(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

You apprently aren't capable of independent thought and you have to have a dictionary try and define everything you say becasue you lack the ability to articulate and form credible arguments. You're going to have to try harder to present a credible argument.

 

So his argument is that licenses are "unconstitutional"? LOL get educated Swampy.

 

When did I argue that? I'm saying if something needs a "license" it is not a right since "by definition" a "license" is permission form government. Therefore "marriage" is not a "right," and is a "privilege." Perhaps you should "get educated" and stop trying to reshape reality and accepted standards to your own delusions.

li•cense   /ˈlaɪsəns/ Show Spelled [lahy-suhns]
noun, verb, -censed, -cens•ing.
noun
1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.
2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver's license.
3. permission to do or not to do something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license

priv•i•lege   /ˈprɪvəlɪdʒ, ˈprɪvlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] noun, verb, -leged, -leg•ing.
noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege​

​

 

Oh boo hoo...We already bear most of the burden! The excuse that taxing the rich more will hurt them is a blatant lie. Fact is they won't miss it and it won't hurt a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing. Taxing the middle class and poor more will hurt them and they will miss it.

Im sorry but if you somehow can't manage to live in say 50 million a year instead of 70 million a year then you are doing something very wrong.

The soundbite "Keep more of what you earn" doesn't fly anymore. The rich must pony up more than they paying now which is barely anything proportionality to their income.

 

you are very mistaken, Montoya.

Thanks to Obama and his very foolish tax and spend policies, the wealthy in America will soon have nothing left to "pony up"!



We can thank Obama’s inattention to the debt crisis for these latest salvos against our 401 (k) savings plans! If the carnage continues to occur on Wall Street, no one will have any money left to spend and invest and help the economy to grow and put unemployed Americans back to work!

 

Why is it that when you reference "the Rich", you're talking 50-70 million, but when Obama discusses them, he's referencing those who have incomes above 250K?

Do you disagree with Obama? Should those earning 250K/yr not be taxed more?

Or is it that your comment weakens to the point of structural failure if you would stay consistent with what leftists are pushing to do right now?

250K? How much more should they be taxed?

 

Just an unbelievably baboonish and sad waste of brain matter.

 

Most of the revenue comes from the upper tax bracket. People forget that when taxes were at an all time high, the middle-class also had higher taxes. It shows ignorance of some and dishonesty of others.

It wont hurt them, it will hurt the economy.

The soundbite "Leftists want socialism now" doesn't fly anymore.

 

I joined the Tea Party. I love this country. I want us to move forward. I simply am sick of the football game between the republicans and the democrats. There needs to be a third party to tilt the balance. Calling people that have the guts to stand up for what they believe "wackos" is frankly unamerican.

The reason the Tea Party is not organized ... having polished speakers ... like the republicans and the democrats is because it is a grassroots expression of americans that are fed up with both washington spending and big business driving the average working class family into the ground.

We all have the right to express our beliefs...

but perhaps that is a fundamentalist point of view that is outdated.

 

The wealthy pay 35% taxes on net earned income over $357,000 and 15% on all unearned income.

An individual that has $50 million in net income pays a minimum of $7.5 million if its all from unearned income and over $17 million if its from earned income.

38% of American households pay zero or have a negative income tax liability.

Its actually hard to argue that the wealthy don't pay enough in income taxes when we consider how many don't pay any income taxes at all.

 

Thats all you lefties promote. You love a free hand out. You follow your leader right to the hole.

 

Of note taxing the rich doesn't pay for Medicare or Social Security as they are both funded with dedicated FICA/Payroll taxation on earned income. It is true that the wealthy do pay the Medicare portion of FICA taxes on earned income but the Social Security portion stops at about $107K.

Both of these programs are in financial dire straits as expendatures exceed revenue with Medicare being in the worst shape even though there isn't a cap on FICA taxes for Medicare. Eliminating the cap on the Social Security portion would help Social Security but not nearly enough to salvage it.

Based upon rough calculations I believe that FICA/Payroll taxes would have to be between 20%-25% of gross earned income for all workers to sustain these programs.

Do those liberals that support these programs also propose raising the taxes required to fund them which would take over 10% off the top of everyone's wages and increase the costs of goods and services by about 10% lowering the standard of living for low and middle income workers?

If people that want these social programs should also be willing to pay for them. There are no free lunches.

 

Revived for relevance.

 

You are very correct, Goodoledays.

For some reason, when the government takes money and personal savings from successful working Americans by forcing them to pay higher and higher taxes, in the mind of a liberal this somehow is not "theft"!



Excessively sweet union contracts, open borders, unlimited welfare benefits, involuntary income redistribution and free broadband service courtesy of the liberal Democrats! ... Socialism is theft! Pure and Simple!

 

Obviously the original poster did not see the tea party/republican debate tonite. They kicked azz.

 

So far it seems like they are wackos to me.

 

I think the amendment process makes the idea of liberally interpreting the constitution completely idiotic, but then again, I don't have an unpopular agenda to push.

 

Pot meet kettle.

 

Wackos... I don't think so. I haven't yet drank all the coolaid but most of what they say are in agreement with both fiscally conservatives and libertarians.

In other words, cut the crap and no more spam for sigs.

In the surface, sounds good to me too.

 

Ya, according too the OP, if you want your government to follow the law of the land(which happens to be the constitution), live with their means, and not take every cent you earn to feed their out of control spending, you must be a extremist wackjob.

Maybe the OP should take a long look in the mirror before labeling anyone else a wacko.

Just my two cents.

 

That's why you amend the Constitution. You can't just reinterpret the laws to fit your own viewpoint. Otherwise, what's the point of having the law in the first place?

 

If you want to interpret the Constitution differently, amend it to say what you want. To change what words mean to get what you want it to mean, makes a Constitution worthless.

 

Suffrage was determined by the states. Some states always allowed women to vote, such as the state of NJ. Women were also not barred from holding office, the first one to hold public office was in 1880. Though women had run far earlier.

I suppose if I read this entire thread, I could find plenty of examples of progressives knowing so much that isn't so.

 

It's a grammar thing.
You wouldn't understand.