We're going to take things away from you....

[Mr.Vicchio]

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Senator Hillary Clinton, 28 June, 2004. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...2039EDT0165.DTL

Think about her statement for a minute. What is she saying? Why is she saying it? What does it matter?

Lets start with what she is saying. She is saying that the fortunate people of America have been given, extra money by the graciousness of the US Government. The tax break, is a gift, as it were that all American's should understand was granted to them. Thus it is in Senator Clintons opinion, that the time for the gift is over, and that the US Government is going to take things away from those whom have earned it, for the common good.

This if you think about it, is very scary.

Why is she saying this? Simpley put, she feels that since the Tax Cuts were a gift, a privelage, its only natural that when deemed by the elite few such as herself to have served its purpose, it is time to remove that gift. That people such as herself, will put the money they take from hard working Americans and ensure it "it goes towards the common good"

That is an extremely frightening thought.

What does it matter? Well I will tell you why it matters. People such as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler... all used those same words to justify taking from one group of people, and giving it to another, against thier will, all for the "common good"

Who decides what is the common good? Elite members of ruling class.

What is the common good? Whatever they say it is.

When is it going to effect you? The moment they decide that you don't deserve what you have earned. Its gone.. jsut like that.

Where will your money go? Wherever they decide, to whom they decide, and you will have little say in the matter.

Why should you care? Because its YOUR MONEY! Taxes are monies the governed, that would be the American People, grant the government. What you earn isn't a gift from the government.

Mrs. Clinton has clearly laid out how she feels about America. Your money is not your money, its what people like her decide it is. Thats not how America works, that isn't America. And it shoudl scare the hell out of you the thought of her in the White House.

[Zeebadee]

Perhaps you ought to take your thinking just a bit farther. As a rabid Bush supporter, think about the huge deficits that this administration is running up. Just where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for these? Interest payments alone on the national debt is the third largest item in the federal budget. We elected Bush because he ran on a traditional conservative Republican platform. He's been an incredible disappointment.

[Gorgo]

Yes, the Clintons and Bushes and all the other right-wingers think that they can take my money and give it to the wealthy.

Nobody makes it alone. Your money is your money because someone says it's your money, and that's it. If those someones says it isn't, then it isn't.

[PatrickHenry]

Government is men(and women) with guns taking your money.

[Jeff]

I think you have to understand where she is coming from. Consider the “work” that she and her husband have done. I can agree with her in that she has received more money than she and her husband have justly deserved. I am not going to get into the rich crooks that have stolen millions. Our laws should be enforced and people should not be able to profit from their crimes. Our lax enforcement has produced way too many.

People acquire wealth in a wide variety of ways. Some we may approve of and others we may not. As long as they do so within the current set of rules it is their money. I have had the privilege of visiting countries such as Hattie. I have seen people who live in cardboard boxes. Almost everyone in this country has things they do not need. How much should the government seize and redistribute to others?

I do not like the deficits either. Our government spends too much. It is always easier to spend someone else’s money than one’s own. Our government is fairly unrestrained and does tend to buy almost everything it wants. It is fairly common for teenagers to change his spending habits when they get a job. They start working for it and learn the value of money. We need to leave the money in the hands of those who worked for it and thus understand its value.

[Gorgo]

Haiti is a great example of the so-called free market that now exists.

[kharmajunkie]

What's everyone's opinion of the flat tax? They were bantering the flat tax on Forbes on Fox this weekend. I don't consider myself very
informed on the economy but a flat tax does seem to be a fair system for all.

[Gorgo]

I've never looked into the details of that, but itsounds very regressive. Don't like the sound of it.

[XGropo]

Here's a comparison for you:

Originally posted by Hillary Clinton+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hillary Clinton)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Benito Mussolini
[The individual] is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone[/quote]

[Liberty Landing]

Just where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for these? Interest payments alone on the national debt is the third largest item in the federal budget.

Spending cuts.
The reason we got into this mess in the first place is because we upped spending in economic good times, when revenues were higher. Now that things are bad, spending is too high and taxes too low to make up for it.

Yes, the Clintons and Bushes and all the other right-wingers think that they can take my money and give it to the wealthy.

Except that... they aren't.
This is not "giving them money," it's "stealing less money."

I've never looked into the details of that, but itsounds very regressive. Don't like the sound of it.

Except that there's nothing regressive about it. It's flat, hence it doesn't slope one way or the other.
Flat tax proposals also exempt all spending up to the poverty line, meaning people below the poverty line are therefore never taxed. Since rich people tend to spend more than poor people, they will end up bearing the brunt of this tax, anyway.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Tax breaks for the rich dont help the economy. In fact, it is criminal when you consider the absolute hunger and homelessness and unaffordability of health care, widespread in America. Hillary is not really saying something will be taken away, rather, that something that should not have been granted to start with, will be revoked because Bush was compassionate to Fat Cats who didnt need it.

[Gorgo]

Originally posted by Liberty Landing,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Liberty Landing,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Spending cuts. The reason we got into this mess in the first place is because we upped spending in economic good times, when revenues were higher. Now that things are bad, spending is too high and taxes too low to make up for it. [/b]

This is where we are in agreement. The massive spending by the so-called Defense Department is one of the major points of transfer for money that travels from the poor to the wealthy.

Originally posted by Liberty Landing,@ Except that there's nothing regressive about it. It's flat, hence it doesn't slope one way or the other.

The system isn't flat, so any taxation that acts like the system is flat slopes towards the wealthy.

<!--QuoteBegin-Liberty Landing,

Flat tax proposals also exempt all spending up to the poverty line, meaning people below the poverty line are therefore never taxed. Since rich people tend to spend more than poor people, they will end up bearing the brunt of this tax, anyway.[/quote]

What is the poverty line? About $100,000 a year?

[Liberty Landing]

Hillary is not really saying something will be taken away, rather, that something that should not have been granted to start with

It was not theirs "not to grant" in the first place. We are talking about welfare for the rich, we are talking about reducing taxes, which essentially amounts to government-sanctioned highway robbery.
You are stating off on the assumption that this money was the government's property, anyway. The government didn't make that money -- they CAN'T make money, all they can do is steal it.

will be revoked because Bush was compassionate to Fat Cats who didnt need it.

Except now, as you can see, he is openly and frankly talking about cutting taxes for everyone, including those who do.
It makes absolutely no sense for him to squander federal revenues on a political fraction of a minority that is not even solidly on the Republican side, anyway; only about 54% of the wealthy voted Republican in 2000, which is down 19% from 20 years ago. Yet you keep adhering to this absurd, Roaring 20's-era notion of curly-mustachioed Balzac characters chuckling evilly in their ivory towers and manipulating the government behind the scenes.

[bishop]

why not cut payroll taxes so that everyone who pays taxes gets a tax cut?

Why should you care? Because its YOUR MONEY! Taxes are monies the governed, that would be the American People, grant the government.

i definitely care what the government does with our money.. (zeebadee beat me to this:) reminds me of this pesky little $500+ billion deficit bush has run for the past 2 years... i wonder what the country's per capita debt has become under bush almighty. betcha it pisses over whatever paltry cut the majority of tax cut recipients recieved.

What you earn isn't a gift from the government.

the money the government spends isn't funny money either. you have to have tax revenues if you're going to spend like bush likes to spend. in case you don't remember, he's a MUCH bigger spender than clinton ever was.. to the tune of spending 7 times as much on non-defense discretionary items.


only thing worse than a tax and spend democrat is a tax cut and spend republican. dunno what finance books they're reading from, but they've forgotten all the basics.

[Liberty Landing]

This is where we are in agreement. The massive spending by the so-called Defense Department is one of the major points of transfer for money that travels from the poor to the wealthy.

The DoD spends some $300 billion a year. Even if it were reduced to zero (hah hah hah), it would still take some 25 years to pay off the deficit, and even then ONLY if other departments were slashed out of existence to balance the budget.
There are other things that need to go:

(1) Rural Electrification Administration: founded in the early 20th century to bring electricity to rural areas. Still in existence, even though rural areas have had electricity for over 70 years.

(2) Farm subisides: essentially paying farmers and agribusiness giants to grow less food. Get rid of the Dept. of Agriculture.

(3) Federal education spending: states control and fund education, not the governmnet. Get rid of the Dept. of Education, it has no purpose.

And so on....

The system isn't flat, so any taxation that acts like the system is flat slopes towards the wealthy.

A flat slope towards the wealthy? What sense does that make?
Flat by the nature of its existence slopes in no direction. In this case, you get taxed based on how much you spend. If you don't like being taxed, you just save more and spend less.

What is the poverty line? About $100,000 a year?

Funny. Except you're not, so stop trying.
The federal poverty line for a household of one is $9,310 a year. For every additional person in the house, add an extra $3,180.
That means for the average household of four, $18,850. Any amount of money spent up to that amount goes untaxed. Of course, it will be dramatically easier to spend when you have less money being shelled out to the federal leviathan in taxes, but this just means it could be easier to save, too.

[Liberty Landing]

i wonder what the country's per capita debt has become under bush

$24,894.52.

This includes babies, children, disabled folk, the retired, homeless people, the unemployed, and people who make less than $24,894.52 a year.

[Gorgo]

Pushing $1 trillion.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Ever tried to raise a family on $18,850? That's ridiculous.

No taxes, including sales tax, for anyone under about $50-75,000. Period.

Stop federal spending? Then large corporations will just take over the states and run them.

[kharmajunkie]

It's hard for a single person to live comfortably on eighteen thousand
a year.

[Liberty Landing]

Ever tried to raise a family on $18,850? That's ridiculous.

We're not talking about raising a family, we're saying that any spending up to this amount is tax-exempt.
This means anything you spend over that amount gets taxed.

Stop federal spending? Then large corporations will just take over the states and run them.

...

You're delusional. This is the only thing I can think of, because you keep insisting on these perversions of reality that have no historical basis at all.

Seriously, dig through history and find me a single time in which a state without either federal or state income taxes was absorbed into a corporation.

This is not Monopoly, for Christ's sake.

[bishop]

$24,894.52. This includes babies, children, disabled folk, the retired, homeless people, the unemployed, and people who make less than $24,894.52 a year.

actually, i meant to say - i wonder how much the per capita debt has increased under bush.

i wouldn't be surprised if the increase was larger than the average tax cut middle class people received.