I guess you consider the posting of a blatant lie, as ripping an OP to shreds.
That is precisely what I did. The Governor, Degrance and Ekers did not provide any “justifications”, just “no it’s not, cause I say it’s not”
Nothing I have posted here has been “ripped to shreds”, that’s just wishful thinking by liberals through the looking glass.
Excuse me, but being that the current tax-cut was the subject at hand, and the current tax-cut is a cut on income taxes, in the context of this OP, “they don’t pay taxes” refers to income taxes.
Actually, since you’re the one proposing a major change to the election rules, the burden is on you to provide justification. Getting upset about a tax refund is pretty thin, as justifications go.
I glad you admit it, but it doesn’t follow. You’re using the phrase “low-income families” to try to link to “income taxes” to try to link to “tax refund”, as if they were inextricably linked. As has been pointed out several times, low-income familes do pay taxes, though not necessarily income taxes.
In any case, the $10 billion or so isn’t about to bankrupt the republic and comes nowhere near the dramatic failure predicted by Tyler.
Let us not debate the merits of Ms. Brown, let us merely stipulate for a moment that she is not a good senator. Therefore, in the current system, the people will on occasion choose a stinker for a senator. OK, so the Senate is going to have a few stinkers. The question is, what kind of people would the state legislatures choose? My opinion is that if we revert to this method, then the Senate seats will to go to those with the deepest party loyalties and the best political connections.
Suppose for a moment that you have a fine, upstanding individual who would make a great senator and the people like what he stands for. Trouble is, he is Republican and the state house is dominated by Democrats. Would this individual have a prayer of getting in the Senate? In the current system, yes. In the old system, highly doubtful.
I agree with the OP. This country is going straight to hell because of all them liberuhls trying to give money to the welfare bludgers. What they need is some personal responsibility and more prayer in schools. And I think Degrance and Governor Quinn are communists, and probably Godless Commies at that.
I’m off to bed now, but I’ve got my rifle loaded just in case any of you liberals even thinks about hiding under my bed. And if you don’t like this country, you can leave it!
I did a fast search of the thread, and amusingly enough, you’re the only one actually calling this a “cut”. Even the actual legislation uses the word “credit”. I looked it up and what was actually voted for 94-2 on June 5th was a Senate Amendment 862 of an existing House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 1308. The Senate was voting to expand on an existing House bill, and the House approved the Senate’s changes, but wanted to add some changes to the changes, which as far as I can tell is delaying the legislation. Congressional records are a damn labyrinth - if I were you, I’ve propose a consitutional amendment to ditch the entire congress as being just too damn hard to follow. At the very least, the House’s complicity only proves that they, too, are part of the socialist conspiracy.
Personally, I’d just like to see you admit that even poor people occasionally pay taxes of some kind. It would make my day.
I did a fast search of the thread, and amusingly enough, you’re the only one actually calling this a “cut”. Even the actual legislation uses the word “credit”. I can understand why you keep saying “cut”, since it feeds your theory that “these people don’t pax taxes, so how is it possible for their taxes to be cut? It must be 1984-ish doublethink.”
I looked it up and what was actually voted for 94-2 on June 5th was a Senate Amendment 862 of an existing House of Representatives Bill, H.R. 1308. The Senate
A fair analogy, but let’s look at one that is a bit closer to reality.
Imagine a typical mid-western state that has one or two large urban centers. After 40 years of “Great Society” programs, that have had the effect of rewarding illegitimacy and encouraging the immigration of a peoples that are not inclined to assimilate into traditional American society, the populations of these urban centers have now swollen to the extent that they have the ability to determine the outcome of state-wide elections.
Many of these state-wide elections are being won by the candidate that promises the biggest cornucopia of welfare entitlements, thus, feeding the cycle of an ever-increasing under-class that is dependent on an ever-increasing welfare-state.
…And would this not mean that the State Legislature would itself be dominated by representatives of those large urban centers, beholden to the same interests?
Or are you proposing that state legislatures not be apportioned by population, or be gerrymandered so that “large urban centers” have their voting capacity diluted?
What?! Payroll taxes are a straight percentage. They aren’t higher (or lower) for low-income folks. Oh, sure, at high income levels, your Social Security taxes cut off, but your wages have to exceed $84,900 per year before this “payroll tax break” kicks in – don’t try telling me that someone who makes $84,899 per year is “living in poverty”!
You MUST be talking about those pinkos like George Voinovich, Peter Fitzgerald, Dick Lugar, and Chuck Grassley. Or, reaching a little futher back in history, those commie loving tax cutters like John Ashcroft, John Danforth, and Dan Coats.
Those goddamn socialist midwestern states. Let’s change the Constitution and stick it to the goddamned elected representatives of the people.
Come to think of it, Razorsharp, can you explain why this particlar tax cut was supported by the directly elected Senate, and the indirectly elected President, but faced a tough ride in the directly elected House?
Also, what further Constitutional amendments would you propose to see that the US government acts in accordance with your views on tax policy?
You know, it’s really getting boring, having to address your nit-piking. But, I’m going to do it one more time.
It is my understanding, that the House Bill, that was sent to the Senate, contained the provisions for an accross-the-board tax-cut on income as well as an additional $400 per child credit to those who paid income taxes.
When the House Bill was enroute to the Senate, Democrats, aided and abetted by their media allies, began demogoging the House Bill as a “tax-cut for the rich” and neglecting “America’s poor”. Only token mention was given to the fact that the “America’s poor” did not pay income taxes through the benefit of the “Earned Income Tax Credit”.
With elections looming next year, Senators felt that they couldn’t afford to be labled with the charge of “neglecting America’s poor”. And fearful of loosing their seat in the exclusive club of the United States Senate, many Republicans sold-out to the Democrat Amendment to the House Bill that gave a “tax-credit” to “Americas hardest working families”. Problem is, This “tax-credit” (another example of “newspeak”) was not a “credit”, but an actual payment.
Now, I have just illustrated another reason that justifies the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Remember when Bush first spoke of decreasing the income tax? Liberal Democrats started wailing about “raiding the Social Security Trust Fund”. Nevermind that income taxes are not related to Social Security (FICA) revenues. Hell, let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good demogogue.
Now that the tax-cut has become inevitable, liberal Democrats are demanding that “America’s hardest working families” (that don’t pay income taxes) get a “tax-cut” from their “payroll taxes”, which is their Social Security taxes. Of course, you don’t hear a word about raiding the “Social Security Trust Fund” when the Democrats are actually doing the “raiding”.