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 - 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.

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 - 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 - 12:13am
nellewrites wrote:

You suggested the Constitution should not be amended...

...glorious framers who created the document you don't want amended specifically built in a framework for amending it.

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.

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

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sun, 01-29-2012 - 11:22pm

Slavery only had to be abolished through amendment because our SC refused to strike it down. Gotta love those courts. Obviously,(well, not to you) my points about income tax could not possibly be twisted to support slavery and taking the right to vote from women by any honest person.

What exactly are you trying to say about slavery and the Constitution???

You suggested the Constitution should not be amended, since I mentioned the 16th specifically ending all debate on whether an income tax is allowed under the Constitution... and by the way, those glorious framers who created the document you don't want amended specifically built in a framework for amending it.

And you will note they added the Bill of Rights (first ten) and pretty much conceded Congress has power beyond those specifically enumerated.

You supported my point that income tax was not originally in the Constitution. Thanks, again.

Huh? What exactly does this have to do with *anything*? Lots of things aren't in the Constitution, in case you haven't noticed, it isn't 500 pages in length. At the time, the US was an agrarian nation, so unless you are ready to shove a hoe over your shoulder and march off to farm potatoes, carrots, and parsnips... and in those days, they really didn't foresee a need for heavy education in a technological world. We live on one, and if we expect to remain a viable country, competitive and thriving, we have to educate our children.

Although I am not surprised, I find it dishonest and disgusting that you are attempting to twist my comments on income tax to somehow go down a completely different road. Can't say I haven't seen this before from the left. It's a bit depraved, but I understand your need to get far from the facts and point. HEY, HEY, don't look there, look over here at this guy that wants to support slavery!

I'm attempting to twist your comments? Hmmmm.... when someone makes the twist argument, it means their cannon fired it's last ball.

Checkmate.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 01-29-2012 - 10:24pm
nellewrites wrote:

Are you arguing the Constitution should not be amended? Slavery should still exist, women should not be able to vote?

Slavery only had to be abolished through amendment because our SC refused to strike it down. Gotta love those courts. Obviously,(well, not to you) my points about income tax could not possibly be twisted to support slavery and taking the right to vote from women by any honest person.

The only thing I did was smoke out an opinion that suggests something far different than you believe it does.

You supported my point that income tax was not originally in the Constitution. Thanks, again.

On a site geared towards women, you suggest the Constitution should not be amended and we should not be able to vote. Wow.

Although I am not surprised, I find it dishonest and disgusting that you are attempting to twist my comments on income tax to somehow go down a completely different road. Can't say I haven't seen this before from the left. It's a bit depraved, but I understand your need to get far from the facts and point. HEY, HEY, don't look there, look over here at this guy that wants to support slavery!

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sun, 01-29-2012 - 7:11pm

Really? The 16th amendment was part of the original Constitution? Why, I did not know that! Oh, and it doesn't say anything about it having to be progressive at all, does it? You actually backed up my statement, thanks.

I love that you "relish" being called a commie. But I didn't call you one, I simply pointed out some very similar ideas that the left has with Karl Marx. Not really something to be proud of.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 01-29-2012 - 6:07pm

Really? The 16th amendment was part of the original Constitution? Why, I did not know that! Oh, and it doesn't say anything about it having to be progressive at all, does it? You actually backed up my statement, thanks.

I love that you "relish" being called a commie. But I didn't call you one, I simply pointed out some very similar ideas that the left has with Karl Marx. Not really something to be proud of.

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sun, 01-29-2012 - 4:02pm

Nothing in politics amuses me more than being tagged with the commie label. I've been called a lot of things in life, and I absolutely *relish* such accusations!

Look at the progressive income tax, did not exist when we formed the country. But now, oh, it can't even be questioned. You must be crazy to suggest something less than what we have.

Please tell us about the 16th amendment. Here, allow me help you:

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

US Constitution

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 01-29-2012 - 3:46pm

Now, now!

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

Pages