Lest we forget, Obama wanted a national health insurance program to protect the uninsured and save costs. Once exposed that it was going to cost an additional $1 trillion dollars and cover mostly illegal immigrants - America is revolting.
Now it is the "evil" insurance companies and a right wing conspiracy. Doesn't America know that the wealthy are going to pay for the costs now that EVERYONE agrees that there won't be any savings!
What about the fact that you could tax 100% of the wealthy earnings and it won't cover the cost of the national health insurance?
This is why they are now talking about taxing the middle class. Well, a strong majority of people that have health insurance don't have any problems with it in the first place. The fact that they will now have to pay for someone else's health insurance = the reason why people are pissed.
The other pissed off people are the ones actually reading the 1,000 page document and SCARED. What is even more scary is our Congress hasn't even read the document either, but yet are out there now smearing insurance companies and anyone that is against it.
$.02
Please define "wealthy" as you use the term in $/yr income and how much they have to have in total assetts so we know who you are defending against the government tax assessors.
"Rich" and "wealthy" can be very subjective terms based on one's own income/wealth frame of reference. If there are national standards for such terms, what are they? To an individual American making about $42,000 per yr (the currently published MEDIAN individual income), the terms could be someone making $80,000 per yr while the President has used $250,000 per yr as the low end of "middle class" income.
(08-06-2009 08:08 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Please define "wealthy" as you use the term in $/yr income and how much they have to have in total assetts so we know who you are defending against the government tax assessors.
"Rich" and "wealthy" can be very subjective terms based on one's own income/wealth frame of reference. If there are national standards for such terms, what are they? To an individual American making about $42,000 per yr (the currently published MEDIAN individual income), the terms could be someone making $80,000 per yr while the President has used $250,000 per yr as the low end of "middle class" income.
if the president thinks $250k is the 'low end' of middle class,
he's more clueless than anyone could've ever imagined
(08-06-2009 08:08 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Please define "wealthy" as you use the term in $/yr income and how much they have to have in total assetts so we know who you are defending against the government tax assessors.
"Rich" and "wealthy" can be very subjective terms based on one's own income/wealth frame of reference. If there are national standards for such terms, what are they? To an individual American making about $42,000 per yr (the currently published MEDIAN individual income), the terms could be someone making $80,000 per yr while the President has used $250,000 per yr as the low end of "middle class" income.
Bamablazerfan, since you made me look this crap up to post to you - please feel free to study the website and the FACTUAL data to educate yourself.
Obamacare is estimated to cost at over $1 trillion dollars. There are 305 million people in America. In 2007, there were 141,000,000 tax returns filed. The top 1 percent that earned more than $410,000 in income numbered 1.4 million tax filers. The top 5 percent numbered 7 million tax filers. The top 5 percent earned more than $160,000 in income.
===========================================
July 30, 2009
Income Tax Payment of Top 1% of Filers Exceeds that of Bottom 95%
New IRS Data: Top Earners Made the Most Ever and Paid the Most Ever
Washington, DC - The top 1 percent of tax filers earned about 22.8 percent of the nation's income in 2007 (the latest IRS data available), and paid
40.4 percent of all federal income taxes - more than the bottom 95 percent of tax filers combined, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of just-released IRS data.
Both income and income tax shares for the top 1 percent of tax returns (AGI over $410,096) hit all-time highs in 2007. In Fiscal Fact No. 183, "Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data," Tax Foundation Senior Economist Gerald Prante notes that the record-setting trend for income and income tax shares is likely to end with 2007, given the economic downturn in 2008.
"This pattern at the top of the income spectrum is the same during almost every recession and recovery," according to Prante. "Unlike middle-income wage-earners whose incomes and tax liabilities are fairly steady, high-income people have incomes and tax liabilities that fluctuate wildly with the economy. The sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2007 is likely to be followed by a substantial dip in 2008, 2009 and perhaps 2010 as the economy struggles through the worst recession since the early 1980s."
==================================================
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Obama has labeled $250k as the upper limit of middle class.
After studying the amounts, the top 1% (1,410,000 tax filers) paid $450,000,000,000 in Federal Income Taxes. The bottom 75% (105,600,000 tax filers) paid $149,000,000,000 in Federal Income taxes. Keep in mind that the latest statistics show that 47% of the filers didn't pay any income tax at all. Therefore, a couple of observations from this data:
1) The $200 M for three corporate jets to ferry Congress around was more than what 75% of the tax filers paid in income tax to the Federal Gov't. (This is incorrect, the bottom 75% actually paid $170,000,000,000.)
2) How is Obama going to fund $1 trillion in additional healthcare cost by taxing the top 1% or even top 5% ($160,000 in income and above)? Even if he doubled their tax, it would raise $670,000,000 and the Federal Income tax rate would be 44%. If it was 44%, then you add on local taxes, property taxes, state taxes, sales tax and etc. Anyone making over $160k a year would essentially have to live on 25% of their adjusted gross income. In other words, there is no $@$#@$ way anyone would work.
Edited: Thanks 58-56
(08-06-2009 09:57 PM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has labeled $250k as the upper limit of middle class.
he'd still be more clueless than anyone could've imagined
"After studying the amounts, the top 1% (1,410,000 tax filers) paid $450,000,000 in Federal Income Taxes. The bottom 75% (105,600,000 tax filers) paid $149,000,000 in Federal Income taxes"
You left off three zeroes on each $ amount (the chart is in millions, not thousands).
"Progressive" Taxation, in principle, is against everything this country was founded on.
(08-07-2009 07:04 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ]"Progressive" Taxation, in principle, is against everything this country was founded on.
don't let the collectivists see this.
You may well be correct when you say that taxation rates that increase with wealth are not what our Founding Fathers would have established. That is why the 16th Amendment was not part of the Bill of Rights, but was added, like the 17th Amendment, during the Progressive Movement in our late 19th century period as part of the effort to make our government more democratic. Keep in mind that these "Founding Fathers" didn't represent "middle class" America in most cases, but were very firmly centered in the upper economic class, complete in some cases with hundreds of slaves.
They built a Constitutional government where the people voted directly for only one out of four bodies of that government- the House of Representatives which had only a two year term. The Senate was selected by each state's legislature for a six year term(how would you like to have Alabama's present legislature picking your Senators?). The President was selected by a body of Electors that, at the time, were NOT bound by the results of the popular vote (technically, they still aren't). Every phase of national government was designed to be dominated by the upper socio-economic class of America. "Fairness in taxation" was definitely not one of their priorities.
bump, sorry i needed that tax chart.
(08-10-2009 12:50 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]part of the effort to make our government more democratic.
Our founders were terrified of democracy. Consider this quote from John Adams:
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
You really need to do some serious reading of more recent studies of early American history- and I don't mean high school textbooks.
(10-07-2009 09:37 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ] (08-10-2009 12:50 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]part of the effort to make our government more democratic.
Our founders were terrified of democracy. Consider this quote from John Adams:
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
You really need to do some serious reading of more recent studies of early American history- and I don't mean high school textbooks.
thus,
the reason they established a representative republic
(08-10-2009 12:50 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]as part of the effort to make our government more democratic
The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. A democracy is when EVERYONE votes on EVERYTHING. We elect someone to "represent" our interests and vote for us in our place. If we feel our representative does not represent us properly, then we have the power to vote them out next election.
I have no problem with the state legislatures selecting the Senators. The state legislatures are supposed to be an extension of the people on a state level, and more in tune with the needs and wants of the people of that state overall. The needs and wants of the state overall change more slowly than on smaller, district levels of the state, which is why the people retained the power to directly elect the House of Representatives for short, two year terms. These smaller districts may change composition and political needs/wants more quickly, and, thus, need the ability to change representatives in order to promote those changes. The federal government was created to be an extension of the state and the people of the states when dealing with national/international issues (the founding intent was for the federal government to deal almost exclusively with international/foreign issues), and to protect the interests of the states overall, not the other way around. Today, the states are treated as mere appendages to the federal government (which by the way, has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court), and why there is so much talk about some states seeking to secede from the Union if the treatment does not cease. The federal government was not designed or intended to have such control over the states or their people. The states agreed to give up few, enumerated, specific powers to the federal government in return for that representation and protection in international issues, and agreed on specific things the federal government COULD NOT do (Bill of Rights). Anything not specifically given up to the federal government by the states was reserved for the states and their people (10th Amendment).
The US is a democracy. It's not a direct democracy. It's a representative republic, which is a form of indirect democracy, but a democracy, nonetheless. Direct demoocracies aren't functionally feasable beyond populations of about 5000, even in the 21st century.
(10-08-2009 11:36 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]The US is a democracy. It's not a direct democracy. It's a representative republic, which is a form of indirect democracy, but a democracy, nonetheless. Direct demoocracies aren't functionally feasable beyond populations of about 5000, even in the 21st century.
Democracy and Republic are often discussed as one of the same thing, but there is a difference. While in both cases the government is elected by the people, in democracy the majority rules according to their whims, but in the Republic, the government rules according to law. This law is framed in a constitution to limit the power of government and ensuring some rights and protection to minorities and individuals.
The founding fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, and with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. A suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of citizens demands otherwise. In a republic, single juror's vote can prevent the deprivation of any criminal defendant's rights and freedom, even in the face of 11 other jurors voting to convict. In a democracy, this is not so. That single juror would be powerless to stop the majority.
(10-08-2009 11:52 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2009 11:36 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]The US is a democracy. It's not a direct democracy. It's a representative republic, which is a form of indirect democracy, but a democracy, nonetheless. Direct demoocracies aren't functionally feasable beyond populations of about 5000, even in the 21st century.
Democracy and Republic are often discussed as one of the same thing, but there is a difference. While in both cases the government is elected by the people, in democracy the majority rules according to their whims, but in the Republic, the government rules according to law. This law is framed in a constitution to limit the power of government and ensuring some rights and protection to minorities and individuals.
The founding fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, and with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. A suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of citizens demands otherwise. In a republic, single juror's vote can prevent the deprivation of any criminal defendant's rights and freedom, even in the face of 11 other jurors voting to convict. In a democracy, this is not so. That single juror would be powerless to stop the majority.
The United States is a republic based on limited democratic representation and has a Constitution composed of 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. The Federal System has 50 other State Constitutions with no real national standards for how they work except that they are held to be limited to intrastate powers that cannot contradict any powers of the National Constitution.
Since the very beginning, there have been arguments over where the Federal and State powers begin and end. Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions discussing this question. It was from Jefferson's Resolution that the Nullification Doctrine used by South Carolina in opposing the Tariff of 1828 arose. Now in 2009, 220 years after the Constitution was declared "in effect", we still argue where that "line" should be placed.
We have seen the Constitution used to spread slavery and then, after a war, to abolish it. We saw the Cherokees win in the U.S. Supreme Court only to have a President refuse to enforce that decision resulting in the "Trail of Tears". We saw the national government for another century allow states (mainly in the South) to openly support or at least protect statewide terrorism against Black and Jewish Americans (can you say "lynchings") and in the Southwest states, Hispanic Americans.
During WWII, we saw Japanese Americans placed in concentration camps and deprived of all their rights of citizenship including the ownership of property. They were only allowed to bring with them what they could carry in two regular suitcases. When one of their sons won the Congressional Medal of Honor, it was MAILED to his parents since they were imprisoned in camp. During the war, P.O.W. white German officers were welcomed in the Officer Clubs on U.S.bases, but entry was denied to Black American officers, particularly in southern states.
Whenever "the majority" is scared enough by the people "not like me", the Constitution has turned out to be nothing but an "historical piece of paper" to be ignored at their pleasure. We in Alabama have a Constitution that was a bad document when it was written in 1901 and has become a worse embarrasment since then. Too many citizens are "too scared of those people" to allow it to be replaced, even substantially changed. By the end of the next decade, it will most likely have over 1,000 amendments, most of which will be intended to mind the business of local governments.
(10-08-2009 04:25 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]During the war, P.O.W. white German officers were welcomed in the Officer Clubs on U.S.bases
Can I get a full reference (preferably with links) on this particular tidbit.
(10-09-2009 06:02 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2009 04:25 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]During the war, P.O.W. white German officers were welcomed in the Officer Clubs on U.S.bases
Can I get a full reference (preferably with links) on this particular tidbit.
That particular tidbit came from a documentary on the History Channel during a Black History Month observation program. I believe it was one of the programs about the Tuskegee Airmen.
(10-09-2009 11:45 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (10-09-2009 06:02 AM)BlazingGoat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2009 04:25 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]During the war, P.O.W. white German officers were welcomed in the Officer Clubs on U.S.bases
Can I get a full reference (preferably with links) on this particular tidbit.
That particular tidbit came from a documentary on the History Channel during a Black History Month observation program. I believe it was one of the programs about the Tuskegee Airmen.
That's kinda weak defense of the tidbit. I still don't buy it.
I enjoy reading various histories of WWII. Have read quite a few. I'm reading one now as it happens (Clay Blair's
Hitler's U-Boat War, Volume 2 "The Hunted" (and boy where they... hunted I mean--The U-Boats from '43 on
). The subject of a German POW camp in Arizona was even mentioned in a recent passage...
So far no carousing with the Americans in the Officer's Club.
You might be unaware of this from your couch sessions with the History Channel, but the combatants in WWII didn't care much for each other...
you're not REALLY expecting anything factual to support the assertion, are you?
(10-10-2009 06:18 AM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]you're not REALLY expecting anything factual to support the assertion, are you?
Not really.
