RE: No New Tax Pledge

RE: No New Tax Pledge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

No New Tax Pledge

good for them, ignore the pledge

7% (2)

we're taxed enough, keep saying no

17% (5)

they never should have signed it to begin with

64% (18)

traitors!

3% (1)

he's just pissed because he was named "Grover"

7% (2)

Total Votes : 28

(last vote on : 11/26/2012 4:26:13 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 11:43:44 AM)
Just an opinion and mentioned before but I believe we must pay our bills. If that means a tax increase so be it. It makes no difference which political platform we advocate the majority elected those that have put us in debt and we all must pay the price. Cutting the budget will not get the job done no matter how much teabaggers demand it. The way to go is to demand a balanced budget provision and include an unchangeable payment provision to pay off the deficit. Have this backed up by a mandatory tax increase to balance the budget if the two parties cannot agree… Problem solved and we the tax payers will be accountable for those we elect and their actions directly. We will be a little more careful who we elect then… Gay marriage and such will not then be at the forefront of politics again. Butch ps....Have any war we engage in be funded directly by a war tax...no more borrowing from a foreign government to pay for it...We will have a lot fewer wars then don't you think.

Level -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:29:18 PM)
Butch, I don't know that we could tax enough to actually balance the budget, but it does have to play a part in any solution.

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:34:50 PM)
Level it is the only solution that will absolutely work. If we cannot balance the budget now it will only get worse the next year. Just imagine how responsible voters will become if all of a sudden they have to pay directly for all the actions of those they elect. The first goal is to install the balanced budget bill…if it needs to be phased in over five years then ok but just get it. All will fall in line when it is law. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:39:39 PM)
The deficit went down last year. Im sorta liking an obstructionist House at this rate. quote: Just imagine how responsible voters will become if all of a sudden they have to pay directly for all the actions of those they elect. It will still be a popularity contest. Its my firm belief that if anything could have been dug up in Obama's back ground on a personal nature, he never would have been President.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:40:40 PM)
quote: Have this backed up by a mandatory tax increase to balance the budget if the two parties cannot agree… How long do you think that would last before they decide to play with it?

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:45:59 PM)
quote: It will still be a popularity contest tazzy I've found nothing talks like money from a pocket... If Clinton could get reelected, with his history, anyone can that will show responsibility with our money. Money is important to Republicans...Democrats...Independents...and I'll bet we would have the largest turn out for an election in history if what was at stake was 35 or more percent of our income. Butch

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:49:36 PM)
quote: How long do you think that would last before they decide to play with it Would it not be great if we could get a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget? Once the bill is passed tazzy it will be almost impossible to repeal it. The goal would be to make it hard to amend. I am not saying it will or can be done I am just saying what must be done if we want to be debt free as a nation. Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:57:25 PM)
To get a Constitutional Amendment would be like pulling hens teeth. How long before we actually saw it in place? quote: The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. Can we go another 7 years? Would I love to see one? Sure. I dont ever expect it to happen.

TimeLimited -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:57:30 PM)
One of the first and hardest things to achieve would be to mandate the lawmakers must be subject to ALL laws they create. They should not have conferences abroad that can be held in the USA. Those two steps would put a dent in the debt. Yes, much of the budget is bloated by unwise and in many cases unethical spending. Yes, some taxes will have to be created and hopefully dedicated to debt reductions. Fairness in the tax code will depend on who's goat is being gored. IMO, the AMT needs to be set and indexed. Effective in the next few years, more people will be subject to it than not - unless it is fixed and not sunset each year or two.

tazzygirl -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 12:59:55 PM)
quote: Money is important to Republicans...Democrats...Independents...and I'll bet we would have the largest turn out for an election in history if what was at stake was 35 or more percent of our income. Not all the "people" want the system changed. Many "people" are benefiting from the system the way it is. Consider what "people" means and realize that many would not vote in favor of such a proposal.

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 1:01:25 PM)
quote: I dont ever expect it to happen I don't either...just a wish...but a bill requiring a balanced budget once passed would be almost impossible to repeal and very hard to amend I believe. Any party wanting to do the above would be crucified by the opposing party. Butch

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 1:03:07 PM)
quote: Many "people" are benefiting from the system the way it is No where near the majority tazzy would you not agree? Butch

SimplyMichael -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 1:04:45 PM)
The problem with taxes is that they tax INCOME. Super wealthy people often have very little that qualifies as INCOME.

kdsub -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 1:12:50 PM)
Michael your post is one of my points. When the money is required to be paid through tax every year then the majority will demand fair share taxation. Those that don't even vote now will when it costs them. To be elected or reelected politicians will have to stop pandering tax code to big business and install acceptable, to the electorate, equal taxing. I think a balanced budget provisions would be a wonderful way to reenergize the voting public and encourage them to take control of the government from special interests groups. Butch

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 2:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Butch, I don't know that we could tax enough to actually balance the budget, but it does have to play a part in any solution. 1 to 3.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 2:46:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The deficit went down last year. Im sorta liking an obstructionist House at this rate. quote: Just imagine how responsible voters will become if all of a sudden they have to pay directly for all the actions of those they elect. It will still be a popularity contest. Its my firm belief that if anything could have been dug up in Obama's back ground on a personal nature, he never would have been President. Yeah...it went down from "FUCK O' SHIT!!!!!"...."WOW that's a LOT!!!!!"

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 2:48:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Have this backed up by a mandatory tax increase to balance the budget if the two parties cannot agree… How long do you think that would last before they decide to play with it? Considering that Gramm Rudman (the legislation) mandated exactly that and it never occurred....I'd say....never...until those of us who pay (and that is all of us, regardless of the amount) say "STOP!!!!!!" (We need to collectively say......STOP!!!!!!)

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 2:50:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: It will still be a popularity contest tazzy I've found nothing talks like money from a pocket... If Clinton could get reelected, with his history, anyone can that will show responsibility with our money. Money is important to Republicans...Democrats...Independents...and I'll bet we would have the largest turn out for an election in history if what was at stake was 35 or more percent of our income. Butch KD....let's hope that people like you control the next vote.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 2:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl To get a Constitutional Amendment would be like pulling hens teeth. How long before we actually saw it in place? quote: The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. Can we go another 7 years? Would I love to see one? Sure. I dont ever expect it to happen. There have been 27. There's absolutely no reason why there can't be 28.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: No New Tax Pledge (11/24/2012 2:58:48 PM)
Constitutional amendment #28: 1) There shall be no law that any and all govt. officials should not be obligated to and remanded by, ergo, any law that governs the general populace, shall govern all govt. employees equally and in a fair and like manner. 2) ALL govt. contracts (Federal, state, local and municipal) shall be won by lowest bid (based on an equal basis, that equal basis shall be described in the bid request, assuming all American citizens concurrent in said contract being valid employees of said contract). 3) Unions shall not have priority over any and all govt. contracts, rather (see #2), the lowest bid shall prevail. I'm confident there would need to be immeasurable legalese but...it should represent the above....verbatim.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.03125