I have to pay taxes on my $877,970 dollars home. My house is alredy paid for but still have to pay taxes.
I have car tax. I have to pay income tax. Social security,medicare, food tax, sales tax, and president Obama thinks we don't pay enough taxes. What is he smoking???

My guess is that you rent and ride a bike to work.

fellow renter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My guess is that you rent and ride a bike to work.

I forget about the gas tax. Home owner paid it wit in cash

That is life asshole. If you really had a $800k house you would understand that.

I think I'm under taxed. Not that I want to pay more, but I'm being realistic. I've never taken a dime of government money aside from using basic infrastructure, but I am mature enough to accept the small amount of abuse by a small percentage of people. I don't let the little things or little people bother me.

If you focus on the negative, you're going to be pissed off and resentful towards others. If you understand what you get for paying taxes, it's a pretty good bargain.

I live in a crime free neighborhood. The roads I drive on are paved and, aside from idiot drivers, they function rather well. There are three day-care centers in my neighborhood's "triangle" to keep the kids busy until their parents send them off to a transitional day-care center in another town. The food I buy is safe to eat and is only adulterated with approved chemicals. The water I drink is free of bacteria and viruses, and even has a heavy metal added to make my teeth stronger.

I'm not saying we couldn't pay less, but you get what you pay for, and the level of corruption, abuse and waste is nothing new.

Election is over. Time to move on. If you don't feel you pay enough, I sure your local charity will gladly accept your generous donation and it's tax deductible to boot.

fellow renter "local charity will gladly accept your generous donation and it's tax deductible"

This will soon be a thing of the past. Once the Gov starts taking over the role of provider, we won't need charity.

The difference between Welfare and charity? I can choose not to give to a charity if I don't agree with what their money goes to. Welfare, I don't have any choice.

There will be another election.

Under taxed "I am mature enough to accept the small amount of abuse by a small percentage of people"

Mature, but not in denial.


For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans will pay Federal income tax.


http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay-income-tax.htm

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under taxed "I am mature enough to accept the
> small amount of abuse by a small percentage of
> people"
>
> Mature, but not in denial.
>
>
> For tax year 2011, the non-partisan Tax Policy
> Center estimates that only 54 percent of Americans
> will pay Federal income tax.
>
>
> http://money.howstuffworks.com/only-53-percent-pay
> -income-tax.htm


That isn't abuse. That's how the tax code is written.

Don't be fooled into asking for a VAT tax. I know that's where all this bitter resentment is going, but it is not in your best interest.

Under taxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That isn't abuse. That's how the tax code is
> written.
>
> Don't be fooled into asking for a VAT tax. I know
> that's where all this bitter resentment is going,
> but it is not in your best interest.


" Don't be fooled into asking for a VAT tax. "

No, I was going for a FLAT tax. But since you know whats best for me, I'll keep blindly following you and yours.

I'm at the point now that I pay the IRS each year. Been this way for 3 years now. Honestly, I would rather owe the Government money rather than them giving back my money that I let them borrow so they can get interest off of it.

I could restructure it so that I would fall near the break even point but FUCK IT!!!!! I WOULD RATHER PAY THEM THAN HAVE THEM USE MY MONEY TO MAKE MONEY!!! I'm financially responsible enough to make sure I have saved enough money so that I can pay them. BTW, last year I owed State and Federal $718.26.

i pay taxes, yes, it sucks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm at the point now that I pay the IRS each year.
> Been this way for 3 years now. Honestly, I would
> rather owe the Government money rather than them
> giving back my money that I let them borrow so
> they can get interest off of it.
>
> I could restructure it so that I would fall near
> the break even point but FUCK IT!!!!! I WOULD
> RATHER PAY THEM THAN HAVE THEM USE MY MONEY TO
> MAKE MONEY!!! I'm financially responsible enough
> to make sure I have saved enough money so that I
> can pay them. BTW, last year I owed State and
> Federal $718.26.

Owing money on April 15th or getting a refund isn't paying or not paying taxes.

Unless you get back every penny you paid in your refund, you paid taxes.

As a reminder, tomorrow is the due date for the real estate tax for the second half of 2012.

Taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to pay taxes on my $877,970 dollars home.
> My house is alredy paid for but still have to pay
> taxes.
> I have car tax. I have to pay income tax. Social
> security,medicare, food tax, sales tax, and
> president Obama thinks we don't pay enough taxes.
> What is he smoking???

And your solution to balancing the checkbook and paying down the debt is just don't pay it off?

You are simply brilliant. You must be the pride of the republican party.

Question Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> And your solution to balancing the checkbook and
> paying down the debt is just don't pay it off?
>
> You are simply brilliant. You must be the pride
> of the republican party.


A (the) solution would be to stop over-spending, not taxing more.

Tax Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question Mark Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > And your solution to balancing the checkbook
> and
> > paying down the debt is just don't pay it off?
> >
> > You are simply brilliant. You must be the
> pride
> > of the republican party.
>
>
> A (the) solution would be to stop over-spending,
> not taxing more.



That shit ain't gonna pay fo my Obamafone.

Tax Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> A (the) solution would be to stop over-spending,
> not taxing more.


This solution is little more than simplistic hyperbole touted by federal level Republicans in their attempt to win an election by formenting disdain for other Americans ala Reagan's Welfare Queen speech (which was subsequently proven to be a flat out lie).

The reality of their ideals are to shift the financial burden for everything possible to the state-level and leave the state level politicians responsible for dealing with it because Governors come and go rather quickly, leaving their nice fat cushy Congressional jobs free from the headaches.

Shift the burden to the state.

The downside to this is that not only does this provide less bargaining power for any single state program but it also leaves states with less tax revenue/tax base at a significant disadvantage to provide reasonable programs at reasonable costs.

Don't like 1% of your taxes going to unemployment? Wait till the state takes over and loses the federal subsidy and your state income tax (or sales tax if you live in Florida) goes up 5% to cover unemployment. What are the options? Do away with unemployment? Then your taxes will go up 8% to pay for the additional law enforcement staff necessary to deal with crime spike that will occur when hundreds of thousands of unfortunate people are left to fend for self.

Don't like spending 2% of your taxes on subsidies to the oil companies? Don't bitch when your gas goes up to $8.00 a gallon like it is in Europe.

Don't like spending 5% of your taxes on Medicare? Don't dare vote for a government takeover and single payer health care system where the government can say "shove your $400 ambulance ride up your ass, we'll hire a GS civilian to do it at a cost of $24 an hour."

I mean, this simplistic idea that we can just "stop paying for it" is ridiculous. Are you going to stop paying for road maintenance? Bridge maintenance? etc? No.

Not unless you really do want to go back to being a 3rd world country.

That's all fine and dandy but the states still need to pay for one of the largest federal expenditures, the US military.

Having a larger Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army and Coast Guard aren't free. It cost a fortune to just fly a single F18 for a couple of hours.

Republicans run on these grounds of cutting back government spending but the cuts they want to make are basically the types that let big corporations dump toxic waste in are front yards or banks robs us blind.

In the end the US taxpayer ends up spending double what the gov program would of cost in the first place.

Reagan 4 US Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the end the US taxpayer ends up spending double
> what the gov program would of cost in the first
> place.


What the fuck is "Would of"?

"Shift the burden to the state."

The way the Consitution was written. Give the citizens more localized control.

"The downside to this is that not only does this provide less bargaining power for any single state program but it also leaves states with less tax revenue/tax base at a significant disadvantage to provide reasonable programs at reasonable costs."

Thats just big gov propaganda. There would be more efficenancy and accountability at the state level. Limit Gov waste.


"Wait till the state takes over and loses the federal subsidy and your state income tax"

Only a concern if you don't count the federal taxes we'd be saving.


"I mean, this simplistic idea that we can just 'stop paying for it' is ridiculous."

No one really wants to stop paying. That is said out of anger. We just want LESS SPENDING instead of INCREASED TAXES.

Simplisticlly "don't spend what you don't have".

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Shift the burden to the state."
>
> The way the Consitution was written. Give the
> citizens more localized control.
>
> "The downside to this is that not only does this
> provide less bargaining power for any single state
> program but it also leaves states with less tax
> revenue/tax base at a significant disadvantage to
> provide reasonable programs at reasonable costs."
>
> Thats just big gov propaganda. There would be more
> efficenancy and accountability at the state level.
> Limit Gov waste.
>
>
> "Wait till the state takes over and loses the
> federal subsidy and your state income tax"
>
> Only a concern if you don't count the federal
> taxes we'd be saving.
>
>
> "I mean, this simplistic idea that we can just
> 'stop paying for it' is ridiculous."
>
> No one really wants to stop paying. That is said
> out of anger. We just want LESS SPENDING instead
> of INCREASED TAXES.
>
> Simplisticlly "don't spend what you don't have".

You do not want less spending, you want less spending on specific programs, mostly because of a 30+ year long war led by Republicans against the image of the fictitious "welfare queen".


Name me 5 successful state-operated programs that run more efficiently, run more effectively & do not operate with federal subsidies.

Most state-level programs either through design or by lack of planning reinforce inequality, are poorly managed & require federal subsidies.

fictitious "welfare queen

u think so
Attachments:

duhhhhhh Wrote:
>
> You do not want less spending, you want less
> spending on specific programs, mostly because of a
> 30+ year long war led by Republicans against the
> image of the fictitious "welfare queen".

You're arguing things that I never posted.

>
> Name me 5 successful state-operated programs that
> run more efficiently, run more effectively & do
> not operate with federal subsidies.
>

The states have come to (by federal desgin) rely on and are controlled by Federal subsides. Those subsidies would be paid for within the state with the money we didn't have to pay to the Feds. Its the same amount money.


> Most state-level programs either through design or
> by lack of planning reinforce inequality, are
> poorly managed & require federal subsidies.

"reinforce inequality" OR promote responsibilty? Sounds like somone has been listening to the 30+ year long war led by Libs to make the poor feel 'OK' with being poor.


I want the Federal Gov to serve its people, not hold them finacially hostage.
I want to expect responsibility and accountability at a lower level.

Taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to pay taxes on my $877,970 dollars home.
> My house is alredy paid for but still have to pay
> taxes.
> I have car tax. I have to pay income tax. Social
> security,medicare, food tax, sales tax, and
> president Obama thinks we don't pay enough taxes.
> What is he smoking???

I pay a mortgage and taxes so quit your bitching.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/04/barefoot-homeless-nypd-boots/1745911/

The barefoot homeless man that captivated the nation isn't actually homeless.

Jeffrey Hillman became an Internet sensation after a photo of a kindhearted NYPD police officer kneeling down to give him boots went viral.

Although he captured headlines as homeless, Hillman has an apartment in the Bronx paid for by the federal government.

...

Hillman is back on the streets with no shoes.

A few days after the viral photo was posted, The New York Times found Hillman barefoot again and asked about the $100 all-weather boots. Hillman said he'd hidden them because "they are worth a lot of money."

He said he's grateful for the gift, but he wants "a piece of the pie" because the photo was posted online "without permission."

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/
> 04/barefoot-homeless-nypd-boots/1745911/
>
> The barefoot homeless man that captivated the
> nation isn't actually homeless.
>
> Although he captured headlines as homeless,
> Hillman has an apartment in the Bronx paid for by
> the federal government.
>

I like how you left out a critical bit of information since it wouldn't contribute to the freeloading welfare recipient narrative.

His apartment is paid for by the federal government AS PART OF HIS BENEFITS AS A VETERAN OF THE ARMED SERVICES.

"Obama thinks we don't pay enough taxes. What is he smoking???"

Obama didnt mean everyone just those that are successful in life. He ran on class warfare. Its not that hard to do. Hitler did the same thing when Germany was in a depression except he blamed the Jews for all the problems rather than just the rich. It can work quite well as long as you have a scapegoat and he did. Hitler had the Jews, Obama has the rich.

Obama organized the lazy, stupid and jealous to deomonize the rich for not sharing their money. I have heard the word "lucky" applied to anyone who is well off but before you call them that you should check. Most the "lucky" people have a history of hard work and 80 hour work weeks. You cant get a mortgage because you have bad credit, blame the rich. You cant have the home you think you deserve, blame the rich. You cant get a job due to bad work habits, blame the rich.

He said he's grateful for the gift, but he wants "a piece of the pie" because the photo was posted online "without permission."


typical entitlement ethic in this country today. I am going to sit on my ass and damn it someone better provide for me.

the real deal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Obama thinks we don't pay enough taxes. What is
> he smoking???"
>
> Obama didnt mean everyone just those that are
> successful in life. He ran on class warfare. Its
> not that hard to do. Hitler did the same thing
> when Germany was in a depression except he blamed
> the Jews for all the problems rather than just the
> rich. It can work quite well as long as you have a
> scapegoat and he did. Hitler had the Jews, Obama
> has the rich.
>


We know what channel your TV is tuned to right now.

read your history books, every leader needs a scapegoat, Obama uses the rich. what can you say, it worked

dem rich mo fo's owe me and mines
Attachments:

Paid for by the federal govt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HOA MGR Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/
>
> > 04/barefoot-homeless-nypd-boots/1745911/
> >
> > The barefoot homeless man that captivated the
> > nation isn't actually homeless.
> >
> > Although he captured headlines as homeless,
> > Hillman has an apartment in the Bronx paid for
> by
> > the federal government.
> >
>
> I like how you left out a critical bit of
> information since it wouldn't contribute to the
> freeloading welfare recipient narrative.
>
> His apartment is paid for by the federal
> government AS PART OF HIS BENEFITS AS A VETERAN OF
> THE ARMED SERVICES.


"Critical bit", really? Did that change the fact that the media dupped all those wanna-feel-good fools who fell for the story?

You missed my point, but you did create your own.

S&P should downgrade US debt 4 notches for the sorry-ass attempts by both parties to weasel out of fixing the debt.

Libs would have to pay their taxes to be overtaxed. And that is a very rare event. No wonder libs always favor tax increases - they never have any intention of paying themselves!

There are two things needed to fix the economy"

More taxes

More government

Als Gore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs would have to pay their taxes to be
> overtaxed. And that is a very rare event. No
> wonder libs always favor tax increases - they
> never have any intention of paying themselves!


Yeah, liberals just don't even bother to file. We all know that. There's also a secret box you can check on your 1040 if you're liberal, and you get every dime you paid in withholding, straight back.

You don't even need to fill the rest of the form out, but if you're a right wing freakjob, you can't even see that secret checkbox.

duhhhhhh-er Wrote:

>
> The states have come to (by federal desgin) rely
> on and are controlled by Federal subsides. Those
> subsidies would be paid for within the state with
> the money we didn't have to pay to the Feds. Its
> the same amount money.
>

In other words, you can't name any.

More importantly, you apparently don't even know what federal subsidies are because you're talking about states paying for their increased costs with the money they pay into the feds, except the states don't pay into the feds. The feds pay into the states, in the form of federal subsidies & grants.

You remove those subsidies and the states are left with MASSIVE budget gaps that will have to be filled how? By raising taxes.

42% of Virginia's non-general funds are from federal grants or federal contracts.

Those grants are funded with our federal income taxes. If you take those revenues away, the fed can not support those grants and the states are left to find a way to close that budget gap while maintaining the level of service we expect. It's not like they can stop maintaining bridges.

No, the overall goal there is NOT to stop maintaining these things. The goal is to create an environment where it is fiscally impossible to support these projects AND satisfy constituent's desires to not pay for the things they use every day, so that they can privatize everything.

"Oh, the State can't raise taxes so we can't fix 495, our only solution is to sell it to the highest bidder and let them operate it, and pay for it's maintenance, going forward."

We're right back to trickle down economics and the push to force dollars upwards through the economy.

Let some for-profit company be in charge of our infrastructure (see the 495 HOT lanes, health care, etc) so instead of paying income, gas or usage taxes to maintain these things via the government (who's sole purpose is to create a functioning, maintainable, useable infrastructure for it's citizens), we'll give it to some company who's sole purpose is to turn a profit. Then we'll wonder why they decided to convert the entire federal highway system into toll roads and raise the tolls every 2 years (see Dulles Toll Road).

Great ideas. Not.

"I have to pay taxes on my $877,970 dollars home. My house is alredy paid for but still have to pay taxes. "

boy sure sounds like the forthcoming increase in capital gains is gonna rip you a new one.

"In other words, you can't name any."
My point is we can fix things faster at the State level.


"More importantly, you apparently don't even know what federal subsidies are because you're talking about states paying for their increased costs with the money they pay into the feds, except the states don't pay into the feds."

Ahh, if the Feds don't need to give our states subsidies, the people's Fed taxes will go down. The States would collect taxes for what the people of that state thought they needed.


"42% of Virginia's non-general funds are from federal grants or federal contracts"
Proves my point of too much Federal finacial control.

"(who's sole purpose is to create a functioning, maintainable, useable infrastructure for it's citizens)"
Where in our Constitution is that written?

"Then we'll wonder why they decided to convert the entire federal highway system into toll roads and raise the tolls every 2 years (see Dulles Toll Road)."

Then I will have a choice to drive on that road or not. If the people stop using it, the tolls will go down.


I think your stretching a little to prove your point.

He can rent out part of the home. If the home is as expensive as he claims, he should be able to claim a big depreciation deduction and a paper loss on the rental income.

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My point is we can fix things faster at the State
> level.
>
>
> Ahh, if the Feds don't need to give our states
> subsidies, the people's Fed taxes will go down.
> The States would collect taxes for what the people
> of that state thought they needed.
>
> Proves my point of too much Federal finacial
> control.
>
> Where in our Constitution is that written?
>

> Then I will have a choice to drive on that road or
> not. If the people stop using it, the tolls will
> go down.
>
>
> I think your stretching a little to prove your
> point.

You keep claiming states can do the job better but you can't point out a single state program already doing this, so there's no basis for your assertion. It is an ideal that does not exist with no direction on how it would ever exist.

I agree that our federal taxes might go down if we shift the majority of the burden for these things to the state level, but where we disagree is that you think this is going to happen with no net increase in your state taxes and that simply will not/can not be true.

If you think it's financially possible to remove 42% of the current state funding AND shift all of these responsibilities to the state without a drastic/dramatic shift in tax revenue you are delusional.

It's that simple.

Yes, your federal taxes might go down, but your state taxes will go through the roof.

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "In other words, you can't name any."
> My point is we can fix things faster at the State
> level.

Yes, there is a fundamental flaw in the federal government that doesn't exist in any of the 50 state governments. State governments are more efficient, more effective and are able to do things better than the federal government. Everybody knows this, right? It's just common sense that the federal government is bad, intrusive, and wasteful, while all 50 state governments are none of those things.

>
> Ahh, if the Feds don't need to give our states
> subsidies, the people's Fed taxes will go down.
> The States would collect taxes for what the people
> of that state thought they needed.
>

Yeah this makes a lot of sense. The problem is the federal government makes states do things they wouldn't otherwise do. No state has ever refused federal funds for anything, and if the feds make them do it, they have no recourse.

Since the majority of federal spending is really just money that goes to the states, all we have to do to make our paychecks fatter is just get rid of those expenditures and our federal taxes will go down much more than the state would have to raise our taxes. We'll be able to keep so much more of our money!


>
> "42% of Virginia's non-general funds are from
> federal grants or federal contracts"
> Proves my point of too much Federal finacial
> control.

That doesn't prove control in any stretch of the imagination. It proves that some federal money flows to the states, and the states are very dependent upon that money.

Don't forget that federal money will always need to go to states to pay for the federal government's share of things like highways, railways and ports for the military, maintaining communications and energy grids, etc.

>
> "(who's sole purpose is to create a functioning,
> maintainable, useable infrastructure for it's
> citizens)"
> Where in our Constitution is that written?

The constitution embodies the WAY those things are done. That is the purpose of government.


>
> "Then we'll wonder why they decided to convert the
> entire federal highway system into toll roads and
> raise the tolls every 2 years (see Dulles Toll
> Road)."
>
> Then I will have a choice to drive on that road or
> not. If the people stop using it, the tolls will
> go down.
>

Yes, that makes sense. You'll have a choice. If you lived in Teaneck and worked in Manhattan, you can always drive 30 or 40 minutes out of your way to use the George Washington bridge to avoid the tolls going into the city. And since the market always works they way you want it to, everyone would do that, and that would force the tolls to use the lincoln tunnel to go down.

Oh no, wait, they now charge a toll on the GWB, too. So I guess I can stop using Manhattan as my place of employment and just get a job at one of the stock exchanges in New Jersey, right? The market has spoken, and those tolls will go down after I stop driving into Manhattan. (yes, I know those are owned by the port authority, but just give that some time.)

"You keep claiming states can do the job better but you"
We would have more control at the State level.

"Yes, your federal taxes might go down, but your state taxes will go through the roof."
Its the same amount of money. Actually it would be less because we wouldn't need the Federal overhead to collect and hand back to the states.

"The constitution embodies the WAY those things are done. That is the purpose of government."
You need to re-read what the Federal Gov was created for.

"If you think it's financially possible to remove 42% of the current state funding AND shift all of these responsibilities to the state without a drastic/dramatic shift in tax revenue you are delusional. "
Again, I never said that.

"Yes, that makes sense. You'll have a choice."

Ahh, we finally agree. Pour yourself a cup of tea my friend.

duhhhhhh

You have explained things perfectly...making total sense and not going down to HOA's level of blindness.

it is impossible to educate people who have already made up their minds BEFORE the issue is raised.

perfect example would be to just change the first statement with Dem instead of Repub and HOA would argue AGAINST the exact same points.



This solution is little more than simplistic hyperbole touted by federal level DEMOCRATS in their attempt to win an election by formenting disdain for other Americans ala Reagan's Welfare Queen speech (which was subsequently proven to be a flat out lie).

The reality of their ideals are to shift the financial burden for everything possible to the state-level and leave the state level politicians responsible for dealing with it because Governors come and go rather quickly, leaving their nice fat cushy Congressional jobs free from the headaches.

Shift the burden to the state.

The downside to this is that not only does this provide less bargaining power for any single state program but it also leaves states with less tax revenue/tax base at a significant disadvantage to provide reasonable programs at reasonable costs.

Don't like 1% of your taxes going to unemployment? Wait till the state takes over and loses the federal subsidy and your state income tax (or sales tax if you live in Florida) goes up 5% to cover unemployment. What are the options? Do away with unemployment? Then your taxes will go up 8% to pay for the additional law enforcement staff necessary to deal with crime spike that will occur when hundreds of thousands of unfortunate people are left to fend for self.

Don't like spending 2% of your taxes on subsidies to the oil companies? Don't bitch when your gas goes up to $8.00 a gallon like it is in Europe.

Don't like spending 5% of your taxes on Medicare? Don't dare vote for a government takeover and single payer health care system where the government can say "shove your $400 ambulance ride up your ass, we'll hire a GS civilian to do it at a cost of $24 an hour."

I mean, this simplistic idea that we can just "stop paying for it" is ridiculous. Are you going to stop paying for road maintenance? Bridge maintenance? etc? No.

Not unless you really do want to go back to being a 3rd world country.

Taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to pay taxes on my $877,970 dollars home.
> My house is alredy paid for but still have to pay
> taxes.
> I have car tax. I have to pay income tax. Social
> security,medicare, food tax, sales tax, and
> president Obama thinks we don't pay enough taxes.
> What is he smoking???


You haven't contributed a dime to the welfare of anyone.

You voted for Obama.

Yeah!

mTXUy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duhhhhhh
>
> You have explained things perfectly...making total
> sense and not going down to HOA's level of
> blindness.
>
> it is impossible to educate people who have
> already made up their minds BEFORE the issue is
> raised.
>
> perfect example would be to just change the first
> statement with Dem instead of Repub and HOA would
> argue AGAINST the exact same points.
>
>
>
> This solution is little more than simplistic
> hyperbole touted by federal level DEMOCRATS in
> their attempt to win an election by formenting
> disdain for other Americans ala Reagan's Welfare
> Queen speech (which was subsequently proven to be
> a flat out lie).
>
> The reality of their ideals are to shift the
> financial burden for everything possible to the
> state-level and leave the state level politicians
> responsible for dealing with it because Governors
> come and go rather quickly, leaving their nice fat
> cushy Congressional jobs free from the headaches.
>
>
> Shift the burden to the state.
>
> The downside to this is that not only does this
> provide less bargaining power for any single state
> program but it also leaves states with less tax
> revenue/tax base at a significant disadvantage to
> provide reasonable programs at reasonable costs.
>
> Don't like 1% of your taxes going to unemployment?
> Wait till the state takes over and loses the
> federal subsidy and your state income tax (or
> sales tax if you live in Florida) goes up 5% to
> cover unemployment. What are the options? Do away
> with unemployment? Then your taxes will go up 8%
> to pay for the additional law enforcement staff
> necessary to deal with crime spike that will occur
> when hundreds of thousands of unfortunate people
> are left to fend for self.
>
> Don't like spending 2% of your taxes on subsidies
> to the oil companies? Don't bitch when your gas
> goes up to $8.00 a gallon like it is in Europe.
>
> Don't like spending 5% of your taxes on Medicare?
> Don't dare vote for a government takeover and
> single payer health care system where the
> government can say "shove your $400 ambulance ride
> up your ass, we'll hire a GS civilian to do it at
> a cost of $24 an hour."
>
> I mean, this simplistic idea that we can just
> "stop paying for it" is ridiculous. Are you going
> to stop paying for road maintenance? Bridge
> maintenance? etc? No.
>
> Not unless you really do want to go back to being
> a 3rd world country.


Put the bong down brah.

Would HAVE Wrote:

> What the fuck is "Would of"?


"Would of" is bad; "fuck" is ok.

Liberals are such assholes.

mTXUy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duhhhhhh
>
> You have explained things perfectly...making total
> sense and not going down to HOA's level of
> blindness.
>
> it is impossible to educate people who have
> already made up their minds BEFORE the issue is
> raised.
>
> perfect example would be to just change the first
> statement with Dem instead of Repub and HOA would
> argue AGAINST the exact same points.


+1000000000000000

Barrack Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are two things needed to fix the economy"
>
> More taxes
>
> More government


And the wimpy democrat, afraid of his own shadow, agrees.

Help me, help me. I can't take care of myself.

mTXUy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> duhhhhhh
>
> You have explained things perfectly...making total
> sense and not going down to HOA's level of
> blindness.
>
> it is impossible to educate people who have
> already made up their minds BEFORE the issue is
> raised.
>

it is impossible to educate people who argue points that were not made.


> perfect example would be to just change the first
> statement with Dem instead of Repub and HOA would
> argue AGAINST the exact same points.
>
>
>
> This solution is little more than simplistic
> hyperbole touted by federal level DEMOCRATS in
> their attempt to win an election by formenting
> disdain for other Americans ala Reagan's Welfare
> Queen speech (which was subsequently proven to be
> a flat out lie).
>
> The reality of their ideals are to shift the
> financial burden for everything possible to the
> state-level and leave the state level politicians
> responsible for dealing with it because Governors
> come and go rather quickly, leaving their nice fat
> cushy Congressional jobs free from the headaches.

**** More voting options means more control

>
> Shift the burden to the state.
>
> The downside to this is that not only does this
> provide less bargaining power for any single state
> program but it also leaves states with less tax
> revenue/tax base at a significant disadvantage to
> provide reasonable programs at reasonable costs.
>
> Don't like 1% of your taxes going to unemployment?
> Wait till the state takes over and loses the
> federal subsidy and your state income tax (or
> sales tax if you live in Florida) goes up 5% to
> cover unemployment. What are the options? Do away
> with unemployment? Then your taxes will go up 8%
> to pay for the additional law enforcement staff
> necessary to deal with crime spike that will occur
> when hundreds of thousands of unfortunate people
> are left to fend for self.
>
> Don't like spending 2% of your taxes on subsidies
> to the oil companies? Don't bitch when your gas
> goes up to $8.00 a gallon like it is in Europe.
>
> Don't like spending 5% of your taxes on Medicare?
> Don't dare vote for a government takeover and
> single payer health care system where the
> government can say "shove your $400 ambulance ride
> up your ass, we'll hire a GS civilian to do it at
> a cost of $24 an hour."

Well we I didn't like it, we could vote against it?

>
> I mean, this simplistic idea that we can just
> "stop paying for it" is ridiculous. Are you going
> to stop paying for road maintenance? Bridge
> maintenance? etc? No.
>
> Not unless you really do want to go back to being
> a 3rd world country.

Avoiding my point on better control of how our taxes are spent?

barry time Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> read your history books, every leader needs a
> scapegoat, Obama uses the rich. what can you say,
> it worked

Which is ironic, because he, and almost everyone in his cabinet are multi-millionaires.

The federal government needs more money because we need to bomb more poor people. Everybody needs to chip in. Open up your wallets!!