Skip to comments.Pelosi on Unemployment Benefits Extension: I’d rather not pay for it
Posted on 02/06/2012 11:48:21 AM PST by Pacothecat
Pelosi: 'I Don't Want To Pay For It...Surcharge' The Rich For Doctors Visits and Unemployment Benefits
she is the rich.
Congress is covered by the current law. The FTC has said as much.
Please Lord a 15 on the Rickter(sp?) Scale Earthquake for 15 Minutes Epicenter-Fisherman’s Wharf while she is in the district get rid of Her, Boxer and Feinstein and thier WORTHLESS District @ the SAME time!
I propose the following. A 100% tax on every dollar a politician and spouse make about the base salary for their position.
I musta missed that part in the Constitution that says “tax the rich and give it to the parasitic multitudes”.
I just need 3weeks.
I’m leaving this hell hole for North Carolina for good with my family. California lost yet another taxpaying family.
Whatever happened to “equal protection” under law?
Yes, that's one of her (and Warren Buffett's) talking points. So what?
We used to let charitable organizations help the needy when and where they determined help was needed.
But, since the SCOTUS decided "promote the general welfare" means Congress can do just about anything it damn well pleases, charities (and the accountability they naturally exercise) will soon be relics of a bygone era.
Yes, but remember, the "Law" does not apply to Dems. /sarcasm>
Not sure that applies here. No doubt the libs deem this to be more like the progressive income tax rates where the "rich" get to pay more than do "working families" (in Dem-speak).
Years of botox use has finally destroyed what few brain cells Pelosi had left. Unfortunately she keeps on getting re-elected because the district that she represents are a bunch of far left whack job kooks. Hey Nancy, I got news for ya, you are RICH, I say we raid her wallet and just go nuts
If you’re headed to the Charlotte region, might I suggest you locate just across the border in South Carolina? Lower income tax, no estate tax, lower property & sales taxes & lower motor-fuels taxes. Unfortunately, NC in general, and Charlotte specifically is being over-run by liberals, and they’ve never seen a tax they haven’t liked.
No problem. That's why we have the SCOTUS--to show us what we missed!
Welcome to the oligarchy, where any 5 robed oligarchs can rule supreme over the unwashed masses.
It’s actually the Commerce Clause that is used expansively, but your point is well taken. It has given us the war on poverty and the war on drugs, which many here shamelessly support.
You’re not rich because of superior intellect or inovation.
You’re rich because you are corrupt!
Why don’t we impose a 90% tax on folks like you?
What if the rich leave the country, Nancy. Then what? Because YOU are driving them out.
Hmmm? Then what?
Imagine all these people needing help ..and no “rich” to pay for it.
No middle class either.
Nancy, you STINK. BADLY.
Please do not make up your own title or alter published titles.
Yeah, but since she “speaks lib” she gets a pass, or thinks she should.
Funny how these people impute righteousness on themselves.
[Real] Christians understand that our righteousness is imputed on us by faith in Christ.
Most religions of the world “earn” righteousness by their works.
And liberals impute righteousness by mere advocacy.
I like the idea of imposing a “congressional inverse tax” on members of Congress. It would work like this:
For every percent the tax rate of ANY segment of the American taxpaying populace is increased, the salary of each member of Congress WHO VOTED FOR IT and of each of their staff is reduced by like percentage. The only vote counted for this purpose is the final vote and excludes any previous votes on measures later amended prior to the final vote.
Conversely, To be “fair” and to provide an incentive for tax cuts, the same would result in the reverse, with a “twist”. For every percent the tax rate of EVERY segment of the American taxpaying populace (across the board) is decreased, the salary of each member of Congress and of each of their staff is increased by like percentage
So, for example, a 6% increase in capital gains tax (from 15% to 21%) would result in a 6% decrease in salary of each member of Congress who voted for it (and a 6% decrease in salary of the members of their staff).
Alternatively, for example, a 6% decrease in capital gains tax (from 15% to 9%) would result in a 6% increase in salary of each member of Congress WHO VOTED FOR IT as well as a 6% increase in salary of each member of their staff (those who voted against the cut, and their staff, would receive a decrease in salary).
For example, if the capital gains tax rate is eliminated altogether would result in a 15% increase in salary for those who voted for the reduction (and a 15% decrease in salary for those who voted against the cut).
This would apply only when a tax measure is actually enacted into law. If Congress has to overrides a presidential veto to enact such a tax measure, the President would have his/her salary increased or decreased accordingly (effective the date of the veto override vote). If the President simply signs the measure, then his/her salary remains unchanged and we thank him/her for cooperating.
This bold plan would mean that when Congress enacts a tax measure that benefits the people, they are rewarded. And, when Congress enacts a tax measure that harms the people, they are harmed financially as well.
I realize that most Democrats (and many RINOs) would never agree to such a notion (and the law of unintended consequences would probably be invoked in a way that would cause me to pull down this proposal), but it is fun to contemplate such a scenario.
Raleigh area, which I hear is fairly liberal, but that can’t possibly be more liberal than the Gay Area.
If that’s true, I’m sure the FTC has been told they will look the other way if they want to keep their jobs.
Democrat voters below: