• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBS News Poll: Most Oppose GOP Tax Plan

Seems like you used a lot of words to simply say

I would very much like to be part of the solution. I suspect you would not like the solution. You don't like politicians creating predetermined outcomes for business? Fine. Lets have one national policy that no unit of government can create winners or losers. Lets have one national policy which prevents any level of government from creating winners and losers by doling out tax breaks to one company over others who pay those taxes thereby giving them unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Lets have one national policy which prevents government from creating winners and losers by barring any level of government from giving corporate welfare or payments to corporations or businesses thereby giving them an unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Let us have one national policy with prevents government from creating winners and losers by waiving regulatory regulations for some companies giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Do you join me in that Conservative?

Nope, I believe in states rights and the original intent of our Founders. My question to you is if TX can do it, why can't your state? You are the one making predictions and that is all they are predictions. You don't know what is going to happen but you seem to ignore the laws on the books now that are supposed to prevent the concerns you have. Why not enforce those laws? I do agree with you that the govt. has no business creating winners and losers but that is what they are trying to do now and failing badly as is our nation.

Your way hasn't worked, trillions have been spent solving social problems and none of that has worked. All we have to show for it is a 14 trillion dollar debt and today over 16 million Americans not working. What does the govt. then do............spend more and get more involved thus making things worse. You seem to forget this is a govt. of the people and that govt. at the state level is more representative of the will of that state. One size does not fit all and that is what a big Central govt. has created. Imagine the power of the lobbyists with a 250 billion dollar govt. vs a 3.6 trillion dollar govt and 14.5 trillion dollar economy?

If you studied history along with civics you would have learned about the Founders and their vision. They knew that power corrupts and that is what we have today with a large central govt. which is contrary to their vision. If we don't go back to the basics we are going to fail and the entire blame rests with the big govt. proponents as that govt. will collapse under its own weight. now that would be a real dream to other countries around the world that pray for our failure.
 
Conservative said he does not want government creating winners and losers. He advocates that I be part of the solution. So I asked him this

You don't like politicians creating predetermined outcomes for business? Fine. Lets have one national policy that no unit of government can create winners or losers. Lets have one national policy which prevents any level of government from creating winners and losers by doling out tax breaks to one company over others who pay those taxes thereby giving them unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Lets have one national policy which prevents government from creating winners and losers by barring any level of government from giving corporate welfare or payments to corporations or businesses thereby giving them an unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Let us have one national policy with prevents government from creating winners and losers by waiving regulatory regulations for some companies giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Do you join me in that Conservative?

his answer is



You seem to be backtracking on your own position and now saying 'NO I still want governments to have those power to create winners and losers'

What is preventing your state from doing what TX is doing? I didn't grow up in TX, moved here in 1992 and it was the best move of my life. Some people learn from their mistakes wereas others continue to make the same ones over and over again believing that they can do better than others. You are in the latter, I grew out of it.
 
So you righties NO DOT stick up for each other here as I said you do?

Its only one way or the other so think carefully.


I thank well thought out points or one's I find amusing
 
Nope, I believe in states rights and the original intent of our Founders. My question to you is if TX can do it, why can't your state? You are the one making predictions and that is all they are predictions. You don't know what is going to happen but you seem to ignore the laws on the books now that are supposed to prevent the concerns you have. Why not enforce those laws? I do agree with you that the govt. has no business creating winners and losers but that is what they are trying to do now and failing badly as is our nation.

Your way hasn't worked, trillions have been spent solving social problems and none of that has worked. All we have to show for it is a 14 trillion dollar debt and today over 16 million Americans not working. What does the govt. then do............spend more and get more involved thus making things worse. You seem to forget this is a govt. of the people and that govt. at the state level is more representative of the will of that state. One size does not fit all and that is what a big Central govt. has created. Imagine the power of the lobbyists with a 250 billion dollar govt. vs a 3.6 trillion dollar govt and 14.5 trillion dollar economy?

If you studied history along with civics you would have learned about the Founders and their vision. They knew that power corrupts and that is what we have today with a large central govt. which is contrary to their vision. If we don't go back to the basics we are going to fail and the entire blame rests with the big govt. proponents as that govt. will collapse under its own weight. now that would be a real dream to other countries around the world that pray for our failure.

A malignant federal government has usurped many functions of the several states. The left likes this because it forces the citizens of the various states to do what the left likes If the federalist system the founders envisioned remained, then states that want to spend lots of money catering to the unproductive could do so and then pay the price of having most of the high net tax payers move to states that are more hospitable to industrious people. A state could have severe gun restrictions meaning gun owners would leave as well. In other words, states that engaged in left wing nonsense or pillow-headed utopianistic schemes would see the smart and the talented leave which would collapse such schemes.
 
This is a perfect example of the blatant and extreme hypocrisy of the right wing in this country. You could put it in the dictionary right next to the word HYPOCRISY and the perfect illustration.

One the one hand we have the decades old cliche that comes dripping from the lips of the anti- government crowd that government should not be in the business of picking winner and losers in the world of business. This is one of their basic beliefs and has taken on the aura of Holy Writ in the Gospel according to Saint Ronald. But then they clearly support and advocate for governments being able to select winners and losers in the world of business by offering tax breaks, outright corporate donations and bribes, and relaxed regulatory promises. This clearly gives those business an unfair, anti-competitive advantage over other businesses and puts them in the very real business of government helping to create winners and losers.

We need on national policy on this which is going to work for the entire nation..... not one state... not two states or even a small number of states. One nation- one policy - one standard.

Lets have one national policy that no unit of government can create winners or losers. Lets have one national policy which prevents any level of government from creating winners and losers by doling out tax breaks to one company over others who pay those taxes thereby giving them unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Lets have one national policy which prevents government from creating winners and losers by barring any level of government from giving corporate welfare or payments to corporations or businesses thereby giving them an unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Let us have one national policy with prevents government from creating winners and losers by waiving regulatory regulations for some companies giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Of course, as we have seen right here, when the real world reality and logical end position of their advocacy is demonstrated to them, they fall back on partisan ideology and a system that existed in the 18th century as justification for betrayal of the very ideas they profess belief in.

If I had not seen this time and time and time again with those on the right, I would feign surprise and even shock. But I am not that good of an actor having been down that road for many years now and fully realize what is there on the side of the road.
 
Understanding Taxes - Theme 2: Taxes in U.S. History - Lesson 2: Early Tax Issues

1790 - Federal Government Assumes State Debts. 1794 - Whiskey rebellion as US tries to pay war debt assumed from STATES. The Whiskey Rebellion was the first test of the government's constitutional power to tax. Some criticized Washington for sending troops to face American citizens, yet his actions enforced the federal government's authority. Washington made the point that the Constitution is the law of the land and must be obeyed.

How many corporations existed in this nation in 1790? States chartered 114 corporations during 1790-95, and another 181 from 1796 to 1800. Thus, US states chartered 295 corporations in the decade 1791-1800. These were chartered by the states and HEAVILY taxed. Why? Think East India Trading Company and the control it had over England's government. The founders were wary of corporations and the inherent corruption that comes with it.

It is clear by the way our "founders" governed that they view the constitution as a living document, not a Bible etched in stone. It was the work of men and therefor imperfect. This was no secret to anyone at the time. Thus the instruction on amending it.

This disagreement - whether the constitution is a living document or a strict constructionist document is one of our biggest challenges, left and right. Role and scope of government is the other. Mr. Lincoln was able to utilize the union in defeating the south. Due to the south's states rights positions, Jeff Davis never stood a chance. He couldn't even commandeer the railroad for troop movements. It was a disaster.
 
A malignant federal government has usurped many functions of the several states. The left likes this because it forces the citizens of the various states to do what the left likes If the federalist system the founders envisioned remained, then states that want to spend lots of money catering to the unproductive could do so and then pay the price of having most of the high net tax payers move to states that are more hospitable to industrious people.

There is no such thing as a net taxpayer.

Prove to me that there is.

Please provide for me the formula by which this is calculated allowing or my total taxes paid and my total government services used so that I can apply it to my personal situation. I want to know how this is done so I can discover this mythical creation for myself. Perhaps if you can prove the existence of a 'net taxpayer' other mythical creations such as unicorns and orcs will not be far behind.
 
Does anyone know what Haymarket is complaining about in this post above (#605)?
 
There is no such thing as a net taxpayer.

Prove to me that there is.

Please provide for me the formula by which this is calculated allowing or my total taxes paid and my total government services used so that I can apply it to my personal situation. I want to know how this is done so I can discover this mythical creation for myself. Perhaps if you can prove the existence of a 'net taxpayer' other mythical creations such as unicorns and orcs will not be far behind.

Too stupid to respond to. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that some taxpayers pay more than they use and others pay less
 
This is a perfect example of the blatant and extreme hypocrisy of the right wing in this country. You could put it in the dictionary right next to the word HYPOCRISY and the perfect illustration.

One the one hand we have the decades old cliche that comes dripping from the lips of the anti- government crowd that government should not be in the business of picking winner and losers in the world of business. This is one of their basic beliefs and has taken on the aura of Holy Writ in the Gospel according to Saint Ronald. But then they clearly support and advocate for governments being able to select winners and losers in the world of business by offering tax breaks, outright corporate donations and bribes, and relaxed regulatory promises. This clearly gives those business an unfair, anti-competitive advantage over other businesses and puts them in the very real business of government helping to create winners and losers.

We need on national policy on this which is going to work for the entire nation..... not one state... not two states or even a small number of states. One nation- one policy - one standard.

Lets have one national policy that no unit of government can create winners or losers. Lets have one national policy which prevents any level of government from creating winners and losers by doling out tax breaks to one company over others who pay those taxes thereby giving them unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Lets have one national policy which prevents government from creating winners and losers by barring any level of government from giving corporate welfare or payments to corporations or businesses thereby giving them an unfair advantage over other companies in the marketplace. Let us have one national policy with prevents government from creating winners and losers by waiving regulatory regulations for some companies giving them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.

Of course, as we have seen right here, when the real world reality and logical end position of their advocacy is demonstrated to them, they fall back on partisan ideology and a system that existed in the 18th century as justification for betrayal of the very ideas they profess belief in.

If I had not seen this time and time and time again with those on the right, I would feign surprise and even shock. But I am not that good of an actor having been down that road for many years now and fully realize what is there on the side of the road.

We have a 14 trillion dollar National debt, what part did the states contribute to that? Get off your big govt. soapbox and think for a change. One size doesn't fit all and never has. Your big govt. attitude is waning or didn't you see the Nov. 2 election results? The Majority in this country bought the "hope and change" message without truly understanding it. They do now.

I don't see an answer to the question, why isn't your state trying what TX did and is doing? This Country has a Constitution which establishes the rules. I would have thought that a civics teacher would have read the Constitution. There is nothing in that Constitution that promotes your "one size" fits all govt. Power corrupts and that is what liberals thrive on, power. Power keeps people like you employed.
 
A malignant federal government has usurped many functions of the several states. The left likes this because it forces the citizens of the various states to do what the left likes If the federalist system the founders envisioned remained, then states that want to spend lots of money catering to the unproductive could do so and then pay the price of having most of the high net tax payers move to states that are more hospitable to industrious people. A state could have severe gun restrictions meaning gun owners would leave as well. In other words, states that engaged in left wing nonsense or pillow-headed utopianistic schemes would see the smart and the talented leave which would collapse such schemes.

Here's where you are waaay off on your understand of Dems and the left in general. The right has to stop applying motives because they can't mind read.

Let me tell what we believe: We believe in the United States and we're not going to let anyone rip it apart. I feel what cons really want is a one party system so they can run roughshod over the nation. They seem to have no concept of accepting election results, yet claim they love the constitution. Their Senate majority leader says the only priority is to break Obama. I'm thinking nothing could be more anti-American than a vow to destroy this nation's elected leader. That is akin to a bloodless coup. So much for "respecting the office."

Your way or we're gonna rebel - no debate, no discussion. We're all supposed to cower as the great "patriots" (cough), bellow their orders to the unwashed masses from on high, elections be damned. You did it with Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, WJ Clinton, and you're doing it again. But this time, you have a number of full time media outlets with over the top dropouts teaching the constitution.

The federalist system was a dismal failure and the founders rewrote the constitution. Threw out the articles. Poof.
 
Last edited:
Here's where you are waaay off on your understand of Dems and the left in general. The right has to stop applying motives because they can't mind read.

Let me tell what we believe: We believe in the United States and we're not going to let anyone rip it apart. I feel what cons really want is a one party system so they can run roughshod over the nation. They seem to have no concept of accepting election results, yet claim they love the constitution. Their Senate majority leader says the only priority is to break Obama. I'm thinking nothing could be more anti-American than a vow to destroy this nation's elected leader. That is akin to a bloodless coup. So much for "respecting the office."

Your way or we're gonna rebel - no debate, no discussion. We're all supposed to cower as the great "patriots" (cough), bellow their orders to the unwashed masses from on high, elections be damned. You did it with Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, WJ Clinton, and you're doing it again. But this time, you have a number of full time media outlets with over the top dropouts teaching the constitution.

The federalist system was a dismal failure and the founders rewrote the constitution. Threw out the articles. Poof.

Sounds like a life long Democrat, where do you get your "knowledge" of Conservatives and who Conservatives are? Sounds a lot more like the typical leftwing propaganda spewed daily by the leftwing media. To believe that Conservatives don't support the United States is absurd and that we want to rip it apart is wrong on so many levels. What Conservatives want is the United States to be more like its original intent of the founders. I suggest you read about them and study the govt. they created. It isn't what we have now. Who benefits from the large central govt. we have?
 
Here's where you are waaay off on your understand of Dems and the left in general. The right has to stop applying motives because they can't mind read.

Let me tell what we believe: We believe in the United States and we're not going to let anyone rip it apart. I feel what cons really want is a one party system so they can run roughshod over the nation. They seem to have no concept of accepting election results, yet claim they love the constitution. Their Senate majority leader says the only priority is to break Obama. I'm thinking nothing could be more anti-American than a vow to destroy this nation's elected leader. That is akin to a bloodless coup. So much for "respecting the office."

Your way or we're gonna rebel - no debate, no discussion. We're all supposed to cower as the great "patriots" (cough), bellow their orders to the unwashed masses from on high, elections be damned. You did it with Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, WJ Clinton, and you're doing it again. But this time, you have a number of full time media outlets with over the top dropouts teaching the constitution.

The federalist system was a dismal failure and the founders rewrote the constitution. Threw out the articles. Poof.

your understanding of the Constitution is rather paltry. The Constitution created a LIMITED federal government that only had the POWERS specifically DELEGATED to it.

The rest of your rant is shrouded in ignorance. The senate MAJORITY leader is Harry Reid. Today and next week and next year (short of him resigning or dying or his own party firing him). That you don't even understand that the Dems retained the senate is rather telling
 
We have a 14 trillion dollar National debt, what part did the states contribute to that? Get off your big govt. soapbox and think for a change. One size doesn't fit all and never has. Your big govt. attitude is waning or didn't you see the Nov. 2 election results? The Majority in this country bought the "hope and change" message without truly understanding it. They do now.

I don't see an answer to the question, why isn't your state trying what TX did and is doing? This Country has a Constitution which establishes the rules. I would have thought that a civics teacher would have read the Constitution. There is nothing in that Constitution that promotes your "one size" fits all govt. Power corrupts and that is what liberals thrive on, power. Power keeps people like you employed.

The states have a ton to do with it, actually. Especially the south. For instance, for every dollar going to the treasury from Illinois, the federal government returns .73 cents, netting the feds .27 cents. Texas receives .94 for every dollar. However - in a state like New Mexico, $2.00 is returned for every $1.00 sent to the treasury, putting the feds in a deficit where Az is concerned. For a list of all state contributions and receipts, go here:

Here's the map if you wanna look at the numbers:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf Go to page 2.
 
Last edited:
from Conservative

Get off your big govt. soapbox and think for a change

Maybe you did not read my post properly. I am trying to get government OUT OF THE BUSINESS of creating winners and losers let business rise or fall on free market principles. Why would you object to that?

Why do you want government to continue to pick winners and losers and establish conditions that are anti free market and anti open competition?

There is nothing in that Constitution that promotes your "one size" fits all govt.

I have no idea where you took Government and Civics. Perhaps it was in Texas. But all of my students were well instructed in the different articles and powers contained in the US Constitution. That would include Article I, Section 8, clause 3 and clause 18. We can begin there and see if that offers an opportunity.
 

What in the world does that have to do with proving what a 'net taxpayer' is? I pay taxes also. Lots of them. That does not make me a 'net taxpayer' does it?

Try to look it up on the internet Gardener. Try to find a definition of it. Try to quantify it. Try to find a formula which includes the necessary information so that you can apply the judgment to yourself. IT CANNOT BE DONE.

Turtle refuses to present any such definition and relevant information because 'net taxpayers' reside in the same mythical land that unicorns, elves, fairies, orcs and fire breathing dragons exist.

But I stand ready to read the authoritative definition and all relevant material you may provide.
 
Last edited:
your understanding of the Constitution is rather paltry. The Constitution created a LIMITED federal government that only had the POWERS specifically DELEGATED to it.

The rest of your rant is shrouded in ignorance. The senate MAJORITY leader is Harry Reid. Today and next week and next year (short of him resigning or dying or his own party firing him). That you don't even understand that the Dems retained the senate is rather telling

That IS the argument, isn't it? As I said in my post, we see things differently. Doesn't mean my constitutional understand is paultry. It means we disagree on the role and scope of government. Always have.

Why would you assume I don't know Dems retained the Senate? Where McConnell's statement is concerned, it seems you don't understand how the Senate works and why it is broken. Only takes 1 man to kill a bill in the Senate. It's why nearly 370 bills passed by the House (many with bi-partisan support) have been killed in the Senate this past 2 years. The growing pile of legislation awaiting Senate approval has rankled House Democrats, who have complained of having to take politically dangerous votes on bills only to see them stall in the upper chamber.

Legislation gap grows - TheHill.com

The list of 372 bills ranges from the major — such as the cap-and-trade energy and climate bill passed in June 2009 — to the mundane: legislation to name an outpatient clinic at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I don't think your righty talkers are serving you very well. This is pretty basic.
 
What in the world does that have to do with proving what a 'net taxpayer' is? Try to look it up on the internet Gardener. Try to find a definition of it. Try to quantify it. Try to find a formula which includes the necessary information so that you can apply the judgment to yourself. IT CANNOT BE DONE.

Turtle refuses to present any such definition and relevant information because 'net taxpayers' reside in the same mythical land that unicorns, elves, fairies, orcs and fire breathing dragons exist.

But I stand ready to read the authoritative definition and all relevant material you may provide.

I'm thinking he was joking...
 
That IS the argument, isn't it? As I said in my post, we see things differently. Doesn't mean my constitutional understand is paultry. It means we disagree on the role and scope of government. Always have.

Why would you assume I don't know Dems retained the Senate? Where McConnell's statement is concerned, it seems you don't understand how the Senate works and why it is broken. Only takes 1 man to kill a bill in the Senate. It's why nearly 370 bills passed by the House (many with bi-partisan support) have been killed in the Senate this past 2 years. The growing pile of legislation awaiting Senate approval has rankled House Democrats, who have complained of having to take politically dangerous votes on bills only to see them stall in the upper chamber.

Legislation gap grows - TheHill.com

The list of 372 bills ranges from the major — such as the cap-and-trade energy and climate bill passed in June 2009 — to the mundane: legislation to name an outpatient clinic at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I don't think your righty talkers are serving you very well. This is pretty basic.


You assume that since I post stuff I get it from "right wing talkers"? Project much?
 
The states have a ton to do with it, actually. Especially the south. For instance, for every dollar going to the treasury from Illinois, the federal government returns .73 cents, netting the feds .27 cents. Texas receives .94 for every dollar. However - in a state like New Mexico, $2.00 is returned for every $1.00 sent to the treasury, putting the feds in a deficit where Az is concerned. For a list of all state contributions and receipts, go here:

Here's the map if you wanna look at the numbers:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf Go to page 2.

The Federal Govt. has facilities in those states, you wouldn't expect them to default on their obligations, would you? The Federal Govt. purchases products from the states, you wouldn't expect them to default on those purchases would you?

But to the bigger issue, if the states are sending dollars to the Federal Govt. and receiving less than a dollar back how did the states create the debt? Looks like the govt. made a profit on the dollars sent to the govt? You do realize that if a state sends a dollar to the Federal govt and gets .94 cents back that means the Govt. made .06 on the deal. For doing what?
 
Back
Top Bottom