[hyteckit]

More proof that tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Republican Presidents suck in creating wealth. Trickle down economy is dumb.

Under Democratic Presidents, everyones wealth grew over 2%. Republican Presidents? Poor suffer the most.




Reagan was a big deficit spender and grew the national debt by almost 300%.

[Doofy]

Now I don't know about the US and A, but here's how it is here:

- Labour get in -
Spend like madmen. Employ zillions of public sector workers (vote bribery, basically) on high wages which isn't sustainable.

- Tories get in -
Cutbacks to try and pay down the spending which Labour created. Cut back on public sector pay and jobs (because they're not sustainable).

Rinse and repeat, every time. Hence the common phrase "empty heads vote Labour in, empty wallets vote 'em out".

[Dork.]

Over here, the Democrats tax and spend, while the Republicans cut taxes and spend more (because Deficits Don't Matter).

[mduell]

Does your infographic account for the ~1 year lag time between party switches and policy implementation?

Why stop at 2005? Concerned about recent activity not following your trend?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Does your infographic account for the ~1 year lag time between party switches and policy implementation?

Why stop at 2005? Concerned about recent activity not following your trend?

If you include the ~1 year lag time and the end of Pres. Bush 2nd term, it would be up to the end of 2009.

It would make Republicans look worst if you include 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Especially with the stock market crash and housing crash in 2008 and 2009 wiping out half of the people's net worth.

Considering the poverty rate increased from 11.25% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2006 after peaking at 12.7% in 2004; in 2008 increased to 13.2%.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

More proof that tax cuts for the rich don't help the economy. Republican Presidents suck in creating wealth. Trickle down economy is dumb.

Under Democratic Presidents, everyones wealth grew over 2%. Republican Presidents? Poor suffer the most.




Reagan was a big deficit spender and grew the national debt by almost 300%.

After the Carter admin had pissed the money away on stupid liberal BS (like giving loans to those who couldn't pay them back)instead of keeping our military up to date, so by the early 1980's we needed to spend the bucks.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Does your infographic account for the ~1 year lag time between party switches and policy implementation?

If anything, it'd be more interesting to see a breakdown by who was in control of congress (though that might require some finessed definitions of "control")

Originally Posted by mduell 

Why stop at 2005? Concerned about recent activity not following your trend?

I imagine because that was available in graph form. Honestly, I doubt the last 5 years would do much benefit to either side's numbers (and have any significant impact, either).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If anything, it'd be more interesting to see a breakdown by who was in control of congress (though that might require some finessed definitions of "control")

Nonsense. This convenient graph supports the OP's political leanings. Why dig deeper?

[Atheist]

I realize the vast majority have some bizarre need to align themselves with a group of people they feel is "right" so they can lambast those that are "wrong" but why can't you people realize there is very little fundamental differences between the "left" and "right" except a few social issues. Both sides spend and spend and spend and continue to increase the size of government.

This artificial delineation seems there only to make you somehow feel better about yourself.

[OAW]

Hand the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

“I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.”

The Moody’s research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg

To further balloon the deficit by continuing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% is simply nonsensical. Especially in light of the fact that the historical record unequivocally indicates that it would have no positive impact upon consumer demand.

OAW

[BadKosh]

So tell us how many JOBS are created by the poor? A single rich guy buying a boat for a million puts food on the table for more than 1 or 2 people. The Taxes on that item, if not wasted by the state/federal Gov't ids more than chump change. Tell me how the policies of the left (Tax n spend, spend, spend) are better at helping our economy and in turn add more workers to the rolls. Ask Barney Frank, or Chris Dodd. Why is it that most all economists are saying that Obamas economic policies are causing more problems than it fixes, and doing more of the same isn't the solution. Is Obama a one note president? Is he more ideologue, or shallow puppet to his handlers?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So tell us how many JOBS are created by the poor? A single rich guy buying a boat for a million puts food on the table for more than 1 or 2 people.

I shouldn't be continually surprised at what a moron you are, but I am.

[The Final Dakar]

Down with the Poor!!!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So tell us how many JOBS are created by the poor? A single rich guy buying a boat for a million puts food on the table for more than 1 or 2 people. The Taxes on that item, if not wasted by the state/federal Gov't ids more than chump change. Tell me how the policies of the left (Tax n spend, spend, spend) are better at helping our economy and in turn add more workers to the rolls.

The fact that you even ask this question demonstrates quite clearly that the information that I posted above your response simply didn't register with you. It's a classic case of what former Bush speechwriter David Frum described thusly...

Originally Posted by David Frum

When people talk of the "closing of the conservative mind" this is what they mean: not that conservatives are more narrow-minded than other people -- everybody can be narrow minded -- but that conservatives have a unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact.

So again ... the historical record indicates that the wealthy have NOT gone out and bought "million dollar boats" with the extra money they received from the Bush tax cuts. And if they haven't in all this time ... there's no logical reason to think that they would do so to create jobs going forward. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts have been in place for most of the previous decade. So what were the results of that policy?

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

If the Bush tax cuts were critical to "job creation" then the economic record would reflect that. But it doesn't. Period. If you would at least attempt to put the Kool-Aid down for once you might actually find yourself capable of acknowledging the obvious.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I shouldn't be continually surprised at what a moron you are, but I am.

A used mini gin-palace (say 75') can be had for around a million bucks. At that size they'll generally have a couple of crew berths. For the crew. Who're usually employed all year round.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So again ... the historical record indicates that the wealthy have NOT gone out and bought "million dollar boats" with the extra money they received from the Bush tax cuts.

Boat registrations are at an all-time high. The wealthy simply aren't stupid enough to register them under a US flag.

Oh, and the wealthy don't buy million dollar boats. Reasonable boats start at about $10m (as long as you don't mind being on the smallest thing in the harbour).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Boat registrations are at an all-time high. The wealthy simply aren't stupid enough to register them under a US flag.

Oh, and the wealthy don't buy million dollar boats. Reasonable boats start at about $10m (as long as you don't mind being on the smallest thing in the harbour).

Why are you guys trying to hang your hat on the irrelevant? Boat purchases are not the point here. If boat registrations are at an all-time high .... so what? That still is not the point here.

The point ... for those who need a little more "explanation" ... is that the historical record shows that the wealthy generally don't spend the savings they get from tax cuts ... they generally save it. And that part in blue is the key phrase. So if the wealthy go out and buy a boat ... they are doing that ANYWAY. They are not taking the EXTRA MONEY from a tax cut to go out and make a purchase that they otherwise wouldn't have made.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The point ... for those who need a little more "explanation" ... is that the historical record shows that the wealthy generally don't spend the savings they get from tax cuts ... they generally save it. And that part in blue is the key phrase. So if the wealthy go out and buy a boat ... they are doing that ANYWAY. They are not taking the EXTRA MONEY from a tax cut to go out and make a purchase that they otherwise wouldn't have made.

How do rich people "save"?

They don't nip don't to their local mom and pop bank and put it in a savings account. They invest it in business. Which creates jobs.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How do rich people "save"?

They don't nip don't to their local mom and pop bank and put it in a savings account. They invest it in business. Which creates jobs.

Ok so which is it? They spend money on million dollar boats or they save by investing in business which creates jobs? Seems like you are shifting your argument to satisfy your talking point of the moment.

In any event, I've already posted information which demonstrates that the net job creation of the Bush Administration was a whopping ZERO. Despite its signature tax cuts that supposedly create jobs.

OAW

PS: People invest to get a return on that investment. The vast majority of those investments are in existing businesses as opposed to startups. People invest in companies all the time that generate increasing profits .... often as a result of outsourcing or reducing employment. Great returns for the investors does not always result in increased employment.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How do rich people "save"?

They don't nip don't to their local mom and pop bank and put it in a savings account. They invest it in business. Which creates jobs.

Anyone who has extra money can invest it in a business. Does it matter if the investment of $1 million is from one person or from 100 people?

Problem is spending drives the economy; Not saving money.

If no one buys anything, no revenue for the business. If there is no revenue, nothing gets made. If nothing gets made, there would be no reason to hire employees. If there is no revenue and no money to be made, there will be no investments.


It's tax cuts for the rich during the Reagan administration that cause our national deficit to sky rocket from under $1 trillion in 1981 to over $11 trillion in 2009 in the span of less than 30 years.

[Doofy]

Again, I can't see the point in explaining financial to you people. If you don't know how it all works, then I ain't going to explain it to you. Good luck with your pensions.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, I can't see the point in explaining financial to you people. If you don't know how it all works, then I ain't going to explain it to you. Good luck with your pensions.

Rich people invest in businesses, which create jobs.

Yeah, in China!

[smacintush]

Again, I'm sure this will fall upon deaf ears blind eyes, but I'll give it a go anyway. I'll do my best to be coherent.

Many times these arguments on the basis of the efficacy of this policy or that policy, bother me. They bother me because there are some policies which the effectiveness is totally irrelevant. That is to say, there are some things that government just has no right to do, regardless of how positive its apparent effects might be. I've used the admittedly extreme example that if a nighttime curfew were enforced, allowing for those who are engaging in legitimate commerce, there would likely be a positive effect on certain crimes. This however, would be a violation of people's rights and it's not even worth discussing as a consideration.

It is this light in which I view issues like tax cuts in relationship to income, or the effect of such tax cuts on the economy. Sure, I could sit here and dig up charts, articles or tables to shore up an opposing argument to the OP. But that would be evading the point.

Fact: The wealthy pay the most taxes.

The federal government has no right to make a judgement about a persons income by taxing them based upon class. I realize that many (or most?) people feel that since the rich have so much more money, that they should pay higher rates of taxes, but these people are wrong and their opinions are based upon an irrational hatred for the rich. Progressive income taxes are discriminatory and are a violation of the basic rights of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. They are also impossible to implement fairly the way that it's proponents demagogue them. It is never "wrong" to raise taxes on the "rich", but yet it is also never "right" to cut their taxes. At what point is their tax rate too high for you people?

So I will support tax cuts for the rich until progressive tax rates go the way of other great ideas like Microsoft Bob and New Coke. At which time I will be speaking out against income taxes in general.

That being said I don't know why anyone would discuss practicality and income tax in the same dialogue when income taxes have such little practical value.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

... the Republicans cut taxes and spend more (because Deficits Don't Matter).

Spending money on war doesn't count.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I realize the vast majority have some bizarre need to align themselves with a group of people they feel is "right" so they can lambast those that are "wrong" but why can't you people realize there is very little fundamental differences between the "left" and "right" except a few social issues. Both sides spend and spend and spend and continue to increase the size of government.

This artificial delineation seems there only to make you somehow feel better about yourself.

Very true. And, it's good for me to be reminded of that every now and then.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I shouldn't be continually surprised at what a moron you are, but I am.

So, you actually can't explain, so instead you are now name calling? Perhaps your assumptions on the economy are fuzzy, or wrong? Pissing away money trying to help the bottom feeders isn't what will get teh economy going. It's the liberal marxist policies of this administration that has caused the "jobless recovery" . They have tampered in every part of the economy they can and added taxes and created illegal mandates and ignore the history of making such policies in the first place.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, you actually can't explain, so instead you are now name calling?

I can explain, but it wouldn't matter to you.

Perhaps your assumptions on the economy are fuzzy, or wrong?

What assumptions?

[The Final Dakar]

OMG he said fuzzy.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I can explain, but it wouldn't matter to you.



What assumptions?

To start with , the previous sentence.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Again, I can't see the point in explaining financial to you people. If you don't know how it all works, then I ain't going to explain it to you. Good luck with your pensions.

The fact that you continue to duck the fundamental issue that the Bush tax cuts resulted in a net job creation of ZERO over the last decade is duly noted.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Fact: The wealthy pay the most taxes.

Sort of. You're missing the important fact that the majority of their income is not taxed as regular income, so they don't even pay the appropriate income tax.

Anyone with enough net worth hires a CPA and keeps a lawyer on retainer to manipulate their income into untaxed and low taxed areas that are supposed to be used for retirement purposes. Often they simply break the law and set up tax shelters because they know that they won't be prosecuted.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

To start with , the previous sentence.

OMG he said fuzzy?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

After the Carter admin had pissed the money away on stupid liberal BS (like giving loans to those who couldn't pay them back)instead of keeping our military up to date, so by the early 1980's we needed to spend the bucks.

In retrospect no, we didn't.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I realize the vast majority have some bizarre need to align themselves with a group of people they feel is "right" so they can lambast those that are "wrong" but why can't you people realize there is very little fundamental differences between the "left" and "right" except a few social issues. Both sides spend and spend and spend and continue to increase the size of government.

This artificial delineation seems there only to make you somehow feel better about yourself.

DingDingDingDingDingDing!!!!!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In retrospect no, we didn't.

Silence! Our spending caused the commies to max out their credit cards and declare bankruptcy.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The federal government has no right to make a judgement about a persons income by taxing them based upon class.

Are you making a (kind of perverse, IMO) argument that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Are you making a (kind of perverse, IMO) argument that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?

I don't think he's talking about constitutionality, rather morality. We could pass a constitutional amendment reinstating slavery or mandating forced sterilization of communists, and by definition these things would be "constitutional." But they would still be overstepping what most of us would consider the "rights" of government.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Sort of. You're missing the important fact that the majority of their income is not taxed as regular income, so they don't even pay the appropriate income tax.

That's like telling a vegetarian that chicken is an "inappropriate" meal for them because they're supposed to be eating beef. Did you look at the remainder of the post you quoted?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think he's talking about constitutionality, rather morality. We could pass a constitutional amendment reinstating slavery or mandating forced sterilization of communists, and by definition these things would be "constitutional." But they would still be overstepping what most of us would consider the "rights" of government.

That's kind of what I was thinking, but then again it's hard to understand how this could be a moral issue at all in the way that he alluded to the Declaration of Independence. Obviously the rates and manner of income taxation is subject to the whim of elected representation. And because he said "federal" government it seemed like possibly a constitutional argument.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's kind of what I was thinking, but then again it's hard to understand how this could be a moral issue at all in the way that he alluded to the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence wasn't a legal document, it was just there to explain what in the heck we were thinking by rising up against the british. In that way it is purely about morals and philosophy, and not at all about legalities and technicalities.

And because he said "federal" government it seemed like possibly a constitutional argument.

This is the main confusion I have, Smac will have to speak for himself. For example, does he think that all taxes should be at the state level (or lower)? Or is this just the first biggest step to defeating all taxes, and there should be no (funded) government at all, at any level?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I realize the vast majority have some bizarre need to align themselves with a group of people they feel is "right" so they can lambast those that are "wrong" but why can't you people realize there is very little fundamental differences between the "left" and "right" except a few social issues. Both sides spend and spend and spend and continue to increase the size of government.

This artificial delineation seems there only to make you somehow feel better about yourself.

No doubt.

But the Republicans keep lying to themselves and the public that the Democrats are the big spenders.

Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 were all big spenders with big deficits. It's just a myth/lie they keep spreading.

The big difference besides social values is their view on tax cuts.

Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans advocating small government and less spending. But he doesn't represent the majority Republican view.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Sort of. You're missing the important fact that the majority of their income is not taxed as regular income, so they don't even pay the appropriate income tax.

Anyone with enough net worth hires a CPA and keeps a lawyer on retainer to manipulate their income into untaxed and low taxed areas that are supposed to be used for retirement purposes. Often they simply break the law and set up tax shelters because they know that they won't be prosecuted.

Even after they have done everything they can to avoid paying whatever taxes they can, they still end up paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes, including income taxes. That was my point.

If you want to say that the current tax system in unfair, you aren't going to get an argument from me. The progressive tax system is inherently unfair and has only gotten worse with the…literally…10's of thousands of "modifications" that have been made to it.

Where I do have a problem is the notion that if a person is subjected to an unfair law, they are somehow "wrong" break or bend these laws. If a law is wrong, it is wrong. There is no moral obligation to obey any law that is a violation of a person's rights. What also bothers me is that I think that many generally feel the same way, but that this doesn't apply to taxes. This is wrong. Taxes are the removal of that which one earns, owns and needs for their life. When they are implemented unfairly, any person has the right, in fact I would say the duty to themselves, to avoid paying them in whatever way they can without endangering their themselves. I would actually apply this to all taxation, not just unfair ones, but that broadens the discussion quite a bit.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The Declaration of Independence wasn't a legal document, it was just there to explain what in the heck we were thinking by rising up against the british. In that way it is purely about morals and philosophy, and not at all about legalities and technicalities.

Right. I'm saying there is nothing about the DoI that clearly supports any kind of moral/philosophical objection to the income tax.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Are you making a (kind of perverse, IMO) argument that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think he's talking about constitutionality, rather morality. We could pass a constitutional amendment reinstating slavery or mandating forced sterilization of communists, and by definition these things would be "constitutional." But they would still be overstepping what most of us would consider the "rights" of government.

This is exactly right.

I do think that the mandatory reporting of income is a violation of our rights, but that is not exactly the same thing.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The Declaration of Independence wasn't a legal document, it was just there to explain what in the heck we were thinking by rising up against the british. In that way it is purely about morals and philosophy, and not at all about legalities and technicalities.

The only allusion I made to the Declaration of Independence was the term "pursuit of happiness", which is implicit in the constitution and the protections therein.

This is the main confusion I have, Smac will have to speak for himself. For example, does he think that all taxes should be at the state level (or lower)? Or is this just the first biggest step to defeating all taxes, and there should be no (funded) government at all, at any level?

To be honest, I didn't even realize I specified "federal" and I don't make a moral distinction between "federal" and "state" on the issue of taxes.

I have a serious problem with the income tax. Of all taxes, this is the one that is the most unfair, and most damaging. The very idea that the government has the right to demand a portion of how much a person earns is wrong. The word evil comes to mind, but that is a loaded word that I don't generally like to use. Turn the income tax into a progressive income tax and this becomes far worse.


So yeah, I want to see the income tax disappear altogether. I am also against all taxation altogether. I know…"but the government neeeeds money to function!" True, but that doesn't mean they have the right to take our money by force. Nothing justifies that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The only allusion I made to the Declaration of Independence was the term "pursuit of happiness", which is implicit in the constitution and the protections therein.

You used the phrase, "the basic rights of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness," which, aside from property, seemed to me to be a rather more explicit allusion to the Declaration.

So yeah, I want to see the income tax disappear altogether. I am also against all taxation altogether. I know…"but the government neeeeds money to function!" True, but that doesn't mean they have the right to take our money by force. Nothing justifies that.

This makes me curious about what your more general views are on national sovereignty. Clearly the basic determining quality of sovereignty is the monopoly of force over a certain territory. Most of us have decided that putting this monopoly in the hands of an elected government is, I suppose, a necessary evil. Is this not, at its most basic level, giving the government the "right" by our own volition to take our money by force? (Within the guidelines provided by our elected representatives)

Do you pay income tax to the extent that you owe it under current law?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You used the phrase, "the basic rights of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness," which, aside from property, seemed to me to be a rather more explicit allusion to the Declaration.

Life, liberty and property are mentioned in the fourteenth amendment, that is really what I had in mind.

This makes me curious about what your more general views are on national sovereignty. Clearly the basic determining quality of sovereignty is the monopoly of force over a certain territory. Most of us have decided that putting this monopoly in the hands of an elected government is, I suppose, a necessary evil. Is this not, at its most basic level, giving the government the "right" by our own volition to take our money by force? (Within the guidelines provided by our elected representatives)

I think that people accept it as such, but just because the people accept it doesn't mean the government has the right to do it. Go back to what Uncle said about slavery; no amount of public support for slavery would justify its reinstatement in America.

They don't just tax us. They tax us in whatever way they want, in any amount they can get away with politically. That money is ours by right, earning that money is our right, they have no right to take it from us. Nobody does.

Do you pay income tax to the extent that you owe it under current law?

You are asking me if I am violating federal law?

[Big Mac]

Tax cuts for the rich. That's rich.

Any of you ignorant leftists happen to know the original income tax rate for all citizens when the stinking income tax was passed by your Progressive ancestors? And if you do, did you know that at the time of passage they promised the country the rate would never increase?

I assume, though, that you guys don't care. Just keep growing government ever more massive and oppressive. Continuously mounting debt. Those rich suckers can pay for it, right?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No doubt.

But the Republicans keep lying to themselves and the public that the Democrats are the big spenders.

Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 were all big spenders with big deficits. It's just a myth/lie they keep spreading.

The big difference besides social values is their view on tax cuts.

Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans advocating small government and less spending. But he doesn't represent the majority Republican view.

I'm amazed that George Bush...ALL BY HIMSELF... spent all that money. I'm sure congress was in the dark about all that spending to repair the damage from the Carter years. I see that the current admin is spending more than ever, but has no results to show. So, who has the money, and why does it smell like Chicago style corruption?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Life, liberty and property are mentioned in the fourteenth amendment, that is really what I had in mind.

Understood. Again, though, this leads down the path of constitutional objections vs. moral objections. It would be stretch to claim that the 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment are in conflict.

I think that people accept it as such, but just because the people accept it doesn't mean the government has the right to do it. Go back to what Uncle said about slavery; no amount of public support for slavery would justify its reinstatement in America.

They don't just tax us. They tax us in whatever way they want, in any amount they can get away with politically. That money is ours by right, earning that money is our right, they have no right to take it from us. Nobody does.

"They" are elected by us. We've given them that right. Democracy, etc. Are you really going to continue comparing taxes with slavery? Slaves lose the right to participate in the democratic process. You don't lose that by paying taxes.

You are asking me if I am violating federal law?

I'm asking you if you put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, you're just like the rest of us who don't really like paying taxes but accept it more or less out of convenience as part of the social bargain in modern nation-states that I described above (your response itself seems to suggest that you do). If taxes are as serious as you say, then simply complaining about them seems a rather inadequate solution.