Obama Care

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Keep in mind, you probably would have much less, or possibly no, "hard earned money" if there was no government/infrastructure. It's a give and take, not just a take.

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

Shhhh. History only counts when it proves the United States is mean and big Government saved the day.

Wait, I am sorry, that is just how the NEW history books portray it.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

I'm sure you recall from your own history lessons that there was in fact an income tax imposed during the Civil War, and that much of the debate regarding the necessity of an income tax that led to the constitutional amendment surfaced in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Apparently, the US Congress and three-quarters of the union's states believed that the country was not doing "just fine" without an income tax.

Oh, and you say that it is "possible" that there may be some justification for the federal government's use of power to provide "some" oversight of banking and finance? Meaning, that this is a close call? That no oversight might not be a bad idea. Wow.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

I'm sure you recall from your own history lessons that there was in fact an income tax imposed during the Civil War, and that much of the debate regarding the necessity of an income tax that led to the constitutional amendment surfaced in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Apparently, the US Congress and three-quarters of the union's states believed that the country was not doing "just fine" without an income tax.

Oh, and you say that it is "possible" that there may be some justification for the federal government's use of power to provide "some" oversight of banking and finance? Meaning, that this is a close call? That no oversight might not be a bad idea. Wow.

Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

Far be it from me to be defending the government per se; but I think it is safe to say that the federal government has a major role in the US's ability to be an effective marketplace. Remember the reason the federal portion was needed was otherwise the individual colonies/states would have bickered endlessly and we would have grown as a country much more like Europe. The Articles of Confederation through their failure to provide the stability and accountability to a greater good certainly showed a need for Federal intervention, and establishment of commerce, roads, a common military defense etc. I am sure you aren't saying we don't need these things.

Your second half saying that should it be 33% of your income. Absolutely not. But the 33% does not pay just for the government necessary to provide the safe and honest transactions conducted over a billion times over the course of a normal business day. It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Far be it from me to be defending the government per se; but I think it is safe to say that the federal government has a major role in the US's ability to be an effective marketplace. Remember the reason the federal portion was needed was otherwise the individual colonies/states would have bickered endlessly and we would have grown as a country much more like Europe. The Articles of Confederation through their failure to provide the stability and accountability to a greater good certainly showed a need for Federal intervention, and establishment of commerce, roads, a common military defense etc. I am sure you aren't saying we don't need these things.

You are absolutely correct, these things were in place with a minimal income tax.

Your second half saying that should it be 33% of your income. Absolutely not. But the 33% does not pay just for the government necessary to provide the safe and honest transactions conducted over a billion times over the course of a normal business day. It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

Very well stated and agree

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.
2) Will do. I'm sure it's a very unbiased account.
3) "Minor details"? Then what was the relevance of the point you made, which, again, we can agree was entirely inaccurate?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.

To be fair about the statement regarding the income tax, I think the point was that it was a measure to raise revenue only for an extraordinary purpose -- in this case to pay for the Civil War. It was never meant to be the primary source of funding for the routine functions of the federal government. That didn't happen until 1913 with passage of the 16th amendment.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.
2) Will do. I'm sure it's a very unbiased account.
3) "Minor details"? Then what was the relevance of the point you made, which, again, we can agree was entirely inaccurate?

1) Flatly wrong, absolutely not. Did I neglect to mention what was basically a war tax during the Civil War and the 1890s short-lived income tax, yes. But the basic premise is correct, the 16th ammendment wasn't in place until 1913.
2) I don't think you will read it. And I guess anyone who has a different opinion that those on the left is automatically "biased" and their ideas don't merit consideration.
3) GDAS got it http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post568847
But to be clear the point is, people were making money in this country and it was growing just fine economically long before the income tax and the obscene amounts of federal government taxation/regulation/intervention today. I hate to hear the argument that the rich/successful wouldn't be so without the federal government, so they basically "owe" the government a much higher tax rate. This argument is so far from reality it's ridiculous.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Hey saden,
In light of this post: http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post568512

I found this article pretty interesting. I've got some connections here, having been in the USAF and just having the exact same surgery (private hospital, thank God) about six months ago.

Airman Loses Legs in Botched Gallbladder Surgery, Future of Career Uncertain - Incredible Health - FOXNews.com

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

1) Flatly wrong, absolutely not. Did I neglect to mention what was basically a war tax during the Civil War and the 1890s short-lived income tax, yes. But the basic premise is correct, the 16th ammendment wasn't in place until 1913.
2) I don't think you will read it. And I guess anyone who has a different opinion that those on the left is automatically "biased" and their ideas don't merit consideration.
3) GDAS got it http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post568847
But to be clear the point is, people were making money in this country and it was growing just fine economically long before the income tax and the obscene amounts of federal government taxation/regulation/intervention today. I hate to hear the argument that the rich/successful wouldn't be so without the federal government, so they basically "owe" the government a much higher tax rate. This argument is so far from reality it's ridiculous.

Okay, maybe I won't rush out to buy the Bortz book you suggested. But if I did, it would be far from the first time I've read a book from "the other side," so to speak. Seriously, though, I checked it out on Amazon, and noted one of his other books is "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that under the "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought" section there is included Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Levin's "Conservative Manifesto."

You'd have to admit this is a background that would be hard to separate from the substance if I were to read it. I know, I know--I would actually have to pick it up before I could make any true judgments. But really, how much hope does someone writing from a virulently partisan standpoint really have of changing the mind of someone from the opposite side of the aisle? This, obviously, is criticism that extends to the left as much as the right.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

Okay, maybe I won't rush out to buy the Bortz book you suggested. But if I did, it would be far from the first time I've read a book from "the other side," so to speak. Seriously, though, I checked it out on Amazon, and noted one of his other books is "The Terrible Truth About Liberals," and that under the "Customers Who Bought This Book Also Bought" section there is included Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" and Levin's "Conservative Manifesto."

You'd have to admit this is a background that would be hard to separate from the substance if I were to read it. I know, I know--I would actually have to pick it up before I could make any true judgments. But really, how much hope does someone writing from a virulently partisan standpoint really have of changing the mind of someone from the opposite side of the aisle? This, obviously, is criticism that extends to the left as much as the right.

Here's a link from a CNN Money writer abou the FairTax Book, not your traditional liberal bashing book (although that is good fun).

Money Magazine: Just how fair is the 'FairTax'? - Sep. 7, 2005

If you really want to read the book, PM me and I'll let you borrow mine. There is also a follow-on book that discusses many of the arguments from detractors of the plan.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

SS and Medicare are not everything there is to government/infrastructure. How much money do you think you'd make if there was no government? None, because there would be no money. Would you prefer a barter system?

Keep in mind, the Federal government is not the only type.

It also seems you're suggesting that before the income tax, there was no government? Not sure how the income tax has anything to do with the government enabling you to make money.