Clinton: Bush should raise taxes to pay for recovery

[David]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Doesn't the recent Supreme court ruling on eminent domain pretty much eradicate our property rights, though?

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

It certainly isn't new -- eminent domain was argued over during the early days of the Republic, even.

It's all about due process of law, & whether that due process is being distorted. Plus, the existence of eminent domain doesn't obviate the importance of property & civil rights. It just demonstrates -- to those few who still need it demonstrated to them -- that the propensity of government, any government, is to take more, not less, even though the purpose of government is to protect & ensure individual rights to life, liberty & property.

Exactly

Though, I can say from personal experience, the govt. has traditionally paid more than the FMV of the land it seizes. I know this has little meaning if you do not want to move though.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

Actually, the concept of ED was in the Const. when the country was founded. So, it is a legitimate govt. power. I just think it, like everything else the govt. touches, is misused.

For those interested, here is a cool site on ED:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment05/14.html

[reebokandlace]

Here is my thought on taxes. I think Americans should pay the same rate (%) on their income regardless of the amount.

It is sucks to have achieved a certain income level only to have to give almost half of it away. Someone made the comparison of making 10 million and having to give 4 million away to taxes. Put yourself in the shoes of the person paying high taxes. If you paid the same % of taxes what the higher incomes are paying you may look at it differently. Let's say you are earning 10,000 but only taking home 6,000. (As the taxes stand now, you are taking home 8,000.) That extra 2,000 comes in handy, doesn't it?

Everything is schema. Just like you, the person earning 10 mil could use that extra 2 mil for whatever. I know people have little sympathy for weathly people. "Ohh icky pooh princess you only get two vacation homes instead of three".

I never had ANY sympathy when I heard people crying about how much they pay in taxes until the first time I had to pay excessive capital gains and income taxes. Boy did I switch sides fast. My first reaction was "HEY WTF--THEY WANT ALMOST HALF MY MONEY?!" My accountant said to me, "would you prefer to not earn the money?"

The problem is, most people don't get the opportunity to be on both sides.

I think everyone should pay the same percentage.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by reebokandlace

Here is my thought on taxes. I think Americans should pay the same rate (%) on their income regardless of the amount.

It is sucks to have achieved a certain income level only to have to give almost half of it away. Someone made the comparison of making 10 million and having to give 4 million away to taxes. Put yourself in the shoes of the person paying high taxes. If you paid the same % of taxes what the higher incomes are paying you may look at it differently. Let's say you are earning 10,000 but only taking home 6,000. (As the taxes stand now, you are taking home 8,000.) That extra 2,000 comes in handy, doesn't it?

Everything is schema. Just like you, the person earning 10 mil could use that extra 2 mil for whatever. I know people have little sympathy for weathly people. "Ohh icky pooh princess you only get two vacation homes instead of three".

I never had ANY sympathy when I heard people crying about how much they pay in taxes until the first time I had to pay excessive capital gains and income taxes. Boy did I switch sides fast. My first reaction was "HEY WTF--THEY WANT ALMOST HALF MY MONEY?!" My accountant said to me, "would you prefer to not earn the money?"

The problem is, most people don't get the opportunity to be on both sides.

I think everyone should pay the same percentage.

I agree because that is a good balance. If everyone pays 25% then people with more money pay much more in taxes. The only problem with this is the wealthy have tax accountants and know about loopholes and deductions they can use. They can pay alot less than their fair share by being a little savvy.

I also like strand's idea re: no one making under $35,000 gets taxed on income. I doubt that will ever happen since the gov doesn't care about the lower income brackets.

I hear you on the capital gains too, 40% is a big freaking cut. Then again, you don't actually have to "work" for that money. Imagine how much freaking money the gov rakes in from the stock market?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

. . . I also like strand's idea re: no one making under $35,000 gets taxed on income. I doubt that will ever happen since the gov doesn't care about the lower income brackets . . . .

I disagree, it does care about the lower income brackets as they got a tax cut too - though I think up to $35,000 should be exempt.

Anyway and to change the topic a little, but still stay on point about the poor - let's open this up for discussion:

More Unbelievable Propaganda in Katrina's Wake

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By Bill O'Reilly



More unbelievable propaganda in the wake of Katrina: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

You know, I'm in a rather uncomfortable position of having to defend President Bush, who's being battered by partisan propaganda over Katrina. As we've stated, the president was late reacting to the storm and his hand-picked leaders did not do the job in FEMA and Homeland Security.

But, I just can't sit here and let rank propaganda go unchallenged as most of the elite media does all day long. Now yesterday, President Bill Clinton appeared with George Stephanopoulos on ABC and said this about the poor and Katrina.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FMR. PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: This is a matter of public policy. And whether it's race based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made.

That's what they did in the '80's. That's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy. We concentrated tax cuts on lower income working people, and benefits to low income people to help them move from welfare to work. And we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works. And we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty. And they got rid of it. So -- and they don't believe in it...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Believe in what?! What is Mr. Clinton talking about? What program did Mr. Bush get rid of?

We called Mr. Clinton's office all day, looking for an answer to that very simple question. We didn't get one. Stephanopoulos sat there like a mummy, challenging nothing. The whole thing's absurd.

Again, here are the facts. Black homeownership is up 2 percent under President Bush. Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms.

This "tax cuts for the rich" business is also blatantly dishonest. It's a ruse for the secular left to institute their income redistribution scheme. Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II. President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration!

Why? Because business is booming. That's why. Capitalism is working. And the more money corporations and workers make, the more taxes roll in, even at the reduced rate.

So let's recap. Black homeownership up under Bush. Poverty entitlements up under Bush. Educational spending for the poor, up under Bush. Federal tax revenues, up under Bush. Are you taking this down, George Stephanopoulos?

As for President Bush, he owes me big. I want a pen.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169880,00.html

Any comments?

Mine are BO is correct in his analysis, but he neglects to metion two things, which sort of kill his argument:

1. historically low interest rates drove up all home ownership and mostly maintained the economy

2. out of sight Federal deficit spending will quell most economic growth in the long run.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

Along the same lines:

Senate Panel Debates Eminent Domain

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

By Greg Simmons



WASHINGTON — Sparked by a recent Supreme Court ruling, the debate over eminent domain (search) raged on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee as witnesses dueled over whether local power to take private property hurts homeowners or helps improve communities.

The hearing follows a heated national debate set off in June when the nation's highest court decided 5-4 in favor of town officials who sought the authority to seize private land and turn it into to a commercial office and hotel park. Kelo et. al. v. the City of New London is the first ruling in which eminent domain has been extended to allow governments to take private property for private development rather than for public use.

“This battle against eminent domain abuse may have started as a way for me to save my little pink cottage, but it has rightfully grown into something much larger — the fight to restore the American dream and the sacredness and security of each one of our homes,” Suzette Kelo (search) told committee members.

Kelo and others -- including the pastor of a church that was lost in the development battle, an NAACP official and a law professor -- criticized the ruling.

“The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting minority neighborhoods,” said Hilary O. Shelton (search), director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau. “By allowing pure economic development motives to constitute public use for eminent domain purposes, state and local governments will now infringe on their property rights of those with less economic and political power with more regularity.”

Others, however, expressed support for the ruling.

“The Kelo decision affirmed that eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is one best governed by the states and their political subdivisions,” said Eddie Perez, the mayor of Hartford, Conn. He was speaking on behalf of the National League of Cities.

Perez said that without eminent domain powers, New Orleans and other areas affected by Hurricane Katrina would face a difficult time recovering.

Thomas Merrill (search), a Columbia Law School professor, told the committee members that the ruling appears to be helping the nation figure out how eminent domain should work. Merrill said the court's decision has pushed state legislatures to come up with clear rules on when government has the power to take private property.

“I think the political process is responding” to the ruling, Merrill said.

But Sen. Jon Kyl (search), R-Ariz., disagreed, citing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor's (search) argument in her dissent.

“What she’s saying is it’s the Supreme Court’s duty to enforce constitutional rights. We shouldn’t be passing off the buck to state legislatures to do whatever they think is right,” Kyl said.

Sen. Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa. and the committee's chairman, opened the hearing by saying he wasn’t necessarily for or against the ruling, but that it is one to be explored.

“This is a matter that requires congressional analysis,” Specter said, adding that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether it was a "wise, appropriate taking of private property."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169926,00.html

[reebokandlace]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I hear you on the capital gains too, 40% is a big freaking cut. Then again, you don't actually have to "work" for that money.

Well, yes and no. I hear ya, but the difference is instead of working for the money, one's money is working for them.

And there is a flip side to it, one also loses money in the stock market, which yes, the capital loses offset the capital gains, but still....a loss is a loss of earned income.

Actually my line of thought was capital gains tax on real estate, you do get a one time $250,000 capital gains waiver, but most people can easily make that on their first time flipping. So one is forced to do a 1031 exchange to save themselves paying the taxes. The problem is the real estate rollover investment just keeps getting bigger and bigger and at some point you have to pay the taxes....and boy do you pay!!!

I like Canada's system. No capital gains on the sale of a personal residence!

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I believe, but please check rather than rely on me - the US has no personal gain on the appreciation gained from the sale of a personal residence for up to $250,000 per owner occupant and after two years as such and there is no requirement to reinvest this money and you can do it once every two years. This is one of the reasons the housing market is on fire.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

We always were under the theory of ED - the Sup. Ct. Ruling just sort of expanded it, but cases had already been occuring for awhile where the state took property and used it in a way that benefitted private companies. A good example of this is a highway, which serves the public, but is built by a private contractor. Many so called necessary highways or expansion of roads have been done to line pockets. So, while I abhor the recent USSC decision, it is nothing that new in the big scheme of things.

I am aware of that. I was responding to Davids post. Apparently he thinks our private property rights are absolute. Boy is HE in for a surprise

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by David

That's my point, Chris. The Supreme Court cannot legitimately eradicate your right to property because your right to property is not given by the government -- legislative, executive or judicial. It is an inalienable right, which can be trampled on by force by government, but that is an illegitimate use of the power of the gun. Government wields the power of the gun.

I don't mean to sound like one of those loonies up in the hills of South Dakota, but these are all philosophical principles that the founders of this republic wrestled with. The Federalist papers are all about individuals vs. governments, inalienable rights vs. government rights, federal vs. state, etc.

WRONG! the right to property is NOT one of the inaelienable rights. Those are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) In the early days of this Nation, only Wealthy WHITE MEN could own property. NO Women. NO minorities. Property Ownership was the sign of the ELITE, and Property has ALWAYS been a Government controlled commodity. And people are under the misconception that they have "private property rights" which is ALSO wrong, because the "rights of the community" trump individual rights.

A county/town has to have a General Plan which determines land use and the issues of development. You as a homeowner are MOST DEFINITELY bound by the terms of that Government Process. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself. Think about it. how many people own the mineral rights to their land? or water rights? relatively few. especially in areas where precious minerals or oil might be present, you'd see just how fast the Government would take over.......

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . how many people own the mineral rights to their land? or water rights? relatively few. especially in areas where precious minerals or oil might be present, you'd see just how fast the Government would take over.......

Well, just about all of Southern Lousisna as I know many who have made fortunes off of the oil there just as I know more than one have refused to drill for various reasons and the govt. never compelled them to do so So, while I agree with you that property has always been subject to just compensation for public use, I know of no incident where the govt. has taken away private mineral rights. Do you?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I am aware of that. I was responding to Davids post. Apparently he thinks our private property rights are absolute. Boy is HE in for a surprise

Well, they are absolute in the sense that the just compensation equates FMV (usually higher than that) property for money, which is the universal medium of exchange. In other words, you have the Constitutional right (Fifth and 14th Amendments) to the value of your property but not the actual property itself.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^^

I believe, but please check rather than rely on me - the US has no personal gain on the appreciation gained from the sale of a personal residence for up to $250,000 per owner occupant and after two years as such and there is no requirement to reinvest this money and you can do it once every two years. This is one of the reasons the housing market is on fire.

Someone's been reading the tax code again.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, they are absolute in the sense that the just compensation equates FMV (usually higher than that) property for money, which is the universal medium of exchange. In other words, you have the Constitutional right (Fifth and 14th Amendments) to the value of your property but not the actual property itself.

thus the reason the Government can "repossess" your property after "just" compensation. as long as there is a nexus of use (in CA)