Romney's Tax Returns - thoughts?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2008
Romney's Tax Returns - thoughts?
163
Tue, 01-24-2012 - 12:52pm

Do you have any feelings about Mitt Romney’s annual income for 2010, and the less-than-15% tax rate he paid?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-records-gop-presidential-candidate-paid-3m-14-2010-article-1.1010823

“That means the former Massachusetts governor made about $59,452 every day in that year, dwarfing the median household income of $49,445, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.”

Photobucket

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Mon, 01-30-2012 - 8:44am

Go ahead and refresh our memories, where did I specifically say that I am against the Constitution being amended? In fact, I believe we need a balanced budget amendment right now.

A few posts back you chided me for citing the 16th amendment as sanctioning an income tax. Lessee... all the links and facts in this exchange come from me.

Sounds like a little disdain for our "glorious" framers, eh?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Mon, 01-30-2012 - 1:52pm
nellewrites wrote:

A few posts back you chided me for citing the 16th amendment as sanctioning an income tax. Lessee... all the links and facts in this exchange come from me.

Doesn't equate to being against amending the Constitution.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Mon, 01-30-2012 - 2:09pm

Doesn't equate to being against amending the Constitution.

So why say it then? What point were you trying to make?

I've addressed this before about "general welfare" and it's context. But, I'll just add that it is ridiculous to try and claim that in a document designed to restrain government and preserve individual freedom that a line like that would effectively usurp the rest of the Constitution and allow Congress to do as they please. Just silly. But I see why the left latches on to that, you do want Congress to be unrestrained, and this line is the closest you can come to claiming they can do anything they want.

Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce and promote the general welfare. Those two things give wide latitude. As I mentioned before, they didn't foresee the rise of an industrialised power or a nation of this size, but I'm pretty sure they would agree the nation needed such flexibility in order to grow. You, the big supporter of free enterprise, should know that absent what followed this nation would be nowhere near this powerful economically now, and in fact, it might lag behind most of the Western European nations.

So which do you prefer... a smaller country with handcuffed government, or to be the leading economic power in the world?

If we followed your path now, private enterprise would walk all over Americans. Wages would drop to nothing, they would destroy the economy. Wealth would accrue to a few, it would be like Haiti, and in such conditions, the people would overthrow the government and the system and put in place what we have now.

These claims of strict constitutionalists, all they can see is the taxes they pay, and not the impact of those taxes, what it brings with it, why its important. They have zero clue how a society functions, and why social stability matters. You hate commies... fastest way to put commies in power is to do the things you advocate, because you then provide something for those of such extreme viees to rally against.

Pages