Skip to comments.Dem Congresswoman: "You Don't Deserve To Keep All" Of Your Money (audio)
Posted on 09/14/2011 9:23:45 AM PDT by i88schwartz
Ill put it this way, you dont deserve to keep all of it. Its not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told the Don Wade & Roma show on WLS-AM.
"I think you need to pay your fair share for things we've decided are our national priorities," Schakowsky added.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I do not recall being allowed to decide on the bloat or existence of the EPA, DOE, Dept. of Education, etc...
“I think you need to pay your fair share for things we’ve decided are our national priorities,” Schakowsky added.”
But...we have no say in what those priorities are.
Oh. I forgot. We’re all socialists now.
Jan Schakowsky you don’t deserve your paycheck. Hand it over to me now!
“Things we’ve decided”.... Who’s the “WE” Schanko baby? That is the point... “you” direct thus in all of these machine driven unpopular socialist crap programs of the new world order of leftist. We aren’t buying it, and we won’t pay for it. And uh, you’re gone in 2012 if there is a God and voters finally get it.
Why do Liberals insist on telling and re telling these howling lies” Why does the MSM swallow their lies whole?
For decades, American taxpayers have been paying taxes (and more all the time) for numerable government relief services for the needy. THIS is over and above the many and generous charitable donations Americans routinely make.
Why do Liberal (Communist) politicians always get away with making Americans sound like greedy and uncaring brutes who DO NOT and NEVER WILL pay their own way ... and THEN SOME?
Yawn.... Same thing they’ve been saying. She just used fewer words.
Wanna bet her itemized tax returns say something different....?
If we don't like the decisions they are making we vote them out and put representatives in that more reflect our values. That is why elections are so important.
Constitutionally we are "doing this together".
I don't agree with how she said it; it comes across as arrogant and elitist.
We do need to take this country back, though.
She’s getting close but that’s not really what they believe. They believe EVERYTHING is theirs and they LET YOU HAVE some of it.
“I think you need to pay your fair share for things we’ve decided are our national priorities,”
And taking your money is our highest priority.
Constitutionally we are “doing this together”.
The Federal Government is way way way beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
Then we need to vote in people who will do the right thing.
These elitist bastards need to face some consequences.
Of all the elitist crap... YOU need to pay for what WE decide it should be spent on.
What had me flabbergasted was her contention that Obama has been the most pro-Israel president EVER. She is shocked that NY-9 went the way it did because of the Jewish vote. Don't the Jews know what a friend Obama has been to them?
Doesn't Jan realize Obama's vaunted Arab Spring has brought great danger to Israel, as evidenced by the sacking of the Israeli Embassy in Egypt?
We need to take away their positions of power,
not just put “our people” in positions of power,
but ELIMINATE the positions of power, and the power of the positions that can’t be constitutionally eliminated.
Lately, I have noticed ‘the ruling class’ being used to describe all bureaucrats of any kind. Judges, Cops, even the lady at the DMV is now the ruling class.
American society is being formally divided into those who are IN government or government services, and those who work to pay the government.
The concept of a public ‘servant’ is gone as is any notion of ‘representation’. This is a full blown take-over of America by a gang of cronies, elitists, and their friends. We are, or are becoming, a completely government controlled police-like state.
We can thank the establishment of the single party system known as the (RNC/DNC) and the actual people they truly work for. (hint: it aint us)
I’m waiting for the Dims to propose a “potential tax”. After all, you don’t deserve to be left with a lifestyle decision that deprives the government of its money.
SO, if you have a Master’s Degree in English, but have decided to stay home with your children, you have given up the potential for a lucrative Text Editor position paying $80,000. Therefore, you owe $35,000 in taxes based on your potential.
This is simply the logical end of Dim logic. Of course, there would be plenty of waivers for typically liberal jobs.
Wow, what an original idea.
She is obviously not talking to her constituents who represent the 50% of America that do not pay any taxes.
If your talking about bureaucratic positions of power, then yes. Being a member of the House or Senate is constitutional. The people need to break down and destroy most of what started in the days of FDR.
Why does she not mandate this to the 1/2 of our nation that does not pay federal income tax?
what government is, is those things that we decide to do together..
obviously, this includes as the target of an unpopular regulation or a barrel of a gun , presumably, ..
You doubt it, Remember Elian. ;-)
It was not intended to be original.
Depends entirely on other people’s decision of what “fair” is and what “things” they want to spend it on - it seems like both are totally out of kilter.
You got to keep that one arround, The house hasn’t fallen on Her yet.
Don’t know if you saw this, but yesterday, Henry “Nostrils” Waxman..was asked about the pending Dem loss in NY9..he said that “Jews” might vote against Dems because they wanted to keep their wealth..”
Yeah, as if any of the freeloading, floor-sweeping, high school dropout, welfare scamming, EIC-collecting, braindead democrat base is paying their fair share. If the bimbo really wants to raise taxes, how about raising them on the folks that aren't paying a single penny in federal income tax?
I agree for the most part, except where you say its being done ‘constitutionally’. I don’t think many taxes, laws, regulations, etc are being done constitutionally (and I think most FReepers agree). Instead there are things being done in spite of the constitution, most specifically wrt state and individual rights, through congressional and executive overreach.
However the elected and subsequent appointed officials are not challenging this unconstitutional behavior, so yes, we must vote them out. This includes our state legislatures, whose job, I feel, includes making challenges to the feds on states rights. Not to mention states should get out of the fed’s state welfare trough.
Senators should still be appointed by the state’s legislature. That was a major crime against the states and the original intent of the constitution.
But, apart from people who seem in some ways extreme (i.e., Ron Paul) I am always left feeling that most ‘viable’ political candidates give the constitutionality issues lip service.
This is why we do need a third party. But as I posted many months ago, the third party should only operate as a principled caucus within congress, and should NOT try to push for a presidential candidate, but get the GOP candidate to acknowledge and agree to act on their issues with constitutional violations.
and then there’s the SCOTUS
Do you have a sporkweasel in your pocket?
Yes. Property values are already based on “potential”.
If my $1600/acre farm land is re-zone to commercial, it is instantly valued at that rate, say $500,000 an acre. Luckily, most local government is still somewhat reasonable.
A wannabe slave master.
I think you need to pay your fair share for things weve decided are our national priorities,
“And taking your money is our highest priority”
Exactly. Notice how she said you instead of we?
Im waiting for the Dims to propose a potential tax
Potential taxation and fines are not a new concept. I admit to laziness here in that I did not go and find a few examples.
But yes, I have heard of judgments ranging from alimony and child support or lawsuits being gauged on how much *they* (whoever ‘they’ are) feel you could potentially earn.
Two possible problems with this are that it unequivocally punishes achievement and success while rewarding mediocrity and could establish a work-farm type situation where an individual is ‘forced’ to work and must make $100, 000 dollars or more per year. Enforcement of that could be tricky.
There is an Atlas Shrugged element to this kind of thinking. As the taxes, judgments, and settlements become more and more outrageous and in this case based at least partially on nonexistent income, some people just refuse to pay or refuse to work. (I believe OJ Simpson has been accused of this.) A doctor may close his practice, for example, simply because it is no longer profitable or justifiable to continue working.
What would the government do in that case...force him/her to work? I don’t know. We’ll see...
Dont know if you saw this, but yesterday, Henry Nostrils Waxman..”
It’s the Pig-Man, Jerry!
And a lying sack of excrement. I think that she, and all other democrats need an appointment with a lamp post and a rope.
Frankly, I think most of the middle class would like to keep their wealth~what is left of it :(
Eliminate “the positions of power” in the bureaucracy,
and eliminate the “power of the positions” in the Constitutional parts of the fedgov.
The only politician that can’t be bought is the one with nothing to sell.
That may indeed be what is needed in the way of a consequence for these elitists.
I don’t think they’ll take any other sort of lesson to heart and decide that they, indeed, DON’T know better than everyone else, and they, indeed, DON’T deserve to make our decisions for us.
I’m very pessimistic about the future of our experiment in self government.
No one ever asked me about supporting PBS or the Nauseating Endowment for the Arts
Supreme Court stated decades ago:
The power to tax is the power to destroy and to destroy completely.
None more power-crazed than the powers that be in Washington DC.