits that used to go to a workforce. Short of killing all of these individuals resulting in a massive population decrease there is not much we can do about it. If anyone has any thoughts I would love to hear it.

[zaggahamma]

Getting into individual tax breaks/laws is way over my head. It's so complicated that every time I try to understand our tax code I just get really frustrated and angry. From what I understand is that there are reasons (good reasons too) for many of the tax breaks/loopholes. But for every person that benefits there is a handful that exploit. The only thing I can think of with my current level of knowledge on the matter is to say screw it, simplify everything, some people will get screwed but at least the situation will be structured in a way that corruption or avoidance will be highlighted. As it stands only those who can hire lobbyists or very expensive creative accountants and have a presence are the ones reaping the real benefits. I go to college and can tell you that the dorms are more expensive than an apartment, the tuition is only going up, and the students are not benefitting from any tax breaks because the school system is plagued with inefficiencies that are eating away at any potential savings. We could go back and forth for hours on any one of the thousands of loopholes but I don't think either of us care to without getting paid lol.


Didn't see that article but I'm sure it's wrong. The system is a mess atm.
Welfare alone is actually not as bad as you guys think. There's a 5 year limit to welfare recipients (signed by Clinton btw) and in places like Arizona it's like 2 years. Also from the second child on I think the recipient get's something like $80 extra per month. Hardly making having another child worth it. Anyway we have a thread on this somewhere also. I tried to get a debate going on this but not many participated...


No form of government lasts very long. Godfather what you are suggesting seems to be to go to completely free-market society? There would be anarchy and a massive redistribution of wealth. There are way too many people in this country who have nothing. IF you were to tell them all to fend for themselves they would take what they need/want.
I agree with most all of your points but your solution doesn't seem viable.

I support a progressive tax, if you can get a flat tax to cover everything we need then I would certainly not object.
The government needs to be small but ACTIVE. Active with oversight and regulation. I have already stated why we need this.
Something needs to be done about the pyramid scheme (re: entitlements) but there is no solution I see. Technological progression makes the amount of workers needed very small. Therefore the number of jobs are very limited and the number of occupants are small. So now the result is a small group of people raking in the profits that used to go to a workforce. Short of killing all of these individuals resulting in a massive population decrease there is not much we can do about it. If anyone has any thoughts I would love to hear it.

i just had this conversation in a discussion about ron paul and not wanting ANY government at all but most importantly the idea of zero government...i had the same view/statement as you...funny..

about the small group....can you be more specific..

[Twist]

1% of the country makes something like 95% of the money. That's what I mean about a small amount of people.

You own a manufacturing plant employing 500 people. That's 500 incomes, 500 people with health insurance, 500 families. You upgrade to a new technological breakthrough and now employ 10 people, mostly people who oversee machinery (many car manufacturing plants operate completely in the dark because there is no need for people, everything is done by machine). That's 490 people who now have no healthcare, no income, no way to support their families. BUT HEY, BUSINESS PROFITS ARE GREAT! Screw them, this is a free market society.

How about those that gave their health to help people on 9/11 only to find out that OOPS, there was a lapse in coverage and they aren't covered. Oh and btw, it's a pre-existing health issue so they can't get insurance at all. BUT HEY, this is a free-market! Your lapse in coverage = less money I have to pay out. Investors love us.

I'll take a government that defaults once every 200 years over a society that leaves people to die for corporate profits.

[zaggahamma]

1% of the country makes something like 95% of the money. That's what I mean about a small amount of people.

You own a manufacturing plant employing 500 people. That's 500 incomes, 500 people with health insurance, 500 families. You upgrade to a new technological breakthrough and now employ 10 people, mostly people who oversee machinery (many car manufacturing plants operate completely in the dark because there is no need for people, everything is done by machine). That's 490 people who now have no healthcare, no income, no way to support their families. BUT HEY, BUSINESS PROFITS ARE GREAT! Screw them, this is a free market society.

How about those that gave their health to help people on 9/11 only to find out that OOPS, there was a lapse in coverage and they aren't covered. Oh and btw, it's a pre-existing health issue so they can't get insurance at all. BUT HEY, this is a free-market! Your lapse in coverage = less money I have to pay out. Investors love us.

I'll take a government that defaults once every 200 years over a society that leaves people to die for corporate profits.

so this scenario or reality is why that plant owner should pay more % tax? or is there another way? is this the dilemma that faces both sides of the "platform"?

since this is thread is moreso debated about what went wrong now....give me an real life recent example of the scenario you presented...