The Republican/Democrat Duopoly ~ A corrupt coin with two sides: Heads they win, tails We The People lose.
It's time to blaze a new path to America's future via a Third Party, patriots!
I suggest looking into the Constitution party, see if their values don't mirror yours more closley than those of the corrupt Duopoly whose current monopoly on power in the District of Criminals is ruining this nation from within, precisely as Abraham Lincoln predicted.
Bush Cheney Inc have left the building. Adults are back in charge. Let's hope it's not too late. The financial crisis is giving the rich people a taste of the screwing that the rest of us have been taking for the past 8 years. This song sums it up beautifully.
Getting screwed the last 8 years? How? because your tax cuts weren't has much as rich people's? Heres the facts buddy. the top 5 % of income earners in the US pay 89% of the taxes. So when EVERYONE gets a 3% tax cut, yes they get more back. That doesnt mean you got screwed that means they got returns inproportion to what they paid. THAT IS FAIR. If you have such a problem with america, then why dont you get the FUCK out!
If you take $1.10 dollars from say 100 million people who only have $10 (11%), but say 89% from a person who has 890 million - who's worse for wear? Honest question.
Now if you give everyone a 3% cut is it more fair to give 26.7 mil back to a guy, who even after 89% tax, still has 97.9 mil? Or should the percentage vary so that extra 26.7 mil is used to help the people who only have $8.90?
I see this as a fair comparison because the 400 richest Americans own more than the bottom 150 million.
Scarily enough I'd argue economic / social hysteresis happens when a small group of people own excessively more than the rest of the people (lets define this proportion as 1/375,000) and, unfortunately, we're at that number.
But your neglecting the fact that EVERYBODY, no matter if they're rich or poor have worked HARD for what they have. If we're going to treat people EQUALLY, then shouldnt everyone get an EQUAL tax cut regardless of income? Theres nothing wrong with people wanting to keep what they've earned. America isnt about equal outcomes, only EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES to pursue happiness. Meaning NO LEGAL barriers. It doesnt even mean that people are entitled to attend the same school (say harvard).
Lets assume for a moment everyone accepts America represents a land of 'equal opportunity' not 'equal outcome' (assuming a binary answer rather than shades of gray). Then you think it's healthy both socially and economically if one person accrues all wealth? There's significant historical precedence to answer that question factually.
Furthermore your point that "EVERYBODY, no matter if they're rich or poor ... work HARD for what they have" is erroneous.
The children of Sam Walton for instance did not earn their money they inherited it. The same is true of a lottery; others like Madoff steal; and another group gets money through welfare. Many people in fact do *not* work hard for what they have. In fact many simply earn a living through nepotism, sheer luck, deceit / abuse & social charity.
If we're to assume an economy has a total of 1 billion dollars GDP, as I used previously, & the govt provides a 3% tax cut per person. 1 person is wealthy (89% tax) while the remaining 100,000,000 are equal (11% tax).
Is it "EQUAL" to give 3% of $890 mil ($26.7 mil / 1) back to one person while giving $30 million / 100,000,000 (or _$0.30_) back to every other individual? Positive economics says this is fair. Normative economics shows differently (IE Amer. Revolution & Lord North in 1775)
you get back on what youve EARNED though. theres no reason to distinguish between people on the basis of WEALTH anymore than there is to distinguish on people on the basis of race! and dont tell me that crap about the "general welfare" clause. James Madison, one of our founding fathers said that it was to be interpretted NARROWLY, lest the WHOLE PURPOSE of the constitution be destroyed.
Since you didn't answer this question, "[Do] you think it's healthy both socially and economically if one person accrues all wealth?" Based on your philosophy of you get back what you earn, I'm going to assume you think it is. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you believe this to be true and you have a knowledge of US history. Then you would also know we declared our independence from England and went to war largely because of Sugar / Currency Act of 1764:
No its not healthy for one man to own all the wealth. But thats the GREAT thing about capitalism. Just like power corrupts, so does massive amounts of wealth. And when those people/companies become corrupt, THEY FAIL. Their destruction creates opportunities for people to rise up and reclaim their spot! THE WORST thing we could possibly have done was BAILED people out during this economic crisis. Is it painful in the short-term? Yes. But we'd be better off in the long-haul.
You're making an assumption that massive amounts of wealth cause failure. This is not evidenced by anything in history. Look at the Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, the list goes on. Wealth at a certain point begets more of it. Furthermore we have real world data showing the gap between those at the top vs. middle & bottom is getting larger and has been since at least 2000 (see OECD report).
I won't comment on the bail-out because its irrelevant to my point.
NO, not ALL people will fail! But just because they've been successful does not mean that they should be punished with an outrageous tax rate! And Just because they're more well off than others doesn't mean they dont deserve a tax break when EVERYONE ELSE is getting one! ESPECIALLY when 89% of the taxes in the nation are paid by the top 5%! And what are they going to do? RAISE THEM MORE!
>Just because they're more well off than others doesn't mean they dont deserve a tax break when EVERYONE ELSE is getting one! ESPECIALLY when 89% of the taxes in the nation are paid by the top 5%
Basically if you concede having all the money accumulated in the top is bad & you recognize that the ratio of 1 / 100,000,000 people is a comparable the to real-world 400 / 150,000,00 (less 0.375%) you see (3% tax break) $0.30 for poor vs 26.7 million / rich is valid.
>If you take $1.10 dollars from say 100 million people who only have $10 (11%), but say 89% from a person who has 890 million - who's worse for wear? Honest question.
You've made no argument to refute that there's any real-world data showing exceedingly wealthy people have failed or decreased in stature. Also as I've demonstrated inequity between economic social classes results in revolutions and will continue to do so.
YOU are missing the point. TAXATION should NOT be about who is made worse for wear; taxation has ONE purpose. REVENUE COLLECTING. And Russia has proved that you increase tax revenues AND tax compliance by going to a flat tax rate instead of an incremental tax bracket that the U.S. has. And by the way, their revenues increased 25% when they made the change and tax compliance went from the 70's to 95%! Its NOT the govts. business to regulate how much each person makes.
I find it amusing that you're capable of saying in one breath, "No its not healthy for one man to own all the wealth. But thats the GREAT thing about capitalism. ... when those people/companies become corrupt, THEY FAIL"
Yet when I counter that this scenario that you're purporting happens doesn't and you agree its non-existent (NO, not ALL people will fail! ) you reflexively fall back on, "Its NOT the govts. business to regulate how much each person makes."
Marxists have been predicting for 200 years that revolution would occur and it HASNT. Communism has FAILED. Socialism is being rejected by the EU. And i said NOT ALL rich people will fail. but some of them will (look at all the greedy banks and mortgage companies that are no longer around now! And how many MORE wouldnt be here if we hadn't bailed them out?!) That scenario is only non-existent because of the government interfering w/ market forces!
>Marxists have been predicting for 200 years that revolution would occur and it HASNT. Communism has FAILED.
Just because I don't buy in to unfettered market capitalism doesn't mean I believe in Marxism. I think competition is necessary and healthy. I simply believe there needs to be a ratio between the top and the bottom (look at what deregulation wrought on our markets). Perhaps something like defining "too much" by what's "too little," or as I stated earlier as 1 economic unit / 375,000.
If thats how you feel, then America is NOT the place for you because such decisions go against EVERYTHING we believe in.
WE Americans believe that ANYONE has the RIGHT AND FREEDOM to rise as HIGH as they want, or fall/fail and be as far down as they want. We believe that it is NOT the governments roll in the world to level the playing field and regulate people's paychecks.
I've heard this rhetoric before. I don't know about your family, but mine has fought for this country since its inception. There's a town in NY on Long Island named after my line. My lineage has easily put as much blood & sweat in to the creation of this country and more than most.
So when you say "WE" realize you mean you and others who think like you. Not everyone in the smorgasbord that represents the USA.
Thats fine. And when you can find the authority to do as you suggest IN THE CONSTITUTION, your more than welcome to lobby for that position. But the reality is that such authority is located NOWHERE in the constitution. The federalist papers and the constitution as a whole, along with the works of our forefathers would bode AGAINST it.
Luckily the United States has shown a great ability to adapt over the years despite various interpretations of the Constitution that were once considered immutable.
the last 100 years, the government has exceeded its bounds under the constitution though. Just because we've ADAPTED to it doesnt make it right. Such changes make the constitution LESS relevant. ITS OUR FOUNDING document. NOTHING should be above it. Supremity clause ring a bell? The constitution is not some toy that should be stretched to the point of breaking. Its flexible, but it was inteded to be flexible as we can AMEND it not interpret it in such ways that make it irrelevant
If the government has exceeded its bounds for the last 100 years then the people who voted them in to office have done nothing to correct this have they?
they have! The liberals were yelling about it during bush, and now the conservatives are yelling about it under Obama! Progressivism has invected BOTH parties. we dont really have a choice to choose a non-progressive candidate...we havent over the last 100 years, except for when Regan was elected( THE ONLY president to shrink the size of the federal govt in the last 100 years!)
So dealing with real-world data you have a choice. Continue to use positive economics as your platform for what's fair or use history as a benchmark to recognize that the inequity between those in the bottom vs those in the top has to be maintained by a certain golden ratio or the scales break, hysteresis occurs, & revolution ensues.
Tax's aren't punitive they're meant to retain this balance.
"Retain balance?" And by what means do you maintain this "balance?" By taking from one to give to the other! THAT IS punitive for those who you are taking from!
IT IS NOT the governments job to "maintain economical balance" amongst its people! The purpose of the government is very cear if you read the constitution AND the federalist papers.
1) National Defense
2) To make laws that the States cannot efficiently do themselves (those that effect inter-state activities
3) Provide for the "general welfare" of the people.
As I stated earlier, GENERAL WELFARE was meant to be interpretted NARROWLY (James Madison); meaning the govt would provide roads, fire/police services, and crucial infrastructure of that sort!
To interpret that clause otherwise would make the constitution 1) self defeating and would 2) Fundamentally/RADICALLY alter the republic.
>IT IS NOT the governments job to "maintain economical balance" amongst its people! The purpose of the government is very cear if you read the constitution AND the federalist papers.
Rather than looking at the function of government as outlined by the founding fathers you should consider what put these hallowed men in a position that they felt they had to fight *for* a new government. As I outlined earlier it was an economic motivation that caused the split between Britain and the colonies.
"The British did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of debt incurred during the French and Indian War, but they did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans. Estimating the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, the British goal after the end of this war was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this needed amount.
(cont) ... The issues with the colonists were both that __the taxes were high__ and that the colonies had no representation in the Parliament which passed the taxes. Lord North in 1775 argued for the British position that Englishmen paid on average twenty-five shillings annually in taxes whereas Americans paid only sixpence (the average Englishman, however, also earned quite a bit more while receiving more services directly from the government). ... (cont)
Colonists, however, as early as 1764, with respect to the Sugar Act, indicated that 'the margin of profit in rum was so small that molasses could bear no duty whatever.'"
Basically we know through a study of history that economic inequity at a certain point causes economical & social hystersis. This implies fundamentally there need to be a ratio maintained between the haves and the have-nots lest the entire system descend in to revolution (French Revolution; Weimar Republic 16.7 x cost-of-living-index increase & rise of Hitler; etc.)
Distinguishing between people of wealth is distinctly different from race because in the present-day race doesn't imply power over someone else (inequality of freedom in terms of gratis and libre). Having wealth _does_ imply power over another individual (limiting another persons freedom by means of gratis).
Furthermore you're moving the goal post, what is "EARNED" does not imply that the individual themselves "worked HARD" _to_ earn it.
Why does it matter how HARD you work for it? If you've spent an extra 8-10 years of your life educating yourself, WHO SAYS you should have to bust your ass to earn your money? Your putting YOUR DEGREES to work for you! And Im not arguing against taxes. Im saying that our tax system is more of a penal code than about generating revenue, (aka "leveling the playing field"). THAT is not an American value! we shouldnt tax production; We should tax consumption!
>Why does it matter how HARD you work for it? If you've spent an extra 8-10 years of your life educating yourself, WHO SAYS you should have to bust your ass to earn your money?
Earlier you stated, "EVERYBODY, no matter if they're rich or poor have worked HARD for what they have. If we're going to treat people EQUALLY, then shouldnt everyone get an EQUAL tax cut regardless of income?"
So which is it? Are we each putting in effort equally or not?
it IS equal work when you take into account the extra years people have put in for their degrees, so that as they get older, they dont HAVE to work as hard to keep boosting up their earning potential (Because their degrees are working for them). It basically IS equal work, but some people dont equate mental work/education the same as manual labor. And the added stress of having more responsibilities when you DO work. IT IS hard, but its not like laying bricks when your in your 50's.
You're misrepresenting my point. Basically we can show quite easily that a large number of exceedingly wealthy people put in less than what they actually do. I worked for Microsoft for a number of years and I know full well Bill's contribution to the company is disproportionate to his earnings. He didn't come up /w the idea for the OS. He simply bought it from a small software developer & resold it to IBM. He didn't come up with the idea of the Xbox, but did reap the benefits disproportionately.
Who cares what his earnings were in proportion to his work? Thats not the issue; its not HIS FAULT the people he bought those ideas from sold out at a lesser price. Thats THEIR problem.
there is an overpopulation crisis....the world will burn if nothing is done...use condoms, birth control, whatever to stop this...be smart and don't have kids....much more to life than reproducing
Higher taxes so we can get free health care and free education. I understand all you hicks want to stay in your trailers and all the urban ghetto want to stay in the projects and blaim the MAN,but the MAN now is part black.Look at Sweden,it works for them.Even though England and Canada is parliament,they're kinda socialists.They're just fine.They're not uptight like us spoiled bastards in the states.
EVERY BODY SING-ALONG!...What's that Bush? You don't know the tune, well don't worry about it, cos everybody knows that you've been out of tune (with the people & the economy) for years!
Stupidity
rgpalacios 3 months ago
The Republican/Democrat Duopoly ~ A corrupt coin with two sides: Heads they win, tails We The People lose.
It's time to blaze a new path to America's future via a Third Party, patriots!
I suggest looking into the Constitution party, see if their values don't mirror yours more closley than those of the corrupt Duopoly whose current monopoly on power in the District of Criminals is ruining this nation from within, precisely as Abraham Lincoln predicted.
Mogtepyigsoloth 9 months ago
Hoping for Change were you?
gsuitter 1 year ago
modern day Dylan
Thedayrecker 2 years ago
Bush Cheney Inc have left the building. Adults are back in charge. Let's hope it's not too late. The financial crisis is giving the rich people a taste of the screwing that the rest of us have been taking for the past 8 years. This song sums it up beautifully.
globeheadx 3 years ago 2
Now lets hang the rest of the GOP just in case those basturds ever get back in charge!!!!
klamp54 3 years ago
Getting screwed the last 8 years? How? because your tax cuts weren't has much as rich people's? Heres the facts buddy. the top 5 % of income earners in the US pay 89% of the taxes. So when EVERYONE gets a 3% tax cut, yes they get more back. That doesnt mean you got screwed that means they got returns inproportion to what they paid. THAT IS FAIR. If you have such a problem with america, then why dont you get the FUCK out!
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
If you take $1.10 dollars from say 100 million people who only have $10 (11%), but say 89% from a person who has 890 million - who's worse for wear? Honest question.
Now if you give everyone a 3% cut is it more fair to give 26.7 mil back to a guy, who even after 89% tax, still has 97.9 mil? Or should the percentage vary so that extra 26.7 mil is used to help the people who only have $8.90?
I see this as a fair comparison because the 400 richest Americans own more than the bottom 150 million.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Scarily enough I'd argue economic / social hysteresis happens when a small group of people own excessively more than the rest of the people (lets define this proportion as 1/375,000) and, unfortunately, we're at that number.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
But your neglecting the fact that EVERYBODY, no matter if they're rich or poor have worked HARD for what they have. If we're going to treat people EQUALLY, then shouldnt everyone get an EQUAL tax cut regardless of income? Theres nothing wrong with people wanting to keep what they've earned. America isnt about equal outcomes, only EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES to pursue happiness. Meaning NO LEGAL barriers. It doesnt even mean that people are entitled to attend the same school (say harvard).
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
Lets assume for a moment everyone accepts America represents a land of 'equal opportunity' not 'equal outcome' (assuming a binary answer rather than shades of gray). Then you think it's healthy both socially and economically if one person accrues all wealth? There's significant historical precedence to answer that question factually.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Furthermore your point that "EVERYBODY, no matter if they're rich or poor ... work HARD for what they have" is erroneous.
The children of Sam Walton for instance did not earn their money they inherited it. The same is true of a lottery; others like Madoff steal; and another group gets money through welfare. Many people in fact do *not* work hard for what they have. In fact many simply earn a living through nepotism, sheer luck, deceit / abuse & social charity.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
If we're to assume an economy has a total of 1 billion dollars GDP, as I used previously, & the govt provides a 3% tax cut per person. 1 person is wealthy (89% tax) while the remaining 100,000,000 are equal (11% tax).
Is it "EQUAL" to give 3% of $890 mil ($26.7 mil / 1) back to one person while giving $30 million / 100,000,000 (or _$0.30_) back to every other individual? Positive economics says this is fair. Normative economics shows differently (IE Amer. Revolution & Lord North in 1775)
Xtraeme 2 years ago
you get back on what youve EARNED though. theres no reason to distinguish between people on the basis of WEALTH anymore than there is to distinguish on people on the basis of race! and dont tell me that crap about the "general welfare" clause. James Madison, one of our founding fathers said that it was to be interpretted NARROWLY, lest the WHOLE PURPOSE of the constitution be destroyed.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
Since you didn't answer this question, "[Do] you think it's healthy both socially and economically if one person accrues all wealth?" Based on your philosophy of you get back what you earn, I'm going to assume you think it is. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you believe this to be true and you have a knowledge of US history. Then you would also know we declared our independence from England and went to war largely because of Sugar / Currency Act of 1764:
Xtraeme 2 years ago
No its not healthy for one man to own all the wealth. But thats the GREAT thing about capitalism. Just like power corrupts, so does massive amounts of wealth. And when those people/companies become corrupt, THEY FAIL. Their destruction creates opportunities for people to rise up and reclaim their spot! THE WORST thing we could possibly have done was BAILED people out during this economic crisis. Is it painful in the short-term? Yes. But we'd be better off in the long-haul.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
You're making an assumption that massive amounts of wealth cause failure. This is not evidenced by anything in history. Look at the Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, the list goes on. Wealth at a certain point begets more of it. Furthermore we have real world data showing the gap between those at the top vs. middle & bottom is getting larger and has been since at least 2000 (see OECD report).
I won't comment on the bail-out because its irrelevant to my point.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
NO, not ALL people will fail! But just because they've been successful does not mean that they should be punished with an outrageous tax rate! And Just because they're more well off than others doesn't mean they dont deserve a tax break when EVERYONE ELSE is getting one! ESPECIALLY when 89% of the taxes in the nation are paid by the top 5%! And what are they going to do? RAISE THEM MORE!
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
You're using circular logic.
>Just because they're more well off than others doesn't mean they dont deserve a tax break when EVERYONE ELSE is getting one! ESPECIALLY when 89% of the taxes in the nation are paid by the top 5%
Basically if you concede having all the money accumulated in the top is bad & you recognize that the ratio of 1 / 100,000,000 people is a comparable the to real-world 400 / 150,000,00 (less 0.375%) you see (3% tax break) $0.30 for poor vs 26.7 million / rich is valid.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Then we return to the original question:
>If you take $1.10 dollars from say 100 million people who only have $10 (11%), but say 89% from a person who has 890 million - who's worse for wear? Honest question.
You've made no argument to refute that there's any real-world data showing exceedingly wealthy people have failed or decreased in stature. Also as I've demonstrated inequity between economic social classes results in revolutions and will continue to do so.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
YOU are missing the point. TAXATION should NOT be about who is made worse for wear; taxation has ONE purpose. REVENUE COLLECTING. And Russia has proved that you increase tax revenues AND tax compliance by going to a flat tax rate instead of an incremental tax bracket that the U.S. has. And by the way, their revenues increased 25% when they made the change and tax compliance went from the 70's to 95%! Its NOT the govts. business to regulate how much each person makes.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
I find it amusing that you're capable of saying in one breath, "No its not healthy for one man to own all the wealth. But thats the GREAT thing about capitalism. ... when those people/companies become corrupt, THEY FAIL"
Yet when I counter that this scenario that you're purporting happens doesn't and you agree its non-existent (NO, not ALL people will fail! ) you reflexively fall back on, "Its NOT the govts. business to regulate how much each person makes."
Revolution it is.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Marxists have been predicting for 200 years that revolution would occur and it HASNT. Communism has FAILED. Socialism is being rejected by the EU. And i said NOT ALL rich people will fail. but some of them will (look at all the greedy banks and mortgage companies that are no longer around now! And how many MORE wouldnt be here if we hadn't bailed them out?!) That scenario is only non-existent because of the government interfering w/ market forces!
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
>Marxists have been predicting for 200 years that revolution would occur and it HASNT. Communism has FAILED.
Just because I don't buy in to unfettered market capitalism doesn't mean I believe in Marxism. I think competition is necessary and healthy. I simply believe there needs to be a ratio between the top and the bottom (look at what deregulation wrought on our markets). Perhaps something like defining "too much" by what's "too little," or as I stated earlier as 1 economic unit / 375,000.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
If thats how you feel, then America is NOT the place for you because such decisions go against EVERYTHING we believe in.
WE Americans believe that ANYONE has the RIGHT AND FREEDOM to rise as HIGH as they want, or fall/fail and be as far down as they want. We believe that it is NOT the governments roll in the world to level the playing field and regulate people's paychecks.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
I've heard this rhetoric before. I don't know about your family, but mine has fought for this country since its inception. There's a town in NY on Long Island named after my line. My lineage has easily put as much blood & sweat in to the creation of this country and more than most.
So when you say "WE" realize you mean you and others who think like you. Not everyone in the smorgasbord that represents the USA.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Thats fine. And when you can find the authority to do as you suggest IN THE CONSTITUTION, your more than welcome to lobby for that position. But the reality is that such authority is located NOWHERE in the constitution. The federalist papers and the constitution as a whole, along with the works of our forefathers would bode AGAINST it.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
Luckily the United States has shown a great ability to adapt over the years despite various interpretations of the Constitution that were once considered immutable.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
the last 100 years, the government has exceeded its bounds under the constitution though. Just because we've ADAPTED to it doesnt make it right. Such changes make the constitution LESS relevant. ITS OUR FOUNDING document. NOTHING should be above it. Supremity clause ring a bell? The constitution is not some toy that should be stretched to the point of breaking. Its flexible, but it was inteded to be flexible as we can AMEND it not interpret it in such ways that make it irrelevant
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
If the government has exceeded its bounds for the last 100 years then the people who voted them in to office have done nothing to correct this have they?
Xtraeme 2 years ago
they have! The liberals were yelling about it during bush, and now the conservatives are yelling about it under Obama! Progressivism has invected BOTH parties. we dont really have a choice to choose a non-progressive candidate...we havent over the last 100 years, except for when Regan was elected( THE ONLY president to shrink the size of the federal govt in the last 100 years!)
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
So dealing with real-world data you have a choice. Continue to use positive economics as your platform for what's fair or use history as a benchmark to recognize that the inequity between those in the bottom vs those in the top has to be maintained by a certain golden ratio or the scales break, hysteresis occurs, & revolution ensues.
Tax's aren't punitive they're meant to retain this balance.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
"Retain balance?" And by what means do you maintain this "balance?" By taking from one to give to the other! THAT IS punitive for those who you are taking from!
IT IS NOT the governments job to "maintain economical balance" amongst its people! The purpose of the government is very cear if you read the constitution AND the federalist papers.
1) National Defense
2) To make laws that the States cannot efficiently do themselves (those that effect inter-state activities
(continued)
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
3) Provide for the "general welfare" of the people.
As I stated earlier, GENERAL WELFARE was meant to be interpretted NARROWLY (James Madison); meaning the govt would provide roads, fire/police services, and crucial infrastructure of that sort!
To interpret that clause otherwise would make the constitution 1) self defeating and would 2) Fundamentally/RADICALLY alter the republic.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
>IT IS NOT the governments job to "maintain economical balance" amongst its people! The purpose of the government is very cear if you read the constitution AND the federalist papers.
Rather than looking at the function of government as outlined by the founding fathers you should consider what put these hallowed men in a position that they felt they had to fight *for* a new government. As I outlined earlier it was an economic motivation that caused the split between Britain and the colonies.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
"The British did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of debt incurred during the French and Indian War, but they did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans. Estimating the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, the British goal after the end of this war was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this needed amount.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
(cont) ... The issues with the colonists were both that __the taxes were high__ and that the colonies had no representation in the Parliament which passed the taxes. Lord North in 1775 argued for the British position that Englishmen paid on average twenty-five shillings annually in taxes whereas Americans paid only sixpence (the average Englishman, however, also earned quite a bit more while receiving more services directly from the government). ... (cont)
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Colonists, however, as early as 1764, with respect to the Sugar Act, indicated that 'the margin of profit in rum was so small that molasses could bear no duty whatever.'"
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Basically we know through a study of history that economic inequity at a certain point causes economical & social hystersis. This implies fundamentally there need to be a ratio maintained between the haves and the have-nots lest the entire system descend in to revolution (French Revolution; Weimar Republic 16.7 x cost-of-living-index increase & rise of Hitler; etc.)
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Distinguishing between people of wealth is distinctly different from race because in the present-day race doesn't imply power over someone else (inequality of freedom in terms of gratis and libre). Having wealth _does_ imply power over another individual (limiting another persons freedom by means of gratis).
Furthermore you're moving the goal post, what is "EARNED" does not imply that the individual themselves "worked HARD" _to_ earn it.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Why does it matter how HARD you work for it? If you've spent an extra 8-10 years of your life educating yourself, WHO SAYS you should have to bust your ass to earn your money? Your putting YOUR DEGREES to work for you! And Im not arguing against taxes. Im saying that our tax system is more of a penal code than about generating revenue, (aka "leveling the playing field"). THAT is not an American value! we shouldnt tax production; We should tax consumption!
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
In reply to:
>Why does it matter how HARD you work for it? If you've spent an extra 8-10 years of your life educating yourself, WHO SAYS you should have to bust your ass to earn your money?
Earlier you stated, "EVERYBODY, no matter if they're rich or poor have worked HARD for what they have. If we're going to treat people EQUALLY, then shouldnt everyone get an EQUAL tax cut regardless of income?"
So which is it? Are we each putting in effort equally or not?
Xtraeme 2 years ago
it IS equal work when you take into account the extra years people have put in for their degrees, so that as they get older, they dont HAVE to work as hard to keep boosting up their earning potential (Because their degrees are working for them). It basically IS equal work, but some people dont equate mental work/education the same as manual labor. And the added stress of having more responsibilities when you DO work. IT IS hard, but its not like laying bricks when your in your 50's.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
I guess to make myself MORE clear, it is EQUAL work, its just distributed differently throughout the persons life.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
You're misrepresenting my point. Basically we can show quite easily that a large number of exceedingly wealthy people put in less than what they actually do. I worked for Microsoft for a number of years and I know full well Bill's contribution to the company is disproportionate to his earnings. He didn't come up /w the idea for the OS. He simply bought it from a small software developer & resold it to IBM. He didn't come up with the idea of the Xbox, but did reap the benefits disproportionately.
Xtraeme 2 years ago
Who cares what his earnings were in proportion to his work? Thats not the issue; its not HIS FAULT the people he bought those ideas from sold out at a lesser price. Thats THEIR problem.
cameltoejoe69 2 years ago
there is an overpopulation crisis....the world will burn if nothing is done...use condoms, birth control, whatever to stop this...be smart and don't have kids....much more to life than reproducing
playboy414 3 years ago
Joe the plumber says don't vote for a Socialist.
WB3CAI 3 years ago
What wrong with socialism???
A little bit higher taxes???
Higher taxes so we can get free health care and free education. I understand all you hicks want to stay in your trailers and all the urban ghetto want to stay in the projects and blaim the MAN,but the MAN now is part black.Look at Sweden,it works for them.Even though England and Canada is parliament,they're kinda socialists.They're just fine.They're not uptight like us spoiled bastards in the states.
china1013 3 years ago
Obama 08
Rocknrobin818 3 years ago
Who, disguised as a mild mannered school teacher, becomes, with a bag over his head, Acerbic Area Man???
Right on, bro!
josecanuzzi 3 years ago
Very entertaining, and youse guys are HOT. Where have I heard you before?
Slaydough 3 years ago
EVERY BODY SING-ALONG!...What's that Bush? You don't know the tune, well don't worry about it, cos everybody knows that you've been out of tune (with the people & the economy) for years!
12235117657598502586 3 years ago 2
Pretty much sums it up!
uctup 3 years ago 3