An Analysis of Hate

[luvmylabs23139]

Where in the constitution does it say that one person has a right to another person's hard earned money. The constitution does allow for the defense of the nation against all threats both foreign and domestic. Right now Obama is a huge domestic threat to our( or your if you want to go down the line of
citizenship) nation.

[depittydawg]

No, it wasn't directed at you personally.
It was a statement that I should not be forced by the gov't to pay for anyone else. It was meant as a general "you" in reference to those that live off of the backs of others.
It should be my choice to give as "I choose" to causes "I" support, whether it be through cash or donating time and skills.
Uh, why the religious references? I thought you were an aethiast?

It is your choice to live in America or not. To your argument it doesn't matter where you live because Governments are a necessity for a civilized state. And Governments need to be funded. The funding governments receive is distributed for the good of the society. The fact that some of the money our government allocates is spent in ways you disapprove is the price you pay for living within a community of diverse people.
Since it bothers you so much that some of YOUR money might be used to help a person in need, maybe it would be easier for your to mentally allocate the money that you send to Washington to the production of more tanks, or subsidies given to Exon Mobil or other corporate interests.

[luvmylabs23139]

It is your choice to live in America or not. To your argument it doesn't matter where you live because Governments are a necessity for a civilized state. And Governments need to be funded. The funding governments receive is distributed for the good of the society. The fact that some of the money our government allocates is spent in ways you disapprove is the price you pay for living within a community of diverse people.
Since it bothers you so much that some of YOUR money might be used to help a person in need, maybe it would be easier for your to mentally allocate the money that you send to Washington to the production of more tanks, or subsidies given to Exon Mobil or other corporate interests.

The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.

[david gibson]

The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.

oh that is soooo racist! dont you understand its ok for minorities to have 7 kids and put them all on WIC while you have 2 kids and save (or at least try to) for retirement?

what has gotten in to you? WHAT gives you the right to think you can save your own hard earned money for yourself??? its not yours anymore, dont you see that???

wow, you people that work to support all the entitlement folks sure think you are cool....

[depittydawg]

The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.

Paying your taxes is not "stealing". Perhaps the next time your home catches fire, or you are mugged in the park, you can use this logic to dismiss the public employee who shows up to give you assistance.

[YardleyLabs]

The constitution does not allow for stealing someones money to give it to someone else.
What part of take care of yourself do you not understand.
Why should I pay for someone elses kids?
If you can't afford a kid keep your damn legs crossed.
No one forced them to act like dogs in heat.

You might want to read the Constitution before you make broad and erroneous claims abut what it says....

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Like it or not, promoting the general Welfare enjoys equal billing with providing for the common defense. While it the original Constitution taxes were levied against states on a per capita basis, that structure proved to be a problem almost from the beginning. As a consequence, the national government funded itself through debt and nuisance taxes (laying a political framework that survives to this day). The first income tax was levied in 1861 and was progressive in that it only applied to incomes over $800/year, which at the time was a pretty high income..In 1894, the income tax was modified so that only the top 10% of wage earners paid income tax. In 1895, that was ruled un-Constitutional based on the per-capits apportionment required in the Constitution. In response, the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 which allowed Congress to levy taxes based on income from any source. As a consequence, the Constitution does permit the government to impose an income tax on relatively higher income people to fund programs that it deems to be necessary to promote the general welfare, including programs that provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes.

[Hoosier]

You might want to read the Constitution before you make broad and erroneous claims abut what it says....

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Like it or not, promoting the general Welfare enjoys equal billing with providing for the common defense. While it the original Constitution taxes were levied against states on a per capita basis, that structure proved to be a problem almost from the beginning. As a consequence, the national government funded itself through debt and nuisance taxes (laying a political framework that survives to this day). The first income tax was levied in 1861 and was progressive in that it only applied to incomes over $800/year, which at the time was a pretty high income..In 1894, the income tax was modified so that only the top 10% of wage earners paid income tax. In 1895, that was ruled un-Constitutional based on the per-capits apportionment required in the Constitution. In response, the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 which allowed Congress to levy taxes based on income from any source. As a consequence, the Constitution does permit the government to impose an income tax on relatively higher income people to fund programs that it deems to be necessary to promote the general welfare, including programs that provide financial assistance to those with lower incomes.

So you're saying, politicians have been taxing the productive, and using that money to buy votes for along time?

[YardleyLabs]

So you're saying, politicians have been taxing the productive, and using that money to buy votes for along time?

I'm saying that there has been a broad consensus for centuries that governments need taxes to operate and that the wealthy should pay more than the non-wealthy. That was a pretty big improvement over the feudal period when the primary purpose of government was to support the wealthy and the taxes were imposed primarily on the poor. The wealthy continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the bulk of government activities. However, I will admit that is my opinion and it is not one that I have analyzed as thoroughly as I should. However, there is no question in my mind that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of governmental infrastructure improvements, defense spending, intellectual property protections, etc. Maybe we should be looking at annual fees for things like copyright and trademark protection tied directly to revenues and profits from the protected items. Similarly, the primary buyers of votes are the wealthy and the votes they buy are those of the politicians theoretically representing all of us.

[road kill]

I'm saying that there has been a broad consensus for centuries that governments need taxes to operate and that the wealthy should pay more than the non-wealthy. That was a pretty big improvement over the feudal period when the primary purpose of government was to support the wealthy and the taxes were imposed primarily on the poor. The wealthy continue to be the primary beneficiaries of the bulk of government activities. However, I will admit that is my opinion and it is not one that I have analyzed as thoroughly as I should. However, there is no question in my mind that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of governmental infrastructure improvements, defense spending, intellectual property protections, etc. Maybe we should be looking at annual fees for things like copyright and trademark protection tied directly to revenues and profits from the protected items. Similarly, the primary buyers of votes are the wealthy and the votes they buy are those of the politicians theoretically representing all of us.

Hmmmmmmm......sort of like a VAT??


Good idea!


RK

[paul young]

i, for one, wish that luvmylabs would take her hate, boorishness, and arrogance to a country without taxes. and preferably, without internet access. she could then sit atop her pile of money and gloat.

this country is as good as it gets! you can't even be bothered to become a U.S. citizen, yet you feel entitled to come on this forum and b!tch about the things you can't be bothered to vote against!-Paul