Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

And they belong to which party?

---

Democrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

President Obama was born in the US.

Cruz is a Constitution originalist, a literalist. If "natural-born citizen" doesn't apply to him and the term is not be taken literally and as originally meant, then much of his literal and originalist rhetoric on what the Constitution says about certain issues cannot be taken seriously and does not apply.

---

nonsense . There is no definition of natural born in the Constitution . The fact is that since the 1st Congress ,Congress has defined who is a citizen ,and it has always meant that someone born overseas from an American parent is a natural born citizen .

I posted the specific statutory law many times arguing against the Obama birthers when the issue 1st came up . Specifically I pointed out that it did not matter if the emperor was born here or in Kenya since his mother was an American citizen

Here it is :
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...te-275470.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

And why did they switch it and when did they know it was poison, and what are they going to do about it? Gov Snyder to testify before congress.

---

It is rubbish and a waste of time to point fingers . There is plenty of blame to go around ,starting with local and state and Federal authorities from both parties . But the Dems think they can politicize this like they did in New Orleans . Disgusting !! You are right . Just tell us how this is going to be remedied .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catonsville

I doubt that little people get to use the loop-holes like the big boys and corps. Loop-holes are put there intentionally, don't you think?

---

How about a loophole called "Low income tax credit"? Interest deduction? Charitable donations? Aren't they "loopholes", even if in the tax code?

Obscene is $1Million? I bet many of the middle class, counting the value of their homes and IRAs, is obscene. Through judicious long term investments, starting with our first home in 1968 @$15K, my wife and I raised 4 children, sent them to public colleges without them incurring ANY debt, all on 1 income that never exceeded $80,000 a year. We never starved, had 2 older cars, took family vacations every year in our camper, didn't take vacations in Maui or belong to a country club. At 75 YO, I therefore consider myself an OBSCENE person. PS Dow is up 313.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ma0641

Obscene is $1Million? At 75 YO, I therefore consider myself an OBSCENE person. .

---

I think you miss the whole point of this thread, which is discussing the obscene behaviour of billionaires and those who like to behave like billionaires. No one would suggest that a person who worked hard and at the end of their life is comfortable and secure is obscene, but the way you use your wealth can be obscene. What is obscene is to use your wealth and position to rip others off. Yes the top 1% might have amassed one million dollars but it is likely they have far more. I am considered wealthy and I don't have a million dollars because it is a question of how you measure wealth, a person who lives in a city might be in the same circumstances and have a million dollars.

I do think that the unequal distribution of wealth on the planet is fueling many of our conflicts, with certain wealthy nations behaving in an oppressing manner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ma0641

How about a loophole called "Low income tax credit"? Interest deduction? Charitable donations? Aren't they "loopholes", even if in the tax code?

---

You are talking about peanuts across one hell of a lot of people, this discussion is about ill gotten gains of the filthy rich in underhanded ways. Sorry I don't know how to include the brackets of quotes like you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ma0641

How about a loophole called "Low income tax credit"? Interest deduction? Charitable donations? Aren't they "loopholes", even if in the tax code?

---

Of course . The country would be better off if all loopholes were eliminated and we had a lower flat rate . For every loophole someone else is paying more to make up the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I think you miss the whole point of this thread, which is discussing the obscene behaviour of billionaires and those who like to behave like billionaires. No one would suggest that a person who worked hard and at the end of their life is comfortable and secure is obscene, but the way you use your wealth can be obscene. What is obscene is to use your wealth and position to rip others off. Yes the top 1% might have amassed one million dollars but it is likely they have far more. I am considered wealthy and I don't have a million dollars because it is a question of how you measure wealth, a person who lives in a city might be in the same circumstances and have a million dollars.

I do think that the unequal distribution of wealth on the planet is fueling many of our conflicts, with certain wealthy nations behaving in an oppressing manner

---

face facts ,obscene wealth is $1 more than you have . Envy . Wealth is not obscene and punitive confiscation should not be the remedy even if it was . The victims of such policies will be the ones who don't use their money in "obscene" (whatever that means ) manners .

Quote:

---

obscene wealth is $1 more than you have

---

Not at all, it was clearly stated in the beginning of the thread who the OP is referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Of course . The country would be better off if all loopholes were eliminated and we had a lower flat rate . For every loophole someone else is paying more to make up the difference.

---

Most of the so called "loopholes" that you speak of, are there for everyone not just the rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

face facts ,obscene wealth is $1 more than you have . Envy . Wealth is not obscene and punitive confiscation should not be the remedy even if it was . The victims of such policies will be the ones who don't use their money in "obscene" (whatever that means ) manners .

---

How about you face facts Obscene wealth is influence pedaling, I have included the actions of two local individuals in my comments here as illustrations of obscene wealth, this isn't about distorting the tax system to appear to give benefit to the under privileged, it isn't about confiscation although maybe it should be, but 1% of the population having 99% of the wealth is obscene because obviously they are not using that wealth to benefit anyone but themselves. Tom you need to loose this strawman argument of a flat tax, it is part of the obscene wealth debate because it is obscene if the rich pay the same rate of tax as the person on lower income, the impact falls disproportionately and the wealthy persons makes greater use of the benefits provided by taxation

Wealth is obscene when you have enough to be rich in every country on Earth, and still have a secret bank account in a Swiss bank, or any bank, and b1tch about your taxes being to high!

Just ran across this. While it is not about "Obscene" money, it fits the mold most Dems are pushing, particularly BS.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers, 1931

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ma0641

Just ran across this. While it is not about "Obscene" money, it fits the mold most Dems are pushing, particularly BS.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers, 1931

---

With all due respect those ideas are what drives the capitalist world view, they are as much b/s today as the day they were written. Very few people have the idea they don't need to work and most of those because opportunity has been deprived by opportunists or circumstance. What is not realised is that accumulating wealth in itself does nothing. We once used to tax interest and dividends at a higher rate because it was "unearned income", today that idea is turned on its head and capital is allowed to accumulate sometimes at preferential tax rates. Therefore we must have a regime where capital is forced to work if in no other way than being invested in government loans so that capital is forced to look for returns and fuel the economy, it cannot be allowed to lay around in low interest accounts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catonsville

Most of the so called "loopholes" that you speak of, are there for everyone not just the rich.

---

Then why are they needed ? .

Just imagine Tom if the obscenely wealthy took a small part of their wealth and applied it to infrastructure, roads, schools, and clean air and energy, instead of tax shelters, secret offshore accounts, and chasing cheap labor overseas we wouldn't be having this conversation would we? Of course that .05% tax increase to pay for it by the wealthiest among us was obscene when it was proposed and went down in flames at the time.

I guess you think greedy isn't obscene as long as it turns a buck for one guy/corporation/bank. Suck more money from the economy and give it to the already obscenely wealthy and expect nothing from it with a flat tax. You just haven't admitted those kinds of profits NEVER trickle down, and certainly never create jobs.

It's not like there is not enough work to do, just lazy rich fat cats more obsessed with counting money while capitalists keep enabling the sick b@stards every time they holler they want MO" MONEY! Need a link to the obscenity? Of course I got one,

DailyTech - Foxconn Installs Anti-Suicide Nets at Its Facilities

I won't quote the link as I usually do but check out some of the side stories on that page. If that's not OBSCENE behavior by the wealthy, let me help you pull your head out of the sand, or wherever else you capitalist have seemed to stick it.

@ catonsville. Tell me how those loopholes can be taken by the US population that's not rich enough to qualify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

What is not realised is that accumulating wealth in itself does nothing.

---

The wealthy either invest ;which means people get employed ,and others gain wealth .How many millionaires has Bill Gates made ? How many people benefit from investing in Microsoft ? How many public union's pension plans have Microsoft stock ?

They buy things which again means people are employed to make the things they buy ;the more the conspicuos the consumption ,the more people are employed to make the products ,homes ,goods they buy ....the more people are employed to service their lifestlyes .


They also contribute their money to various charitible organizations ,or set them up on their own . I can write a long time before I document all the hospitals ,buildings ,parks and public lands ,arts foundations ,education institutes ,etc . that some of these " obscene greedy " people are involved in.


The underlying presumption of this OP is that governments are better at distributing people's money that the people are . Under that presumption the "obscene rich" are subject to confiscation as punishment for their success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Then why are they needed ? .

---

Maybe, it makes the populace feel that the government is not screwing them as hard as it would be without them. What the government is taking, it only hurts a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catonsville

Maybe, it makes the populace feel that the government is not screwing them as hard as it would be without them. What the government is taking, it only hurts a little bit.

---

Maybe...under my plan the government wouldn't be taking that much out of their paycheck to begin with .

The government has distorted the market on things like home prices with their various loopholes . In my mind it would be better over all if the price of a home really reflected it's value on the market. Probably too late to reverse that however . Take away a freebee and people really think they are being screwed .

I wonder if people consider that they have to actually own a home to get the mortgage deduction. So what happens to renters ? Well renters pay for the cost of the mortgage ,the home value ,and some profit for the landlord ;and the landlord collects the tax break . The government social engineering at work .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Maybe...under my plan the government wouldn't be taking that much out of their paycheck to begin with .

The government has distorted the market on things like home prices with their various loopholes . In my mind it would be better over all if the price of a home really reflected it's value on the market. Probably too late to reverse that however . Take away a freebee and people really think they are being screwed .

I wonder if people consider that they have to actually own a home to get the mortgage deduction. So what happens to renters ? Well renters pay for the cost of the mortgage ,the home value ,and some profit for the landlord ;and the landlord collects the tax break . The government social engineering at work .

---

It is safe to say, the Government is out of control and has been for a long time. The only light at the end of the tunnel that I see would be "Term Limits" and raise the voting age to 30+ years of age. So that we don't have so many "Numb, Numb's" voting when they get out of school with only an understanding of "free stuff".