House Democrats Will Seek Massive $540 Billion Tax Increase

[tinytim]

How ignorant are people?... Well the fact that we have an idiot running our country, and the ignorant masses voted for him.. that explains things...

When you tax business owners.. what happens huh?

Do the owners just say, "ah what the heck.. I'll pay for it myself out of my profits"

OR

Do they raise prices, lay off the work force...etc...

Only the ignorant will say "this tax won't effect me"....

And besides he already raised taxes on the pooor...

Who do you think was affected by the tobacco tax raise a couple months ago?
Hmmmm....

BO is a liar... and his supporters are no better.

No wonder Obama says NOW that unemployment will rise over the upcoming months...

He is setting up a no win situation...

Our only hope is making sure his stupid healthcare proposals don't get passed till after we flush the crap out of Washington in 2010.

Maybe then, we can have real change...

Get rid of ALL incumbents!....

Refuse to vote for a Democrat or Republican.

Take a stand for liberty! Make the Government fear US!

When the People fear their Government, there is Tyranny. When the Government fears the people, there is Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Oh my, those with short term memories don't realize that the ultralow tax rates on the highest incomes is a relatively new phenomenon. It hasn't been this low since the Roaring Twenties, and we know where that led.

During the 1950s when we had a growing middle class and a vibrant economy, the highest earners were taxed in excess of 90% on the top tier of income. Even up to when Reagan started cutting taxes on the highest incomes, the top tier was twice what it is today. The fact is, cutting taxes for the rich has NOT "tricked down". Rather, Reaganomics has resulted in the rapid decline of the middle class, squeezing more and more folks into destitution, or at least losing ground.

There is nothing wrong with a greater responsibility being placed on those whom have benefited greatly from this society. They didn't get there without the rest of us, and they have a moral responsibility to this society and its members. The fact that folks continue to believe the discredited trickle down theory is amazing. Instead of creating jobs in America, the owners have offshored jobs to even cheaper labor, since they know they can make even more money that way, and it won't be taxed very highly, if at all. Meanwhile we are undergoing a massive redistribution of wealth to the top. This is out of balance, and is the result of giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy. Enough is enough.

From HERE:

 

[tinytim]

There is nothing wrong with a greater responsibility being placed on those whom have benefited greatly from this society. They didn't get there without the rest of us, and they have a moral responsibility to this society and its members.

Spoken like a true "redistribution of wealth" socialist...

Please share with us where you find the basis for your claim that they have a "moral responsibilty" to be taxed more than others.

Where is this moral taught?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Spoken like a true "redistribution of wealth" socialist...

Please share with us where you find the basis for your claim that they have a "moral responsibilty" to be taxed more than others.

Where is this moral taught?

Actually, the redistribution of wealth is you "supply siders" and you have done a marvelous job of destroying what is your own self interest by giving the middle class money to the wealthy and incentivizing them to send our jobs overseas to communist slave labor. This is the end result of greed. The wealthy make the rules and use social issues as hot buttons to get folks like you on board.

If you don't think those who have benefited massively from our society don't owe anything back, your sense of fairness is totally warped.

 

[tinytim]

MP, please answer my question.. .

You claimed "they have a moral responsibility to this society "

Upon what do you base this belief? Where is this moral from?

This may surprise you, but on one level I agree... And I can even help you...
Luke 12:48 says...
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:

But... YOu are the one that has been arguing in another thread that our Government should not be ran by Biblical principles.

So.. I am sure you wouldn't want to use the Bible to back up your claim that the Government must force this moral onto people with money.

OR.. do you pick and choose which Biblical moral you believe the Goverment should be forcing?

YOU see, I too believe the rich have a higher responsibility to help.
But I also believe in liberty, and freedom... and we should give them the choice to help.. not rob them.

You see, I will turn the liberal's talking points that are used for abortion around on you...

IF we would start evangelizing the rich, and introducing them to Jesus, then their lives would change, and they would be willing to help...
Remember Zachaeus?

ONLY when the rich realize from whence comes their fortunes, then they will give back.

But until then, you can pass all the taxes you want, and the rich will find the loopholes to keep the money.

A revival is what we need.. not more tax laws.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MP, please answer my question.. .

You claimed "they have a moral responsibility to this society "

Upon what do you base this belief? Where is this moral from?

This may surprise you, but on one level I agree... And I can even help you...
Luke 12:48 says...
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:

But... YOu are the one that has been arguing in another thread that our Government should not be ran by Biblical principles.

So.. I am sure you wouldn't want to use the Bible to back up your claim that the Government must force this moral onto people with money.

OR.. do you pick and choose which Biblical moral you believe the Goverment should be forcing?

Okay, where do I get it? It comes from my inate sense of fairness. That verse also came to mind. However slow down a second and think about the second part of what you wrote.

We have laws against murder, against theft, against perjury (false witness). Do we base that on the Bible? No! They are just good, common sense rules that make civilization possible. The Bible isn't the first book to espouse these ideals either. Do we say the government is based on the Code of Hammurabi, since it has some of the same rules? Nope...these are universal. It didn't take people to understand that if you don't want to be killed, don't kill. If you don't want to be stolen from, don't steal. We have these laws because they make civilized society possible. They are not in our laws because the are also in the Bible.

YOU see, I too believe the rich have a higher responsibility to help.
But I also believe in liberty, and freedom... and we should give them the choice to help.. not rob them.

Taxation is not robbery. Like I pointed out, taxes are at an all time low on the wealthy since Reagan began his trickle down Reaganomics. They have failed. We need to go back to what has always worked. If the wealthy don't keep windfall profits anyway, they can invest in American jobs rather than sending them overseas and laying off workers here just to raise their stock options another half a point. Nobody needs billions to have a plush life. We had very capable CEOs back when taxes were 90% at the top tier. They did not need retention bonuses to run their companies into the ground. Unbridled capitalism becomes what you guys hate...social Darwinism...survival of the fittest...or the wealthiest...at the expense of the economy that laid the golden egg.

You see, I will turn the liberal's talking points that are used for abortion around on you...

Don't follow, but let's not derail here.

IF we would start evangelizing the rich, and introducing them to Jesus, then their lives would change, and they would be willing to help...
Remember Zachaeus?

ONLY when the rich realize from whence comes their fortunes, then they will give back.

Really? So why have they taken billions in personal wealth to redistribute wealth to the top, run their companies into bankruptcy, and then pay off Congress to give them a bailout? Human nature is greed. You cannot count on them to do the right thing if personal gain is at stake. Some greed is good...it drives folks to excel. But unearned wealth at the detriment of the working class needs to be subject to higher taxes to support the overall good.

But until then, you can pass all the taxes you want, and the rich will find the loopholes to keep the money.

Not if tax reform includes closing those loopholes. But since members of Congress are of that wealthy class, it is a tough one. We have government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. And until we working folks decide that we want our government back, we will get what little they allow us to have. We must stop letting them manipulate us. We have the power, but we are easily duped.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This is the real difference between the right and the left. The right believes totally in every man for himself. Don't tax, and if you do well, good for you, and too bad for your neighbor. The left comes from the fact that if we all do well, then we have a better society; that the engine of our economy should benefit those working, not just the suits who sit on each others boards and vote one another obscene compensation.

 

[Revmitchell]

We have laws against murder, against theft, against perjury (false witness). Do we base that on the Bible? No! They are just good, common sense rules that make civilization possible. The Bible isn't the first book to espouse these ideals either.

Right here is the problem. God and His word existed long before anyone else. And it was the first thing man heard. All morals come from God whether man wants to acknowledge that or not. If it were not form God we would not have any sense of what morals should be and the whole world would be a free for all. Nothing would be illegal and survival of the fittest would be the rule.

It is God and God alone that makes civilization possible. Sad a Christian doesn't know this.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Right here is the problem. God and His word existed long before anyone else. And it was the first thing man heard. All morals come from God whether man wants to acknowledge that or not. If it were not form God we would not have any sense of what morals should be and the whole world would be a free for all. Nothing would be illegal and survival of the fittest would be the rule.

It is God and God alone that makes civilization possible.

It doesn't take a book to tell us that it is not right to kill others. And the Bible is not unique in that message. Older books predate it with the same. Perhaps we are created with this morality, but again, our statutes do not cite any holy books as the basis for law. In fact, many of our secular laws are contrary to Biblical rules.

 

[saturneptune]

The Democrats will propose it and the Republicans will go along with it because they're just as bad.

Bingo, bells and whistles, you got the right answer!!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

It doesn't take a book to tell us that it is not right to kill others. And the Bible is not unique in that message. Older books predate it with the same. Perhaps we are created with this morality, but again, our statutes do not cite any holy books as the basis for law. In fact, many of our secular laws are contrary to Biblical rules.

The book is simply the expression of God's will. And His word has existed since the beginning of time. To ignore that and simply put things in terms of just a book is to ignore what is in the most powerful book in all the world and all of history. God's word has always existed. And it takes the word of God to know that is is not ok to murder.

 

[Robert Snow]

And it takes the word of God to know that is is not ok to murder.

There have been numerous civilizations that existed that never had access to the Bible, yet they outlawed murder. Take the American Indians for example.

 

[saturneptune]

There have been numerous civilizations that existed that never had access to the Bible, yet they outlawed murder. Take the American Indians for example.

Really now, where do you think that came from? Ever read Romans 1?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Really now, where do you think that came from? Ever read Romans 1?

So pre-Columbian American civilizations had Romans?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Once again, folks campaigning against their own self interests.

Maybe you guys are making over $350,000/yr., but I am not. Why would this get vetoed if passed? Obama said he would raise taxes on those in these high income levels to pay for health care. This is EXACTLY what we voted for.

​

Hey, don't include me in that "we". I wouldn't touch the "O" with a twenty-seven foot pole- and definitely didn't vote fo him.

 

[rbell]

This is the real difference between the right and the left. The right believes totally in every man for himself. Don't tax, and if you do well, good for you, and too bad for your neighbor. The left comes from the fact that if we all do well, then we have a better society; that the engine of our economy should benefit those working, not just the suits who sit on each others boards and vote one another obscene compensation.

OK, I'm probably one of those confounded "righties." (though I'm actually a lefty...throwing, that is )



You've misrepresented conservative thought, IMO. I think that many, many conservatives believe in quaint, outdated, unpopular, and somewhat "mean-spirited" concepts...

• ...the concept of "Maybe you shouldn't HAVE a child if you aren't married, or if you've given absolutely no thought as to how you will provide for him/her" (however, there are alternatives to killing him/her);
• ...the concept of "If you are able-bodied and particularly if you aren't caring for children or other needy folks--then you are at the end of the line when it comes to assistance. That should be your absolute last resort."
• ...the concept of "The rich guy that offers you a job does have more than you. He probably lives nicer, and he might even seem a bit smug about it. But before you castigate him, keep in mind how many hours he worked, and how many thousands he sunk to get where he is. And before you covet all his wealth into your pockets, keep in mind...he does employ you."
• ...the concept of earning all you can, saving all you can, and giving all you can...but letting our giving be a matter of personal conviction and habits, rather than forced "generosity" on the part of a government.
• ...the idea of teaching our children to care for others--but doing it freely, and doing it without coercion...and giving with an attitude of discernment. Allowing the "less fortunate" to be blessed, while not rewarding the "less industrious" and the "less responsible."
• ...that true conservatism (which values self-reliance but also non-coerced helpfulness) builds up a community...while the statist approach builds resentment among those who find themselves carrying an increasing number of people along. I can only carry so many bootstraps before my arms give out.
• ...opposing on its face the statist ("leftist") approach, which invariably expands on what are considered essential "rights." Just consider what is considered "indespensible" now. Our government will help you get a new car. We will help you get a cell phone. There exist arguments that "rights" encompass more than just the "basics;" now, it's more than just a roof--it's a stand-alone house, with one bedroom for each kid. It's more than shelter--it's cable TV. It's more than access to a job...it's "cash for clunkers," and free taxi service. It's more than helping a family avoid hunger...it's feeding a family of mom and five kids from four husbands, and one on the way. Where does the expansion end?
• ...the idea that there will always be poor people; that our goal should be to be compassionate, helpful, but not enable...much along the lines of Scripture...and realize that, pound-for-pound, the individual is always better than the government at this.
• ...the concepts, backed up by data, that those identifying themselves as "conservatives" have consistently been more benevolent than those identifying themselves as "moderate" or "liberal."

----------------------

* = the examples used above are all real-world, contemporary examples.
** = "if we all do well" as MP stated, is a nebulous concept. If I give money to someone who should earn their keep, but doesn't...are they really doing "well?" Financially, maybe they are better. But their soul...which must remain a consideration...is not.
+ = a true Biblical perspective IMO will also speak out against greed. And we should do that. But as we must take care in defining what are "necessities," we must also be careful in constantly re-defining "greed" so as to engender class envy, and attempt to get our political points across.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There have been numerous civilizations that existed that never had access to the Bible, yet they outlawed murder. Take the American Indians for example.

Several cultures practice human sacfrice. Any Christian-influenced countries that practice this ?

 

[saturneptune]

So pre-Columbian American civilizations had Romans?

Yes, King James had a time machine with GPS, and sold several copies of his version.

 

[tinytim]

It doesn't take a book to tell us that it is not right to kill others.

I am going to surprise everyone and agree with MP..

The reason is man was created in the image of God. Within that image is the sense of morality... The image has been distorted somewhat in different cultures.. but the basic sense of morality and value of human life is found in all cultures.

Even cultures that never had the Gospel, had laws prohibiting murder.
Stealing is wrong in all cultures..

In dispensationalism, this corresponds with the dispensation of conscience.

BUT it still comes down to GOD giving us these morals.. so if you want God out of any decisions in the goverment, you have to lose even the instinctive morals us humans have.

And to pick the moral of sharing with others, and not the moral of valuing human life in the womb.. then something wrong.
We should not pick and choose, but choose all that is right.

One of the morals that Obama is going against is the one that if you work hard at something, and earn the money, it should not be taken away to support others.

That deprives the one with the money from the blessing of giving. Mandatory giving is not giving with the heart.

 

[Revmitchell]

There have been numerous civilizations that existed that never had access to the Bible, yet they outlawed murder. Take the American Indians for example.

They are all ancestors of the people of Genesis as we all are.