Put Your Money where Your Mouth Is!

[Wild Cobra]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Those of you who like all the government we have, then I say, go ahead. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct

[boutons_deux]

As a "person-as-corporation", I consider any such donation to be tax-deductible as business expense, just like a "corporation-as-person". corporation = person, right?

[ElNono]

I do it every year and you do too, unless evading taxes is your thing...

[Wild Cobra]

I do it every year and you do too, unless evading taxes is your thing...

The link I gave allows you to pay more to the government than taxes owed. If you really want some of these programs that will cost tax payers more, then lead the way. Start now, paying extra money to our treasury. Show us you are willing to.

[SouthernFried]

As a "person-as-corporation", I consider any such donation to be tax-deductible as business expense, just like a "corporation-as-person". corporation = person, right?

Do you even know how this works?

Methinks it will require a google search on your part. After you've done your homework, get back to us.

[SouthernFried]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct

I do it every year and you do too, unless evading taxes is your thing...

I think it was quite obvious in the OP, that he was talking about continuously adding programs and raising taxes. Not paying or evading current ones. And his point is more than valid...YOUR the one who wants to add MORE, so YOU should be the ones who pay for it.

Personally, I want less...and I am more than willing to take the lessened tax burden that goes with it.

You want MORE, so YOU should be willing to take the increased tax burden that goes with that.

Fair is fair...and I'm all about fairness here.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think it was quite obvious in the OP, that he was talking about continuously adding programs and raising taxes. Not paying or evading current ones. And his point is more than valid...YOUR the one who wants to add MORE, so YOU should be the ones who pay for it.

Personally, I want less...and I am more than willing to take the lessened tax burden that goes with it.

You want MORE, so YOU should be willing to take the increased tax burden that goes with that.

Fair is fair...and I'm all about fairness here.

I agree, we should all pay in proporation to what we make and own. You own 1% of the assets in the country then you pay 1% of the total tax burden. You make alot you pay alot.. thanks guys for finally buying in. Fair is fair

[ElNono]

I think it was quite obvious in the OP, that he was talking about continuously adding programs and raising taxes. Not paying or evading current ones. And his point is more than valid...YOUR the one who wants to add MORE, so YOU should be the ones who pay for it.

Personally, I want less...and I am more than willing to take the lessened tax burden that goes with it.

You want MORE, so YOU should be willing to take the increased tax burden that goes with that.

Fair is fair...and I'm all about fairness here.

The link provided is to donate to pay off public debt, not to spend it on other/new programs.
And I certainly will be paying for my part of any of those new programs when they come in my tax bill. So will you. There isn't really an option, is there?

[Wild Cobra]

The link provided is to donate to pay off public debt, not to spend it on other/new programs.
And I certainly will be paying for my part of any of those new programs when they come in my tax bill. So will you. There isn't really an option, is there?

You think it matters? They spend money based on what their ever growing debt limit is. Pay some to the debt, and they can spend more.

[SouthernFried]

I agree, we should all pay in proporation to what we make and own. You own 1% of the assets in the country then you pay 1% of the total tax burden. You make alot you pay alot.. thanks guys for finally buying in. Fair is fair

Hard to debate a person with limited comprehension abilities.

We've been talking about paying for new govt programs and "added" govt tax liabilities. Those that want it should pay for it.

How you swerve that into a case for progressive taxation and paying in proportion to what an individual makes and owns privately...instead of what the OP stated about YOU wanting it, YOU should pay for it...I think is more a case for psychologist, than a political discussion.

But, just for the of it...Progressive taxation sucks too.

Thanks for playing.

[ElNono]

You think it matters? They spend money based on what their ever growing debt limit is. Pay some to the debt, and they can spend more.

No, I don't think it matters. That's exactly why I don't start silly threads like this one.

[Wild Cobra]

No, I don't think it matters. That's exactly why I don't start silly threads like this one.

I'm calling your bluff. You know, at least if you are as intelligent as I give you credit for, that I am right. It doesn't need to be a fund for the purpose of supporting government programs. In the end, what matters is the debt limit that congress from time to time has to increase to spend more.

I say you are calling it silly because you have to rational way to disagree with me on this topic.

[Marcus Bryant]

Now all we need is for some white folks to start an 'awareness' campaign for the national debt.

[ElNono]

I'm calling your bluff. You know, at least if you are as intelligent as I give you credit for, that I am right. It doesn't need to be a fund for the purpose of supporting government programs. In the end, what matters is the debt limit that congress from time to time has to increase to spend more.

I say you are calling it silly because you have to rational way to disagree with me on this topic.

I call the entire proposition silly because no matter the mundane amount I would be able to donate, it won't:

A) Start the implementation of any of those new programs
B) Stop congress from increasing the debt limit and keep on spending on those new programs
C) Remove tax liabilities for those that do not donate to contribute in all those programs

I would even go as far as argue that even a non-mundane contribution would still be irrelevant as far as stopping those things.

The thing is, this is far from a partisan issue. One could argue that the vote is your best weapon for this, but that has been largely useless in the last few decades.

And BTW, my propositions have been largely tied to redistributing the way the current budget is spent, not necessarily increasing taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

I call the entire proposition silly because no matter the mundane amount I would be able to donate, it won't:

A) Start the implementation of any of those new programs
B) Stop congress from increasing the debt limit and keep on spending on those new programs
C) Remove tax liabilities for those that do not donate to contribute in all those programs

I would even go as far as argue that even a non-mundane contribution would still be irrelevant as far as stopping those things.

The thing is, this is far from a partisan issue. One could argue that the vote is your best weapon for this, but that has been largely useless in the last few decades.

But if you get 50 million like minded liberals to donate 5% or their wealth, it would make a difference.

And BTW, my propositions have been largely tied to redistributing the way the current budget is spent, not necessarily increasing taxes.

Is that possible?

Everything I see that liberals want to do, will add to the tax burden. Who's going to pay for it if those of you who want the programs don't?

[Marcus Bryant]

Doesn't $700 large to the Pentagon every year add to the burden?

[ElNono]

But if you get 50 million like minded liberals to donate 5% or their wealth, it would make a difference.

As opposed to 'conservatives' that are just as guilty of increasing spending?

Is that possible?
Everything I see that liberals want to do, will add to the tax burden. Who's going to pay for it if those of you who want the programs don't?

Doesn't $700 large to the Pentagon every year add to the burden?

[Wild Cobra]

But if you get 50 million like minded liberals to donate 5% or their wealth, it would make a difference.

As opposed to 'conservatives' that are just as guilty of increasing spending?

Conservatives, NO. Republicans, YES, but still, not as guilty.

Have republicans increased spending in ways not authorized by cons ution?

Example please.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maintaining bases in 70+ countries, not to mention maintaining the largest military in this history of mankind, one larger than the armed forces of all other nations, combined, certainly was not authorized in the Cons ution.

I mean, if we want to get back to original intent, a standing army and naval armada of the magnitude the federal government has today was certainly not what the founders had in mind. It was definitely something they feared.

[Marcus Bryant]

But, I know, the founders only worried about socialism and non-evangelical Christians.

[Wild Cobra]

Maintaining bases in 70+ countries, not to mention maintaining the largest military in this history of mankind, one larger than the armed forces of all other nations, combined, certainly was not authorized in the Cons ution.

I mean, if we want to get back to original intent, a standing army and naval armada of the magnitude the federal government has today was certainly not what the founders had in mind. It was definitely something they feared.

I agree that they wouldn't have imagined our military as it is today, but I will suggest that would agree to the necessity if they lived in our world today.

At least consider that idea. Don't dismiss it readily without some serious thought.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, time and time again, I see liberals who want to add programs, raise taxes to fund projects, etc. Well, I say why should we pay more. Those of you who like all the government we have, then I say, go ahead. Pay for it:

Treasury Direct

Can we assume that all the conservatives will be funding the bill for the military, law enforcement and any faith-related programs then?

[Wild Cobra]

Can we assume that all the conservatives will be funding the bill for the military, law enforcement and any faith-related programs then?

Why? That's authorized by cons ution. Social programs aren't.

[ElNono]

Why? That's authorized by cons ution. Social programs aren't.

Can you prove this? I don't think you can.

[ElNono]

Conservatives, NO. Republicans, YES, but still, not as guilty.
Have republicans increased spending in ways not authorized by cons ution?
Example please.

Sure, just as guilty.

Who passed Medicare Part D? Who invented the TARP?

And the cons ution doesn't specify the amount of spending on the military. Congress is authorized to spend half as much or less on it.