For Fox news fans.

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/100#post_3303326
One great example locally was the last Governor's race. Teaser was "Law enforcement supports Ritter". Read about the same headline in the newspaper. Law enforcement equaled the Denver Chief of Police and 2 DA's from small counties west of the Divide, true story. I thought the Chiefs union or something had endorsed the guy, wasn't even that. Nope, just 3 individuals but anyone who didn't pick up the paper and actually read beyond the headline and first paragraph, about 3/4 of the people who bother to read the paper according to a study I read years ago, you were left with the idea a lot of law enforcement people endorsed the guy.
That's the problem. No one actually reads the newspaper anymore. They rely on these 'teasers' and one-line headlines to provide them 'news'. I've also found that my local newspaper doesn't put every story or article on their online web site. There's articles in my paper with the tag line "This story is only listed in the hard-copy edition of the Express-News". If yuou go to their web site, there's no reference to the article. Of course they do this to maintain their subscriptions revenue. But if the local newspaper does this, what information are you missing if your only source of news is what you read and hear online?
 

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/100#post_3303299
Ahem, FICA/Self employment taxes alone are 15%. Say property taxes are another 7 (ouch!). even with good write offs and creative accounting your effected Fed tax rate has got to be around 10% but for the sake of argument let's say you are at 30% with income, employment and property taxes. Now look at your car tags, utility bills, sales taxes etc. It adds up pretty fast.
Regardless if you want to nickel and dime the estimates with car tags and sales tax, my overall tax rate is nowhere near 60%. My property tax, car tags, and as of this year, my sales tax are all tax deductible on my income tax return.
 

 

[reefraff]

And what about people who can't go long form? Can't find last years but year before between property tax, income tax and state income tax we paid about 9 grand on about 62+K gross. Add 15% FICA and we are closing in on 30% without sales taxes and all the utility fees and taxes. oh, lets not forget gas tax too. And Colorado is a fairly low tax state except for sales taxes. I'd say we're over 40% easy.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303332
Regardless if you want to nickel and dime the estimates with car tags and sales tax, my overall tax rate is nowhere near 60%. My property tax, car tags, and as of this year, my sales tax are all tax deductible on my income tax return.
 

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303336
And what about people who can't go long form? Can't find last years but year before between property tax, income tax and state income tax we paid about 9 grand on about 62+K gross. Add 15% FICA and we are closing in on 30% without sales taxes and all the utility fees and taxes. oh, lets not forget gas tax too. And Colorado is a fairly low tax state except for sales taxes. I'd say we're over 40% easy.
 
And what kind of services do you get for that 40%? Wide, mostly smooth highways and roads to drive on, utilities to run your home, affordable for the most part foods and goods, medical and retirement assistance when you get old, access to state and national parks at a reasonable cost, a military to protect you from aggressive invasions... If you had to pay for all these items on your own, you'd probably be spending close to 80% of your income to maintain things you take for granted on an everyday basis.
 

 

[reefraff]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303375
And what kind of services do you get for that 40%? Wide, mostly smooth highways and roads to drive on, utilities to run your home, affordable for the most part foods and goods, medical and retirement assistance when you get old, access to state and national parks at a reasonable cost, a military to protect you from aggressive invasions... If you had to pay for all these items on your own, you'd probably be spending close to 80% of your income to maintain things you take for granted on an everyday basis.
 
I don't think I am grossly over taxed but I sure as hell aint under taxed.
 
What right does the federal government have to take state lands to create national parks in the first place. The constitution specifically states the lands the feds are supposed to control and there isn't any mention of parks, wilderness areas and such. Not saying they are bad things but when the government ignores the constitution to create things we like it also allows them to create the things we don't like, want or need. Thus the need to confiscate the earnings of some Americans at a rate above 50% which is obscene in my opinion.

 

[bionicarm]

You're complaining about the Feds maintaining national parks? I guess you can blame Teddy for that one. Could Arizona managed and maintain the Grand Canyon better than the Feds? How about California and Yosemite? Cali can't even keep their state budget afloat. So Yosemite goes to crap because the taxpayers can't afford to keep it maintained. Same could happen to the states where all our national parks reside. There's known histories where State Parks have closed do to budget shortfalls. Sorry, but I have no problems with the Feds taking control of our most precious assets in this country. Give Arizona control of the Grand Canyon, and they could technically turn it into a landfill if they wanted to.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303408
You're complaining about the Feds maintaining national parks? I guess you can blame Teddy for that one. Could Arizona managed and maintain the Grand Canyon better than the Feds? How about California and Yosemite? Cali can't even keep their state budget afloat. So Yosemite goes to crap because the taxpayers can't afford to keep it maintained. Same could happen to the states where all our national parks reside. There's known histories where State Parks have closed do to budget shortfalls. Sorry, but I have no problems with the Feds taking control of our most precious assets in this country. Give Arizona control of the Grand Canyon, and they could technically turn it into a landfill if they wanted to.
That isn't the point.I like the parks. The constitution specifically states what lands the Federal government may own. a seat of government not to exceed 10 miles square, federal court houses etc. It also has an equal footing clause yet many western states were forced to give the federal government ownership of large tracts of land as a condition of becoming a state. Usually if I mention BLM lands to anyone east of the rockies they look at me funny, west of the rockies usually brings about a negative comment.
 
The point is when we allow the feds to ignore the constitution to do the things we like pretty soon they are doing things we don't like as well.
 

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303461
That isn't the point.I like the parks. The constitution specifically states what lands the Federal government may own. a seat of government not to exceed 10 miles square, federal court houses etc. It also has an equal footing clause yet many western states were forced to give the federal government ownership of large tracts of land as a condition of becoming a state. Usually if I mention BLM lands to anyone east of the rockies they look at me funny, west of the rockies usually brings about a negative comment.
 
The point is when we allow the feds to ignore the constitution to do the things we like pretty soon they are doing things we don't like as well.
 
Are you talking about Article 1, Section 8 - To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings? How do you possibly interpret this as to what "lands the Federal Government may own"? How can you categorize the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or Yellowstone as places purchased ' for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings?' Back when this country was formed, and expansion headed West and South, the Federal Government took advantage of many of the existing citizens that lived in those regions. Look how we acquired Texas. Same thing with Louisiana.
 
Hate to tell you, but the Constitution actually affords the Feds to take property as they see fit. Ever read the Eminant Domain Clause of the 5th Amendment?

 

[fishtaco]

Yeah, the BLM is not my favorite, they own a lot of land in Oregon and lease it for logging, mining or cattle grazing and the amount of public land that is closed off to the public is staggering. This affects me directly because I have a huge amount of BLM owned land behind me and the road going in is gated and locked with a camera mounted. My neighbors tell me is is absolutely beautiful up there with several nice lakes and creeks and in the old days you could drive about 75 mile east on the logging roads without hitting civilization again before it was leased for logging. I can see not wanting people up there during the week when they are working, but it could still be open on the weekends for the public.
 
Fishtaco

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303534
Yeah, the BLM is not my favorite, they own a lot of land in Oregon and lease it for logging, mining or cattle grazing and the amount of public land that is closed off to the public is staggering. This affects me directly because I have a huge amount of BLM owned land behind me and the road going in is gated and locked with a camera mounted. My neighbors tell me is is absolutely beautiful up there with several nice lakes and creeks and in the old days you could drive about 75 mile east on the logging roads without hitting civilization again before it was leased for logging. I can see not wanting people up there during the week when they are working, but it could still be open on the weekends for the public.
 
Fishtaco
The loggers around here will typically lease people's land, but they let em still live on the land. Then just tell em when they're gonna cut, and be careful. Usually it ends up being a good deal, because it helps people stay on their land, the loggers typically keep the access in good shape, and they take care of the trees (until their ready for harvest). And it keeps the land in a more rural state.
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303498
Are you talking about Article 1, Section 8 - To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings? How do you possibly interpret this as to what "lands the Federal Government may own"? How can you categorize the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, or Yellowstone as places purchased ' for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings?' Back when this country was formed, and expansion headed West and South, the Federal Government took advantage of many of the existing citizens that lived in those regions. Look how we acquired Texas. Same thing with Louisiana.
 
Hate to tell you, but the Constitution actually affords the Feds to take property as they see fit. Ever read the Eminant Domain Clause of the 5th Amendment?
 
Thats the whole point. Read the 10th amendment, the Feds obviously haven't. The feds demanded large tracts of lands in the western states as a condition of joining the union. No such requirement was made of other states admitted earlier. However when it suited the feds purpose they used that against Alabama and, wait for it, TEXAS over control of water ways shore lines.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303563
The loggers around here will typically lease people's land, but they let em still live on the land. Then just tell em when they're gonna cut, and be careful. Usually it ends up being a good deal, because it helps people stay on their land, the loggers typically keep the access in good shape, and they take care of the trees (until their ready for harvest). And it keeps the land in a more rural state.
 
Look at the amount of land the BLM has in Nevada and Utah, crazy

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303591
 
Thats the whole point. Read the 10th amendment, the Feds obviously haven't. The feds demanded large tracts of lands in the western states as a condition of joining the union. No such requirement was made of other states admitted earlier. However when it suited the feds purpose they used that against Alabama and, wait for it, TEXAS over control of water ways shore lines.
What does the 10th have to do with it? Anytime someone feels that they are being overrun by Federal involvement, they use the 10th Amendment as a blanket excuse as to why they can't. Like I said, read the Eminent Domain clause of the 5th. That supercededs the 10th, since it gives 'the powers delegated to the United States' in regards to the Federal Govt. acquiring land. Also, why do people take this 'Us vs. Them' mentality when it comes to Constitutional law? The 'United States' defined in the 10th Amendment is US, YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN. WE voted in the individuals who represent us in Washington. They aren't 'super Americans' that have more rights than the rest of us. Laws can and are meant to be changed and modified. They aren't etched in stone. You want to rid any 'control' the Feds have over your life? Band all your other Constitutionalist together and create a new Amendment to the Constitution that specifically states that. Don't rely on some generic, outdated statement in our current Constitution that was written over 200 years ago. There's constant arguments with our current Constitution regarding how to interpret the meaning of some of those clauses because the verbage comes from people from a completely different time. 'Modernize' the Constitution so that it specifically states the wishes of today's American citizenry. WE THE PEOPLE are who determine the laws of this land, not a couple hundred elected officials. Until you 'get that', nothing will ever change.

 

[oscardeuce]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/100#post_3303199
Would God approve of you having guns? You mean your hospital is already practicing Socialism? Last time I checked, the only medical facility that was technically owned by the government was the VA Hospital. You pay almost 60% of your income to taxes? Dude, you need to find some tax shelters or get a better CPA.
Income tax fed,state, local
FICA
Social Security
Property
Gas
Sales
corporate tax on my small business
many "hidden" taxes on the phone,cable, and other bills.
Still $90,000 in the hole from the "death tax". 90% that moneies or assets already taxed.
 
God approes of guns hunting for sustinance,and self defense. You are prohibitied from "murder" by the 10 commandments. He encourages charity. Not gov't redistribution. Like the song says "if 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."
 

 

[oscardeuce]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303632
What does the 10th have to do with it? Anytime someone feels that they are being overrun by Federal involvement, they use the 10th Amendment as a blanket excuse as to why they can't. Like I said, read the Eminent Domain clause of the 5th. That supercededs the 10th, since it gives 'the powers delegated to the United States' in regards to the Federal Govt. acquiring land. Also, why do people take this 'Us vs. Them' mentality when it comes to Constitutional law? The 'United States' defined in the 10th Amendment is US, YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN. WE voted in the individuals who represent us in Washington. They aren't 'super Americans' that have more rights than the rest of us. Laws can and are meant to be changed and modified. They aren't etched in stone. You want to rid any 'control' the Feds have over your life? Band all your other Constitutionalist together and create a new Amendment to the Constitution that specifically states that. Don't rely on some generic, outdated statement in our current Constitution that was written over 200 years ago. There's constant arguments with our current Constitution regarding how to interpret the meaning of some of those clauses because the verbage comes from people from a completely different time. 'Modernize' the Constitution so that it specifically states the wishes of today's American citizenry. WE THE PEOPLE are who determine the laws of this land, not a couple hundred elected officials. Until you 'get that', nothing will ever change.
You cannot "modernize" the Constitution. It seems pretty specific to me. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". They did use the term "arms" not to mean a body part, but to allow for changes in tech. The 10 is pretty specific too. Like your bud Obama, you seem to think it is a bad thing the Constitution limits gov't (10th). Google Obama and the 10th Amendment and listen to his words. He knows how it limits the Feds, and he does not like it one bit. The 10 says "if this document does not specifically say you can do it, then only the States or the People can. It is a blanket, a blanket protecting the people from an overwhelming federal gov't. Why is there a federal Education Dept? There is none outlined in the Constitution. It should be a State controlled issue UNLESS specifically amended.
 
The Constitution is powerful.. for the People, and limiting for the gov't. Some in the gov't don't like that, and Independant people like me do. Again please tell me the number of people who have died trying to get to Havana from Miami.
 
Have you read the manefesto of Obama yet? I still think I can be more effiecient and charitable with my money than the Gov't.
 

 

[oscardeuce]

As to the tax rates, remeber those 3 little letters, AMT, that really changes your bottom line.

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303633
Income tax fed,state, local
FICA
Social Security
Property
Gas
Sales
corporate tax on my small business
many "hidden" taxes on the phone,cable, and other bills.
Still $90,000 in the hole from the "death tax". 90% that moneies or assets already taxed.
 
God approes of guns hunting for sustinance,and self defense. You are prohibitied from "murder" by the 10 commandments. He encourages charity. Not gov't redistribution. Like the song says "if 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam."
 
Where in the Bible did you read that? Yet another screwy interpretation of that book.
 
Like I told you, you need to findf a better tax attorney or CPA. I probably make as much as you do, if not more (including my business), and my overall tax rate is nowhere near this 60% you claim you're paying.
 

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oscardeuce http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303634
You cannot "modernize" the Constitution. It seems pretty specific to me. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". They did use the term "arms" not to mean a body part, but to allow for changes in tech. The 10 is pretty specific too. Like your bud Obama, you seem to think it is a bad thing the Constitution limits gov't (10th). Google Obama and the 10th Amendment and listen to his words. He knows how it limits the Feds, and he does not like it one bit. The 10 says "if this document does not specifically say you can do it, then only the States or the People can. It is a blanket, a blanket protecting the people from an overwhelming federal gov't. Why is there a federal Education Dept? There is none outlined in the Constitution. It should be a State controlled issue UNLESS specifically amended.
 
The Constitution is powerful.. for the People, and limiting for the gov't. Some in the gov't don't like that, and Independant people like me do. Again please tell me the number of people who have died trying to get to Havana from Miami.
 
Have you read the manefesto of Obama yet? I still think I can be more effiecient and charitable with my money than the Gov't.
 
The interpretation of the 2nd has been debated ad nauseum. Based on the punctuation in that statement, people have interpreted that Amendment 5 different ways. Just depends on which side of the fence you sit on.
 
My Obama? Where do you get that? I agree with a lot of his policies, but by no means all of them. That's one of your problems. You rely on articles you 'Google' to defend your stance on the subject. They are now saying that 1 out of every 5 Americans actually believe Obama is a Muslim. Where exactly do they get this ridiculous diatribe? FROM GOOGLING STUPID NEWS ARTICLES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY ACCURATE.
 
Radical Constitutionalist like yourself are very scary people. You don't want 'Big Government' telling you want to do in your lives, but if the Federal Govt. dropped every bit of support and assistance away from you, chaos would occur in a matter of weeks. You're all for States Rights, yet I can show you HUNDREDS of examples where laws passed by States are more restrictive, and take 10 times as many of your legal rights away as any Federal law does. Look at that Bell County in California. The mayor and City Council had salaries of over $1 MILLION each in one of the most poverty-stricken areas in that state. I can document at least 10 current laws passed by my local City Council that infringe on my rights. They just passed a law that mandates that a small business can no longer allow smoking in their establishment, even if they put up signs telling people smoling is allowed. So how are States and Local rights and laws better than Federal laws?
 

 

[reefraff]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303632
What does the 10th have to do with it? Anytime someone feels that they are being overrun by Federal involvement, they use the 10th Amendment as a blanket excuse as to why they can't. Like I said, read the Eminent Domain clause of the 5th. That supercededs the 10th, since it gives 'the powers delegated to the United States' in regards to the Federal Govt. acquiring land. Also, why do people take this 'Us vs. Them' mentality when it comes to Constitutional law? The 'United States' defined in the 10th Amendment is US, YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN. WE voted in the individuals who represent us in Washington. They aren't 'super Americans' that have more rights than the rest of us. Laws can and are meant to be changed and modified. They aren't etched in stone. You want to rid any 'control' the Feds have over your life? Band all your other Constitutionalist together and create a new Amendment to the Constitution that specifically states that. Don't rely on some generic, outdated statement in our current Constitution that was written over 200 years ago. There's constant arguments with our current Constitution regarding how to interpret the meaning of some of those clauses because the verbage comes from people from a completely different time. 'Modernize' the Constitution so that it specifically states the wishes of today's American citizenry. WE THE PEOPLE are who determine the laws of this land, not a couple hundred elected officials. Until you 'get that', nothing will ever change.
The tenth amendment was created to prevent the Federal government from taking powers not granted them in the constitution. They didn't take all that "public" land through eminent domain either, they required it as a condition to becoming a state. The verbiage is pretty clear, There are also plenty of concurrent historical documents to explain exactly what was intended by all the amendments in the bill of rights.
 
"The Powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution" What isn't clear about that? Power and authority not mentioned in the Constitution
"Nor prohibited by it to the states" Meaning the constitution doesn't say the states cannot have the authority
"Are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". Seems pretty clear to me. If the people had been referring to the collective what would have been the purpose of the amendment?

 

[reefraff]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/379731/for-fox-news-fans/120#post_3303654
 
The interpretation of the 2nd has been debated ad nauseum. Based on the punctuation in that statement, people have interpreted that Amendment 5 different ways. Just depends on which side of the fence you sit on.
 
My Obama? Where do you get that? I agree with a lot of his policies, but by no means all of them. That's one of your problems. You rely on articles you 'Google' to defend your stance on the subject. They are now saying that 1 out of every 5 Americans actually believe Obama is a Muslim. Where exactly do they get this ridiculous diatribe? FROM GOOGLING STUPID NEWS ARTICLES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY ACCURATE.
 
Radical Constitutionalists like yourself are very scary people. You don't want 'Big Government' telling you want to do in your lives, but if the Federal Govt. dropped every bit of support and assistance away from you, chaos would occur in a matter of weeks. You're all for States Rights, yet I can show you HUNDREDS of examples where laws passed by States are more restrictive, and take 10 times as many of your legal rights away as any Federal law does. Look at that Bell County in California. The mayor and City Council had salaries of over $1 MILLION each in one of the most poverty-stricken areas in that state. I can document at least 10 current laws passed by my local City Council that infringe on my rights. They just passed a law that mandates that a small business can no longer allow smoking in their establishment, even if they put up signs telling people smoling is allowed. So how are States and Local rights and laws better than Federal laws?
 
Gads, guess I am a radical constitutionalist too. I think the constitution means what it says and has historically been interpreted to mean. If your local government passes laws you don't like you can move to another locale more to your liking. Little harder to do when it's the state or feds passing the lame laws.