



I. What's This Platform Noise?





Moving America Forward


II. Preaching v. Practice




For example on internet freedom it writes:













III. Taxation: DNP is Full of Nebulous Promises


The DNP states:










Obama bribery wide
President Obama is beating Romney in the special interest cash race.
[Image Source: Politically Incorrect]




Ron Paul
[Image Source: NBC]


Source: Democratic National Party

Comments     Threshold


By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2012 5:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I keep hearing this "fair share" rhetoric thrown around... but for the life of my I can't figure out what they mean.

It's not hard to figure out really. They're Marxists.

If you think about it the only "fair" tax rate is 0%. Everything after that is only degrees of theft.

Remember the first Federal Income tax law was swatted down by the Supreme Court, because it's an obviously Unconstitutional concept. The Government has no legal authority to your wages.

So they amended the Constitution to make it legal. Legal, yes. Morally right, fair, and ethical? Certainly not.

By superflex on 9/7/2012 1:36:30 PM , Rating: 1
Says the troll typing on his computer on the federal government funded internet.

Spoken like a true progressive. Is that you, Lizze 1/32 Warren?

By SoCalBoomer on 9/10/2012 5:56:20 PM , Rating: 1

Ummmm, DARPA funded research and the initial framework - which was utterly unused except for pron on UBB etc. It wasn't until it was commercialized by Compuserve and AOH-ell and others that it exploded and became viable on its own.

The thing about just about everything is that even WITHOUT government intervention, it would still be there:

Roads? Yep, they existed before Gov't came in and formalized the system and created the Interstate system. Were they good? They were about as good as they were paid to be good. They were often toll roads (go to NJ, not much has changed) and those were the good ones.

Electricity? Yep - that was a private venture until it was regulated as a utility. Same with water, natural gas, etc.

Amendments don't bother "my kind" - they're allowed for in the "godlike" "perfect" document that we use as our model. If you want to change it, go for it - that's what the amendment process is for. The fact that there was a TON of political maneuvering to get the 14th passed notwithstanding, it's well worth it.

If you don't like it as the document that tells us how things are to be governed around here, be welcome to find some place else that does things the way you want them. Remember, you're free to leave if you want to.

The previous post was making a point. There is no real definition of "Fair" - to me, it would be "fair" to reduce the Federal Govt and make it pay its own way and not tax any of us. Feasible? No. . . :D

Is it fair to tax the arbitrarily defined "rich" a massively larger amount than the arbitrarily defined "poor"? Depends on your viewpoint but I'd argue no - and I'm in that arbitrarily defined "poor" group.

Is it fair that the arbitrarily defined "rich" have a huge amount of loopholes to get around paying that massively larger amount of taxes? Again, no - I don't have that many and it's prohibitively difficult and expensive for me to even try for them (and I don't qualify for them anyway - those I know of) so why should they get it when I don't? But from their perspective, it probably is "fair" since it evens things out so they aren't so prohibitively taxed.

Remember, the CBO stated that the top 20% pay 67.9% of our Federal taxes ( and supplementary tables) - note I said CBO, not Bloomberg, not some partisan left or right group. . . the Congressional Budget Office. Is that "fair"? Again - depends. If you're on the left, probably yes or not quite; if you're on the right then the answer is no.

BTW - their RATE (top 1%) is anywhere between 28-35% (through 2009) while the lowest 20% is under 9% and in 2009 was 1%. Is that fair? I would be in the second 20% and that would be between 6-14% (depending on the year) with 6.8% being in 2009. Is that fair? I was only paying 9.8% of the tax burden. . . is that "fair"?

His point was valid. Your knee-jerk response wasn't so much. :D

