I've decided to vote for Romney!.......IF

[twoskinsonemanns]

The more money you make, the greater your financial obligation to society.

Why? What justification can you provide for taking something from someone, and giving to someone else? What justifies this?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Why? What justification can you provide for taking something from someone, and giving to someone else? What justifies this?

I'm guessing the Robin Hood tale???

 

[Jay Jacobs]

I reject the premise that it is a Confiscation. In answer to your question: The wealthy have a greater financial obligation to society than the poor.--because the wealthy has the money.

Uh OK how about this. After forcing the "rich" to donate against their will everything they have, since most the "poor" are still going to be poor, whose wealth do you intend to "donate" for redistribution next, yours?

 

[Morbidph8]

I reject the premise that it is a Confiscation. In answer to your question: The wealthy have a greater financial obligation to society than the poor.--because the wealthy has the money.

Ehhh.... No there is no obligation to help society or anyone.. Why? Because in America we have the tools to do it yourself. The beauty of America is ANYONE, can become the 1%. If you work at it. The greatest thing about America is we are FREE to become rich... I don't hate the rich, in fact it is my goal to join them. That should be every bodies goal. Yet people are just happy to get by with handouts, and be lazy and not work for it.

I don't know were you got the idea that the Government is a Robin Hood.

I know lets have no rich, no poor, no middle class. We will all have gov. mandated houses. Made so nobody has more then anyone else. Gov. mandated cars, so nobody feels bad when someone else has a better ride.. Then so nobody will be hungry will all eat at gov. run free restaurants.
Wow I would love to live in a UN-FREE society like this.. I prefer dangerous freedom to safe tyranny.

 

[Morbidph8]

I'm Gay, and unhappy about President Obama's policies regarding Gays.--don't fret, one more block of four years, and Gay Marriage will be National.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gay Marriage will never be a national Fed Law, for or against. Mind you I'm for anyone getting married, but the Federal Government has no such powers over marriage.. It is left up to the states and THE PEOPLE. Please read the constitution, it does not outline what we can do, but what the Government can't do.

Then again Obama has never been one to follow the constitution, so maybe there is hope for national gay marriage lol.

 

[Jack House]

Keep on believing that.

Until the government takes control over every business (all state run) then it will always be a "have" that hires a "have not." Just cuz some folks don't like most of the "haves" does not mean that a "have not" will not cash the paycheck the "have" gave him.

Everybody gets paid by a "have".....if they are willing to work that is. Sadly a great subset of our citizenry are not inclined to work so their "paycheck" comes from the "have" of last resort. The "have" that takes from the "rich" and giveth to the poor.

You're sounding like Beretta Lady. Do you know what you're replying to? If so, do you know what you're saying? Because one of those is a negative. :uhoh:

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

No person deserves a damn thing, including individuals who purport to have Earned.

Entitlement is Entitlement.

No one deserves anything? People don't deserve what they have earned? What are you talking about? I mean how to do you want the economic social structure to be? Everyone gets paid the exact amount of money from the government no matter what they produce or don't produce? No one is free to make more money than anyone else? What exactly do you want?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gay Marriage will never be a national Fed Law, for or against. Mind you I'm for anyone getting married, but the Federal Government has no such powers over marriage.. It is left up to the states and THE PEOPLE. Please read the constitution, it does not outline what we can do, but what the Government can't do.

Then again Obama has never been one to follow the constitution, so maybe there is hope for national gay marriage lol.

She is right, once the makeup of the SCOTUS swings more to the left a gay marriage law will become possible, and probable. As more money is printed and more members of electorate move to the entitled class all parties and political affiliation WILL swing progressive. If two parties remain it will be two progressive parties. Which has been the case for years, but the republican party has been pushed by the Tea Party to move right again. This will not last, once the courts are in line with the executive branch, it will only take a executive order to outlaw the Tea Party.

If that sounds crazy just remember that Obama sits and decides who lives or dies every Tuesday, and that includes US Citizens without due process. It is not done under the cloak of darkness, it is done in the open and light of day. And the country applauds his actions, because the government says these are bad people.

BTW I am in full support of gay marriage law as long as it only affects civil marriages, churches should not be forced to marry anyone they do not want to.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Gay Marriage will never be a national Fed Law, for or against. Mind you I'm for anyone getting married, but the Federal Government has no such powers over marriage.. It is left up to the states and THE PEOPLE. Please read the constitution, it does not outline what we can do, but what the Government can't do.

Then again Obama has never been one to follow the constitution, so maybe there is hope for national gay marriage lol.

One word: DOMA

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Republicans in worse shape over time...

Polls are interesting things, and when the elections are over, the numbers are not in favor of Republicans, who tend to dominate the Senior, and male vote. There is a number of issues in that, though: 1) Seniors are a shrinking group; 2) Males are a shrinking group--then if you take into account the pussification of males, who tend to be Liberals, well, Republicans are in trouble as election cycles come-and-go.

Mr. Obama holds a 10-point lead in Ohio among those who say they will definitely vote, a lead propelled by a 25-point advantage among women. Romney holds an 8-point lead among men. The president holds a 35-point edge among voters under 35 years old, and a 5-point lead among those ages 35-64; the two candidates are effectively tied among Ohio seniors. Sixty-two percent of Ohio likely voters say the auto bailout, which had a significant impact on the state's economy, was a success, while just 30 percent say it was a failure. Both candidates will campaign in Ohio Wednesday; the president led Romney by six points in the state last month.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea;cbsnewsSectionsArea.1

Whatever the reason Republicans are losing the battle for younger people, and females, Republicans better figure out how to bring them into the fold, or they will see increased losses in the coming years.

 

[DangerClose]

Whatever the reason Republicans are losing the battle for younger people, and females, Republicans better figure out how to bring them into the fold, or they will see increased losses in the coming years.

Republicans WERE dominating the younger vote, but then they screwed over Ron Paul, (and everyone really, with the fake aye/nay votes at the convention, as did the Democrats).

 

[Ca Patriot]

Republicans did pretty well in 2010. In fact, I think it was the largest net gain switch in seats in the history of America.

 

[mpguy]

If I may ask. What fiscal earned number a year does one have to make, not to be considered a poor free loader?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Citizen]

If I may ask. What fiscal earned number a year does one have to make, not to be considered a poor free loader?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Huh!?!

The question isn't how poor some are or aren't, but whether they are parasites bleeding the rest of us by demanding/using government programs. They're net worth isn't the issue. Whether they vote for demagogues who promise to make the rest of us pay for their progams is the issue.

 

[mpguy]

I'm not remotely interested in defending Mitt Romney. He's as much of an inexcusable ****** bag as Barack Obama.

Having said that, anyone with income on which they don't pay taxes is a free-loader. Period. I don't care who they are, I don't care what laws enable it. Our non-Medicare, non-Social Security tax system today is fundamentally predicated on income taxes, so anyone not paying those income taxes is a free-loader, whether they're legally a free-loader or not. Take the emotional "What about granny and gunny?" crap and shove it in your pie hole.

Now. It is also true that income-based taxation is a horrible system, and we should replace that model. There are several viable methods, the details of which are irrelevant.

However, until we switch to a better taxation model, if you don't pay income taxes on income, you're a free-loader. End of discussion.

Preemptive edit for the simple-minded: If you have no income, obviously you shouldn't be paying income taxes. Duh. However, such a situation highlights one of the reasons income-based taxation is such a crappy model in the first place, which is that those without income end up receiving government "services" without paying for them, which then makes them free-loaders anyway. Duh.

My comment is in reference to the 2nd to last paragraph.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Citizen]

My comment is in reference to the 2nd to last paragraph.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Oh, my. Thank you. I can see I was commenting to the wrong person.

 

[Citizen]

I'm not remotely interested in defending Mitt Romney. He's as much of an inexcusable ****** bag as Barack Obama.

Having said that, anyone with income on which they don't pay taxes is a free-loader. Period. I don't care who they are, I don't care what laws enable it. Our non-Medicare, non-Social Security tax system today is fundamentally predicated on income taxes, so anyone not paying those income taxes is a free-loader, whether they're legally a free-loader or not. Take the emotional "What about granny and gunny?" crap and shove it in your pie hole.

Now. It is also true that income-based taxation is a horrible system, and we should replace that model. There are several viable methods, the details of which are irrelevant.

However, until we switch to a better taxation model, if you don't pay income taxes on income, you're a free-loader. End of discussion.

Preemptive edit for the simple-minded: If you have no income, obviously you shouldn't be paying income taxes. Duh. However, such a situation highlights one of the reasons income-based taxation is such a crappy model in the first place, which is that those without income end up receiving government "services" without paying for them, which then makes them free-loaders anyway. Duh.

Oh, my.

What if I disagree with having my earnings expropriated by an armed gang who forces me to accept their services?

I would say anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a courageous fellow who deserves our support. There is no morality in taxation. There is no difference between the Mafia making you an offer you can't refuse in regards to protection money, and government. Both give you no choice. Both require you to make the payment. Both will visit anything from annoyance to personal destruction on you if you refuse. A case can be made that the Mafia is a little better because they do not pretend legitimacy. They know they're criminals.

 

[mpguy]

Oh, my. Thank you. I can see I was commenting to the wrong person.

I have a rather broad range on the issue. I'm just undecided on voicing it. Internet is serious business ya know..

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[()pen(arry]

I'm not remotely interested in defending Mitt Romney. He's as much of an inexcusable ****** bag as Barack Obama.

Having said that, anyone with income on which they don't pay taxes is a free-loader. Period. I don't care who they are, I don't care what laws enable it. Our non-Medicare, non-Social Security tax system today is fundamentally predicated on income taxes, so anyone not paying those income taxes is a free-loader, whether they're legally a free-loader or not. Take the emotional "What about granny and gunny?" crap and shove it in your pie hole.

Now. It is also true that income-based taxation is a horrible system, and we should replace that model. There are several viable methods, the details of which are irrelevant.

However, until we switch to a better taxation model, if you don't pay income taxes on income, you're a free-loader. End of discussion.

Preemptive edit for the simple-minded: If you have no income, obviously you shouldn't be paying income taxes. Duh. However, such a situation highlights one of the reasons income-based taxation is such a crappy model in the first place, which is that those without income end up receiving government "services" without paying for them, which then makes them free-loaders anyway. Duh.

If I may ask. What fiscal earned number a year does one have to make, not to be considered a poor free loader?

My comment is in reference to the 2nd to last paragraph.

It is disingenuous (read: dishonest) egregiously to take what I said out of context, particularly when I've given answer to your question in the portion of my post that you're conveniently ignoring. This is so simple that you should never have posted: as it is the judicially-upheld practice of our federal government to levy taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income as a means of funding federal activity, if you have income (it should go without saying that this means net income, though I'm sure I needed to offer this preemption) you should pay the commensurate federal taxes on it; if you do not, you're a free-loader, even if convenient legal justification exists. This statement, nor any previous statement of mine, in no way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult? What does any particular "fiscal earned number" have to do with any of this?

Oh, my.

What if I disagree with having my earnings expropriated by an armed gang who forces me to accept their services?

I would say anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a courageous fellow who deserves our support. There is no morality in taxation. There is no difference between the Mafia making you an offer you can't refuse in regards to protection money, and government. Both give you no choice. Both require you to make the payment. Both will visit anything from annoyance to personal destruction on you if you refuse. A case can be made that the Mafia is a little better because they do not pretend legitimacy. They know they're criminals.

Anyone who doesn't pay taxes, as required by law, is a scofflaw and deserving of prosecution. Law is the product of the morality of the populace, however that product is derived through any given political system (it's a crappy equation in the United States). While Constitutional challenge to law is proper, the taxation structure in the United States is, by law, predicated upon the levying of taxes on personal (and corporate, for that matter) income. None of this, nor any previous statement of mine, in any way suggests or implies that I think the federal government should levy taxes on personal (or corporate, for that matter) income. How is this difficult?

Whether the system we have is just (or, if you insist, moral) changes not one bit what system we have. In the system we have, the federal government funds itself [predominantly] through income taxation. That's a horrible model. It is, however, the model we have. Those who flout that model, even by legal means, are free-loaders. Until a model is applied identically to all people, those who benefit from advantage, legal or otherwise, are free-loaders. How is this difficult?

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I think this might one of those arguments where we are really on the same side of the fence but argueing over half measures, or more wrongs put in place to make it right.

Here's my take on it.
Should people pay taxes to the feds? Theoretically yes. But not what is being done. Our fed is a huge, obese, immoral, disgusting entity, trampling over us with incredible momentum. They way they steal way we produce (taxes) and then use that against us is wrong.

But in a free society I believe it would be proper for the people to pay a small fee to pay for a specific service we ask for from a company we create called the government.