• 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!

Is the Tea Party Funded by "Crony Capitalism"?

Is the Tea Party Funded by "Crony Capitalism"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 62.1%
  • No

    Votes: 11 37.9%

  • Total voters
    29
Wrong. Inheritances are what triggers the tax. When people die without leaving an inheritance, there is no tax.



Again, that part of the constitution has already been pointed out to you

and we all know death has nothing to do with inheritances :lol:

good lord :lol:
 
semantics based on a desire to make the death tax sound better. An inheritance tax is paid by the heirs so you are wrong

again a stupid argument-you are confusing the power to do something with the desire that the power be used that way

I have proven that the power is in the constitution, and that founders desired that the power be used that way
 
it was part of their plan?....

tell us all about the founders wealth confiscation plans they implemented.. try to be specific.

I have already posted quotes from Jefferson and Franklin that describe their ideas. You can also read Thom Paines "Rights on Man"

and we all know death has nothing to do with inheritances :lol:

good lord :lol:

Death isn't taxed. Inheritances are
 
I have proven that the power is in the constitution, and that founders desired that the power be used that way

No you haven't

what you have tried to establish is that

1) the constitution granted the federal government power to tax something

a) it never stated it applied to individual citizens and certainly not their wealth

2) there are no documents that suggest that a majority of the founders intended a death/estate tax be imposed at a federal level


the fact that no such death tax was enacted for decades after the founders died is pretty strong proof
 
I not only tried, I succeeded

ah a self awarded victory. I deny your claims

If you were right, the founders would have enacted a federal death tax

they did not
 
I have proven that the power is in the constitution, and that founders desired that the power be used that way

will you please prove it to me.

no where in the constitution of the founders, does it grant the congress power to tax the people, or involvement in their personal life's.

the constitution creates federalism, and places restriction on the federal government.....that's what it does.

the only people congress has authority over is pirates, counterfeiters and those who commit treason...as stated by the constitution.
 
I have already posted quotes from Jefferson and Franklin that describe their ideas. You can also read Thom Paines "Rights on Man"

oh I see, they must have simply forgot to implement these ideas into plans, and the plans into codified laws.

they had alot to do, it must have been a simple oversight to not include these ideas :lamo
 
that's complete crap. nothing in this country's fabric was based on government grabbing private wealth. and what is hilarious is the high minded facade people like you cloak envy in.

td and other konservatives (or so-called "libertarian right"ies) believe it's OK to grab private wealth as long as it's called a "payroll tax."
 
td and other konservatives (or so-called "libertarian right"ies) believe it's OK to grab private wealth as long as it's called a "payroll tax."

that's the most stupid thing I have yet to see on this thread. I oppose the Social Security ponzi scheme. Real libertarians understand what I am saying.
 
td and other konservatives (or so-called "libertarian right"ies) believe it's OK to grab private wealth as long as it's called a "payroll tax."

from a libertarian point of view, any tax, that is collected by force....is wrong, and defies the founding principles of America in the declaration of independence.
 
from a libertarian point of view, any tax, that is collected by force....is wrong, and defies the founding principles of America in the declaration of independence.

True, but neither you nor td are real Libertarians; you're conservatives, and conservatives have always been opposed to unconditional cuts to payroll taxes. . .

Top Republican opposes extending U.S. payroll tax cut | Reuters

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/u...roll-tax-cut-boehner-says.html?pagewanted=all

The only time GOP leaders have supported such "cuts" is when they aren't tax cuts but rather bundled w/other costly corporate-welfare programs that effectively negate the savings from the tax cuts.
 
td and other konservatives (or so-called "libertarian right"ies) believe it's OK to grab private wealth as long as it's called a "payroll tax."

I don't think it's ok....TD doesn't think it's ok.

seems you are faced with believing a falsehood, again.
 
True, but neither you nor td are real Libertarians; you're conservatives, and conservatives have always been opposed to unconditional cuts to payroll taxes. . .

Top Republican opposes extending U.S. payroll tax cut | Reuters

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/u...roll-tax-cut-boehner-says.html?pagewanted=all

The only time GOP leaders have supported such "cuts" is when they aren't tax cuts but rather bundled w/other costly corporate-welfare programs that effectively negate the savings from the tax cuts.

oh, I do not support many things the GOP does.

my libertarian right stance means I believe in constitution law, and state powers.

I am not for any tax that uses force.....but voluntary taxes on commerce of the founders
 
True, but neither you nor td are real Libertarians; you're conservatives, and conservatives have always been opposed to unconditional cuts to payroll taxes. . .

Top Republican opposes extending U.S. payroll tax cut | Reuters

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/u...roll-tax-cut-boehner-says.html?pagewanted=all

The only time GOP leaders have supported such "cuts" is when they aren't tax cuts but rather bundled w/other costly corporate-welfare programs that effectively negate the savings from the tax cuts.

are you trying to say that "real libertarians" support such taxes?.. and us not supporting them means we aren't "real libertarians"?

good luck with that argument :lol:
 
I don't think it's ok....TD doesn't think it's ok.

seems you are faced with believing a falsehood, again.

the biggest being the claim that she is arguing libertarian principles

I oppose the payroll tax as a violation of the tenth amendment

Medicaid, Medicare and SS are all areas congress really has no right to act in
 
The Tea Party is not funded by much of anybody but the grass roots members in its various locations. How in the world could the Koch Bros. or anybody else fund an organization that the IRS won't allow to be recognized as a bonafide incorporated organization and thereby have a structure that can receive contributions? There is no national Tea Party, but only grass roots groups in various states and cities.
 
From what I understand, the Tea Party is funded primarily by big bucks multi-millionaires who want the lowest possible taxes. However membership is made up primarily of people who in 2008 highly trusted talk-radio pundits, etc. frightened into thinking Obama was black-nationalist radical, closet Muslim, terrorist friend and supporter in the midst of the War of Terror, communist, socialist, racist who has a deep seeded hatred for America, the US Military and white people.

You understand incorrectly.

The Tea Party is a name assumed by unaffiliated groups that for the most part and on the local level are not funded by anyone, nor do they take up social issues or care about either party all that much. They focus on fiscal issues only and don't talk about abortion or contraception or gay marriage or anything other than fiscal issues.

It was only when people like Sarah Palin and others tried to highjack the movement did the national perspective get skewed. There are many Super-Pacs that call themselves Tea Party groups, but are actually just Far Right Extremists trying to use the Tea Party movement as a cover. These are the ones that the Koch's and others are involved in - not the real Tea Party movement.

In other words, there is no difference between George Soros and the Koch Brothers, at all. Both use Super-Pacs to cover their actions, which is what freedom and liberty allow.

Now, if you want to end freedom and liberty, we can talk about that. But I doubt it would get too far.

Both major parties have their rich daddies paying for them behind the scenes and causing trouble with lies and distortions being put on the air in TV commercials, and lobbying to make them more rich. However, both groups also do good things for the community as well, including George Soros and the the Koch Brothers.
 
its silly to pretend that the term "inheritance tax" is more accurate than death tax and none of the founders supported the welfare socialism perpetrated by the federal government today

if there were no income tax, there might be an argument for the death or estate tax. since there is, there is no sound argument for something that is merely a surcharge on the top payers. its a sop to the envious that pimps in office use to pander
Since death isn't taxed, and the inheritances are taxed, inheritance taxes are both the official and the appropriate term for them

And several Founders supported inheritance taxes and welfare for the poor. In fact, welfare was the exact purpose they proposed for the funds generated by inheritance taxes.
Inheritance tax is the appropriate term. "Death tax" is emotional hyperbole.

Regardless what one calls it, though, it's still uncalled for as the wealth/money was... or should have been (if we didn't have such a jacked-up system)... already taxed under the original owner.
 
The Tea Party is not funded by much of anybody but the grass roots members in its various locations. How in the world could the Koch Bros. or anybody else fund an organization that the IRS won't allow to be recognized as a bonafide incorporated organization and thereby have a structure that can receive contributions? There is no national Tea Party, but only grass roots groups in various states and cities.

Atta girl... you tell 'em.
 
oh I see, they must have simply forgot to implement these ideas into plans, and the plans into codified laws.

they had alot to do, it must have been a simple oversight to not include these ideas :lamo

They did implement the confiscation of wealth in the form of tax laws. Not sure why you think there was a time when the govt ran for free.
 
Inheritance tax is the appropriate term. "Death tax" is emotional hyperbole.

Regardless what one calls it, though, it's still uncalled for as the wealth/money was... or should have been (if we didn't have such a jacked-up system)... already taxed under the original owner.

you are wrong-the estate pays the tax at the death of the estate holder. Those who inherit stuff don't pay the tax. If they did, you'd be right. You are not
 
ah a self awarded victory. I deny your claims

If you were right, the founders would have enacted a federal death tax

they did not

You are moving the goal posts. You were arguing that "nothing in this country's fabric was based on government grabbing private wealth"

Since you were proven wrong, you've pretended you said something else
 
They did implement the confiscation of wealth in the form of tax laws. Not sure why you think there was a time when the govt ran for free.

the main source of revenue for the feds was duties and excise taxes. not taxes on the income or property of citizens
 
Back
Top Bottom