# [POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes



## tooAlive

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

_Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_ 

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.


----------



## Rozman

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.




Good luck...I have asked this same question here for some time now.


----------



## BallsBrunswick

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.


----------



## tooAlive

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



Poll is up, ladies and gents. Be sure to cast your votes. Unlike our elections, these actually count. JK. 

And we can agree on that, BB. ^^


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it. 

The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number. 

The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.


----------



## tooAlive

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a &#8216;fair share &#8216; or some &#8216;specific number.&#8217;
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of &#8216;trickle-down economics,&#8217; where *taxes are lowered for high-income earners*, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


What country are you speaking of?

Tax rates here in the US _go up_ as your income goes up. Not down.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's up to Obama to decide what we need to live on


----------



## t_polkow

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.


CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress


----------



## boedicca

A few years ago, a politician in Pleasanton CA was asked this question, and he answered 90%.


----------



## tooAlive

t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent &#8212; the top rate during the 1990s &#8212; annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress



Now tell me how many people actually forked over 91% of any portion of their income to the government.

Also, please find me someone that is willing to work for .10 cents on the dollar. I want to hire them.


----------



## boedicca

Nobody.  There were loopholes and the progressives always forget INFLATION.

Back in 1956, that 90% tax rate was on incomes over $2.5M in today's dollars.  That's a far cry from the Billionaire and Millionaires who make $250K today.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Fair share is what the government says it is. If you disagree it's because you are an ignorant xenophobic racist too busy conducting a war on women to comprehend the necessity of governmental theft to help those who have been robbed.


----------



## blackhawk

No one knows what a fair share is it's just a talking point used to promote class warfare for political gain.


----------



## boedicca

blackhawk said:


> No one knows what a fair share is it's just a talking point used to promote class warfare for political gain.




In general, Fair Share means somebody else should pay more.


----------



## Glensather

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



24%, just because I like being contrary, and it's a weird number.


----------



## The Professor

tooAlive said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a &#8216;fair share &#8216; or some &#8216;specific number.&#8217;
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of &#8216;trickle-down economics,&#8217; where *taxes are lowered for high-income earners*, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What country are you speaking of?
> 
> Tax rates here in the US _go up_ as your income goes up. Not down.
Click to expand...


I meant to give you a positive rep and somehow it came up as a neg.  This has happened to me before and I  can't explain it.

I don't know how to undo it, so I will make it up to you.

Please forgive.


----------



## nitroz

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



Fair share = flat rate


----------



## The Professor

QUESTION:

I tried to give tooAlive a positive rep.  I did everything I was supposed to do but it came up as a neg.  The same thing happened to me  a few months back with PoliiticalChic.

Can someone explain to me what in the hell is going on???

MODS:  There is something wrong with the system.  Please fix it.


----------



## tooAlive

The Professor said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where *taxes are lowered for high-income earners*, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country are you speaking of?
> 
> Tax rates here in the US _go up_ as your income goes up. Not down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant to give you a positive rep and somehow it came up as a neg.  This has happened to me before and I  can't explain it.
> 
> I don't know how to undo it, so I will make it up to you.
> 
> Please forgive.
Click to expand...


No worries my friend, it's all good.


----------



## blackhawk

boedicca said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows what a fair share is it's just a talking point used to promote class warfare for political gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In general, Fair Share means somebody else should pay more.
Click to expand...


That is probably the most accurate description of fair share this thread will see.


----------



## Gadawg73

With liberals they talk the BS about everyone should pay their "fair share" but in reality what they really want is for them and their government leaders to be the THE SOLE DETERMINERS of what is "fair" and what is not "fair". 
And after they have determined that then everyone else must have money that they earned to be plundered and stolen by force by the government to give to someone else.
All because they want to be "fair".


----------



## Billo_Really

Fair share is not paying a lesser rate than me.


----------



## blackhawk

Fair share is everyone but you paying more.


----------



## tooAlive

blackhawk said:


> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.



Gotta give the libs props for being honest.


----------



## Gadawg73

Billo_Really said:


> Fair share is not paying a lesser rate than me.



The tax code with it's 56,000 pages of special interest "law" is the problem.
If you are really interested in giving the power back to the people and MOST IMPORTANTLY, stripping it from politicians then you OPPOSE the tax code. It alone was written to benefit the politicians and the carrot it allows them to dangle in front of special interest groups.
56,000 pages to prove it. 1200 more this year.

*FAIR TAX*


----------



## thereisnospoon

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



You'll never get a straight answer.
Libs who scream 'fair share' have bought into class envy and class warfare.
Libs who are a part of the class envy crowd turn to government because that is where taxation begins. Libs will scream, pray cajole even demand their liberal leadership "please do something to get rid of these rich people. And if you cannot get rid of them, at least take their money. Because they don't deserve it."
The reality is libs do not view taxation as a means to raise revenue. They view taxation as a way to punish those who make _them_ uncomfortable.


----------



## KissMy

I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.


----------



## Gadawg73

Who determines what is "fair"?


----------



## Gadawg73

It is always fair to a liberal when you can plunder money from people to give it to other people that they alone determined needed  the money more than the person that worked hard and earned it. 

Doesn't sound very fair at all to me. Goes against everything I learned as a child.

Life is not fair and when it isn't you do not go around bitching about it demanding that someone else give you money that they earned from their own hard work.


----------



## thereisnospoon

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


Oh bullshit. You don't get to use the term 'fair share' if you are not willing to say what the 
'share' is...


----------



## tooAlive

KissMy said:


> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.



Excellent. We have another supporter of the flat tax.


----------



## blackhawk

Fair share is all liberals claiming the rich don't pay their fair share paying more.


----------



## eagle1462010

Riddle me this.....................

Why would Liberals be against a FLAT TAX or FAIR TAX?  No loop holes, you pay the percentage and your done.  Send a post card in to the IRS at the end of year for a Tax Return.  Americans wouldn't have to worry about the 10's of THOUSANDS OF PAGES of REGULATIONS currently on the books.

I file my own taxes, and can do it very quickly, but I'd rather just send a post card in and be done with it.  It would also allow us to CUT THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AS WE WOULDN'T NEED SO MANY IN THE IRS ANYMORE....................

Ooops.  I just answered my own RIDDLE.


----------



## thereisnospoon

t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress



High taxes do not stem economic growth. 
EVER.
Think progress is a liberal blog that has a far left wing agenda and ZERO credibility.
BTW, those wealthy people that thinkprogress oays to put their point of view on the internet are the very same people they are targeting. 
Now I know why tigers eat their young.


----------



## thereisnospoon

t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress



Gee, why don'r they just go French and take it all?
Ya know what your FAIL is? When you run out of people and things to tax for your socialist central planning bullshit, you collapse the country. See "the Eurozone"..


----------



## thereisnospoon

blackhawk said:


> No one knows what a fair share is it's just a talking point used to promote class warfare for political gain.



You get repped for that!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon

KissMy said:


> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.



Your say so isn't good enough. Provide some data.


----------



## KissMy

thereisnospoon said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your say so isn't good enough. Provide some data.
Click to expand...


Through income tax alone the middle class pays the highest effective tax rate. When you add in payroll taxes the middle class gets completely screwed. Income tax facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. In 2007 once you start making $2 million a year your effective tax rates go down & you are being subsidized. Workers making $200K were paying higher effective income tax rates than billionaires. That is before adding in payroll taxes that make the rates even worse.


----------



## LoneLaugher

There seems to be some concern for the breadth and scope of the tax code on the part of conservatives here. Perhaps they should stop voting for legislators who insist on keeping the code complicated. 

A progressive tax system can be very simple and easy to manage. If you don't have all the ways for wealthy people to avoid paying up that is.


----------



## thereisnospoon

KissMy said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your say so isn't good enough. Provide some data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Through income tax alone the middle class pays the highest effective tax rate. When you add in payroll taxes the middle class gets completely screwed. Income tax facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. In 2007 once you start making $2 million a year your effective tax rates go down & you are being subsidized. Workers making $200K were paying higher effective income tax rates than billionaires. That is before adding in payroll taxes that make the rates even worse.
Click to expand...


No matter. The top 10% of all earners pay 40% of the federal tax burden. The top 25% pay well over 70% of the federal tax burden.
The problem is not revenue. The problem is SPENDING...There is too much of it. 
The fact that a measly $85 bln of a total continuing resolution( remember, there is no federal budget right now) of over $3 trillion caused such a ruckus. There is just far too much dependency on government. 
The other fact ignored is there were NO CUTS in the sequester. Only reductions in increases. Which the libs call a "cut"...
No, you guys get plenty. Your side needs to figure out good stewardship of the people's money before you can ask for more.


----------



## KissMy

thereisnospoon said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your say so isn't good enough. Provide some data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through income tax alone the middle class pays the highest effective tax rate. When you add in payroll taxes the middle class gets completely screwed. Income tax facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. In 2007 once you start making $2 million a year your effective tax rates go down & you are being subsidized. Workers making $200K were paying higher effective income tax rates than billionaires. That is before adding in payroll taxes that make the rates even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter. The top 10% of all earners pay 40% of the federal tax burden. The top 25% pay well over 70% of the federal tax burden.
> The problem is not revenue. The problem is SPENDING...There is too much of it.
> The fact that a measly $85 bln of a total continuing resolution( remember, there is no federal budget right now) of over $3 trillion caused such a ruckus. There is just far too much dependency on government.
> The other fact ignored is there were NO CUTS in the sequester. Only reductions in increases. Which the libs call a "cut"...
> No, you guys get plenty. Your side needs to figure out good stewardship of the people's money before you can ask for more.
Click to expand...


I warned you in this post "If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field."

You have clearly demonstrated you are to retarded to understand subsidies or tax codes!  You are clueless as to how the tax code made all the capital, investment & wealth flow to the rich because their lower effective tax rate & exemption from payroll tax generated greater return on investment than others could.  You don't have the mental capacity to understand.

I never asked for more revenue, only less from the upper middle class in order to stop the $2 million & above income from paying lower rates than us who are subsidizing them.


----------



## jgarden

> Acts 4:31-35  The Believers Share Their Possessions
> 
> 31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
> 
> 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
> 
> 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God&#8217;s grace was so powerfully at work in them all
> 
> 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
> 
> 35 and put it at the apostles&#8217; feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.


 
*- they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

- all the believers were one in heart and mind. 

- no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but 

- they shared everything they had.

-  there were no needy persons among them

-  it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need


Only in America, could a method of "sharing" devised while under the influence of the Holy Spirit be considered "subversive!"*


----------



## editec

> Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?



Like there's some magic number that fits for every occasion and circumstance?

You don't suppose the taxes might need to higher say in Dec 8th 1941 than they might have been on some other date?

Are you sock-puppet  cons _really_ as stupid as you play here in the net?

Frankly, I cannot believe anyone who posts here is _that stupid_


----------



## NYcarbineer

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



Progressive taxation of income is fair because it taxes money most likely to be used for necessities less than it taxes money most likely to be used for luxuries.

Put another way, if you think that having a sales tax that taxes bread at the same rate as liquor, then you like the idea of a flat tax.

If you think that poorer Americans are undertaxed and richer Americans are overtaxed, then you like the idea of a flat tax.  

The single most important change in going from a progressive tax to a flat tax, all else being equal, is that lower income Americans would pay a bigger share of the overall tax burden and upper income Americans would pay a smaller share.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress




Take a good look at what you could write off in the 50s.

I hear this all the time from lieberals.    It's bullshit.  

Sure the rates were high, but no one paid them.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Most of your life has been one long  tax cut:

The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households


----------



## velvtacheeze

For the rich and corporations, more.


----------



## rightwinger

Let's start with pre-Reagan tax rates and see how it goes


----------



## Crackerjaxon

jgarden said:


> Acts 4:31-35  The Believers Share Their Possessions
> 
> 31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
> 
> 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
> 
> 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all
> 
> 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
> 
> 35 and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *- they were all filled with the Holy Spirit
> 
> - all the believers were one in heart and mind.
> 
> - no one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but
> 
> - they shared everything they had.
> 
> -  there were no needy persons among them
> 
> -  it (money) was distributed to anyone who had need
> 
> 
> Only in America, could a method of "sharing" devised while under the influence of the Holy Spirit be considered "subversive!"*
Click to expand...



When America comes under the influence of the Holy Spirit, we'll see what happens, no?


Matthew 4: 5-7


5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.


----------



## midcan5

Lots of information below - but why do conservatives and republicans ask this question over and over again as it they were lackeys for the rich? When did America become a place where every swinging dick cries for the rich and their tax burden? What a wacky twisted world we live in when the working poor and the jobless are looked down on and the rich worshiped.  Christianity in reverse. Why do you wingnuts worry so much about the rich? I can tell you straight out they don't give a flying fuck for you. Brainwashed puppets all.

*"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners.* In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


*Reagan raised taxes many times, should we take his example?*
http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/126617-reagan-and-taxes.html

"The economic growth that actually followed &#8212; indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years &#8212; offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html


*"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."* Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
The rich get rich because of their merit.

*And please don't tell us the rich create jobs, they don't. * http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...-america-s-best-president-16.html#post7311573


Matthew 25:34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'"


_


----------



## Crackerjaxon

NYcarbineer said:


> Most of your life has been one long  tax cut:
> 
> The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).
> 
> Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households




Yes, because a lot of people pay no federal income tax at all.

My, what a misleading statistic.


----------



## Old Rocks

tooAlive said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where *taxes are lowered for high-income earners*, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What country are you speaking of?
> 
> Tax rates here in the US _go up_ as your income goes up. Not down.
Click to expand...


And you are totally full of shit. That is why Romney paid 13% on his income? Because his tax rate is less than mine? The very wealthy pay 1/2 to 1/3 of the percentage rate the rest of us do. Simple fact. They should pay a real higher percentage rate, as the system is working very good for them, they should pay back into the system. 

The result of the present tax rates are that the very wealthy continue to recieve an ever higher percentage of the wealth of the nation, while the middle class slowly slides into the class of the working poor.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MMfdpn6FUM]Shocking Video!! how wealth is distributed in the US!! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

The Professor said:


> QUESTION:
> 
> I tried to give tooAlive a positive rep.  I did everything I was supposed to do but it came up as a neg.  The same thing happened to me  a few months back with PoliiticalChic.
> 
> Can someone explain to me what in the hell is going on???
> 
> MODS:  There is something wrong with the system.  Please fix it.



A larger power appears to be at work. One who understands.


----------



## LoneLaugher

This thread is THE ONE, ladies and gentlemen. After going over this so many times for all these years with these same people, this is finally it! The conservatives clammoring for a flat tax and whining about how progressive taxes are bad will finally read and comprehend the information that we are giving them!

The facts will penetrate the wall of stupid and we will hear a great sound of hot air being released from the nutter bubble! This one is THE ONE! 

I am sure of it!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Crackerjaxon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your life has been one long  tax cut:
> 
> The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).
> 
> Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because a lot of people pay no federal income tax at all.
> 
> My, what a misleading statistic.
Click to expand...


Why is it misleading?  The effective tax rate for the richest Americans has fallen along with everyone else's.


----------



## Gadawg73

NYcarbineer said:


> Most of your life has been one long  tax cut:
> 
> The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).
> 
> Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households



Average is NOT all Americans.
Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.


----------



## Gadawg73

LoneLaugher said:


> This thread is THE ONE, ladies and gentlemen. After going over this so many times for all these years with these same people, this is finally it! The conservatives clammoring for a flat tax and whining about how progressive taxes are bad will finally read and comprehend the information that we are giving them!
> 
> The facts will penetrate the wall of stupid and we will hear a great sound of hot air being released from the nutter bubble! This one is THE ONE!
> 
> I am sure of it!



Income tax invites special interest lobbying and breaks given to special interest groups.
Income tax invites underground economy and massive compliance.
56,000 pages of tax code which many times the best CPAs in the country can not figure out.
Income tax compliance is very expensive and time consuming for the citizen.

Either one supports special interest groups receiving tax breaks through campaign lobbying as is the norm now or they don't.
The current politicians we have now and the reason they DO NOTHING is they do not have to answer to the citizens.
They answer to those that donate to their campaigns so they get tax breaks in the 56,000 page tax code.
Why anyone with a brain has trouble accepting this is hard to understand.


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your life has been one long  tax cut:
> 
> The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).
> 
> Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average is NOT all Americans.
> Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
> When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
> And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.
Click to expand...


There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.

What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?


----------



## Gadawg73

If people are really interested in everyone paying their fair share they would end the income tax.

You could tax the rich 90% and what do most of them do with ALL of their investments?

TAX FREE MUNICIPAL BONDS AND OTHER TAX FREE INVESTMENTS.

When will you good folks wake the hell up and see that the tax code is there to protect SPECIAL INTERESTS.

Democrats DO NOTHING to change the tax code and why? IT KEEPS GETTING THEM RE-ELECTED, SAME AS REPUBLICANS.

*WELL DUH*

But I believe none of you whiners crying for higher and higher and higher taxes don't want any changes in the tax code and really could care less if "the rich" get taxed more.

All you want is someone to blame and "the rich", "Republicans", "rich Republicans", "conservatives" and "rich conservative Republicans" is what is parroted in unison.

Some of us seek solutions to the nation's problems and others just sit around, blame others and offer more government as the only solution.

*HELLO, MORE GOVERNMENT IS NOT WORKING!*


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is THE ONE, ladies and gentlemen. After going over this so many times for all these years with these same people, this is finally it! The conservatives clammoring for a flat tax and whining about how progressive taxes are bad will finally read and comprehend the information that we are giving them!
> 
> The facts will penetrate the wall of stupid and we will hear a great sound of hot air being released from the nutter bubble! This one is THE ONE!
> 
> I am sure of it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income tax invites special interest lobbying and breaks given to special interest groups.
> Income tax invites underground economy and massive compliance.
> 56,000 pages of tax code which many times the best CPAs in the country can not figure out.
> Income tax compliance is very expensive and time consuming for the citizen.
> 
> Either one supports special interest groups receiving tax breaks through campaign lobbying as is the norm now or they don't.
> The current politicians we have now and the reason they DO NOTHING is they do not have to answer to the citizens.
> They answer to those that donate to their campaigns so they get tax breaks in the 56,000 page tax code.
> Why anyone with a brain has trouble accepting this is hard to understand.
Click to expand...




Ah, this post makes more sense. But let me ask you this; IF I were a very VERY wealthy person and I had spent serious money on lobbyists to get the favorable tax treatment that I wanted, why in the fuk would I support changing the tax system to one in which my money would not buy influence and where I would pay MORE in taxes?


----------



## Gadawg73

zeke said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of your life has been one long  tax cut:
> 
> The effective federal income tax rate for all Americans (average) has fallen from 11% in 1979 to about 7.2% (2009).
> 
> Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average is NOT all Americans.
> Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
> When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
> And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
> And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.
> 
> What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?
Click to expand...


Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.

The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
That is called INDEXING.
A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
I made that point in the other post.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

KissMy said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your say so isn't good enough. Provide some data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Through income tax alone the middle class pays the highest effective tax rate. When you add in payroll taxes the middle class gets completely screwed. Income tax facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. In 2007 once you start making $2 million a year your effective tax rates go down & you are being subsidized. Workers making $200K were paying higher effective income tax rates than billionaires. That is before adding in payroll taxes that make the rates even worse.
Click to expand...


And when did this nation destroying trend really pick up steam? 

Reagan redistributed wealth on a scale not seen ever before him. 

In the 1980s the taxes from all sources remained basically unchanged. 
The fact is Reagan's reputation as a tax-cutter is a lie. 
Reagan did, however, redistribute the tax burden more toward low and middle income citizens. The filthy lowlife cocksucker even imposed a tax on unemployment, a major triumph in the anals of taxation. Reagan is a textbook example of the 'Fart Paradigm' in which one accuses others of doing what one has done. Reagan's tax policies - followed by every president since that Bobbleheaded cocksucker - redistributed more wealth than any tax policies before him in US history. 

Worse, corporate tax policy changed. Many of us were there as quarterlies took first place in the hearts of Wall Street. But that is for another day. 

By cutting income taxes while increasing payroll  taxes Reagan shifted the tax burden to the middle class and lowest wage earning folks. The total effective federal taxation rate for the poorest  one-fifth of American families increased slightly more than 16%. 

Meanwhile, the total effective taxation rate for the wealthiest 20% of  families dropped almost 6%, while rates for the highest incomes dropped about 15%. 

Doing the math we see that 15% of $1000k is $15k, while 16% of $25k is $1.5k. It takes TEN MacDonald's workers to make up for the loss of one mid-level executive's taxes. 

Street level nutballs have less understanding of scope and scale than inhabitants of the monkey cage in the DC zoo, an educational anomaly Republicans count on year in and year out, so there is little prospect of a nutball understanding how catastrophic a flat tax would be. 

Efficiency is another weak spot on Main Street. One that knows no party boundaries. The truth is it is more efficient to tax high wage earners. The benefits of income-taxing people with incomes below $25k/a are few to none because of the earned income credit - another dead-loss cost Reagan the secret New Dealer put on taxpayers. 

People can arrive at "fair". Fair is something like this:

Rates on segments of personal income from all sources
No joint filing, no deductions; business taxes paid separately
No earned income credit, no other tax credits
<$40,000 or so, no tax except payroll taxes. 
$40,001 - $79,999 .................10%, no joint filing, no deductions at all
$80,000 - $149,999 ................15% no joint filing, no deductions at all
$150,000 - $299,999 ...............20% no joint filing, no deductions at all
$300,000 - $1kk .....................25% no joint filing, no deductions at all
> $1kk ..................................27.5% no joint filing, no deductions at all


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average is NOT all Americans.
> Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
> When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
> And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
> And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.
> 
> What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.
> 
> The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
> That is called INDEXING.
> A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
> What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
> I made that point in the other post.
Click to expand...



Hey it's great that you made that point. Now, how is it relevent in todays world?


----------



## Gadawg73

zeke said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is THE ONE, ladies and gentlemen. After going over this so many times for all these years with these same people, this is finally it! The conservatives clammoring for a flat tax and whining about how progressive taxes are bad will finally read and comprehend the information that we are giving them!
> 
> The facts will penetrate the wall of stupid and we will hear a great sound of hot air being released from the nutter bubble! This one is THE ONE!
> 
> I am sure of it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income tax invites special interest lobbying and breaks given to special interest groups.
> Income tax invites underground economy and massive compliance.
> 56,000 pages of tax code which many times the best CPAs in the country can not figure out.
> Income tax compliance is very expensive and time consuming for the citizen.
> 
> Either one supports special interest groups receiving tax breaks through campaign lobbying as is the norm now or they don't.
> The current politicians we have now and the reason they DO NOTHING is they do not have to answer to the citizens.
> They answer to those that donate to their campaigns so they get tax breaks in the 56,000 page tax code.
> Why anyone with a brain has trouble accepting this is hard to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, this post makes more sense. But let me ask you this; IF I were a very VERY wealthy person and I had spent serious money on lobbyists to get the favorable tax treatment that I wanted, why in the fuk would I support changing the tax system to one in which my money would not buy influence and where I would pay MORE in taxes?
Click to expand...


Some don't and those that want to solve the nation's problems do.
Most people with wealth are not "greedy".


----------



## FA_Q2

NYcarbineer said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxation of income is fair because it taxes money most likely to be used for necessities less than it taxes money most likely to be used for luxuries.
> 
> Put another way, if you think that having a sales tax that taxes bread at the same rate as liquor, then you like the idea of a flat tax.
> 
> If you think that poorer Americans are undertaxed and richer Americans are overtaxed, then you like the idea of a flat tax.
> 
> The single most important change in going from a progressive tax to a flat tax, all else being equal, is that lower income Americans would pay a bigger share of the overall tax burden and upper income Americans would pay a smaller share.
Click to expand...


So you disagree with the fact that the rich pay a lesser percentage than the middle class then as that is the ONLY way that a flat tax is going to lower the tax rate on the rich.

It will, of course, raise taxes on those that pay none.


----------



## Gadawg73

I would pay more in taxes with the Fair Tax.
But instead of supporting passing on massive debt to my children and society like most in this country support borrowing 45 cents of every dollar government spends I SEEK SOLUTIONS.
And Fair Tax is the solution.
And end the double taxation of taxing corporations.
That brings back 21 trillion dollars held in overseas banks tomorrow. 
Either one is interested in economic growth or one is interested in blaming the rich.
"They do not pay their fair share" is what a 5 year old says.


----------



## Sunshine

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a &#8216;fair share &#8216; or some &#8216;specific number.&#8217;
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of &#8216;trickle-down economics,&#8217; where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


Let me recommend that you take Taxation in law school.  When you do you will see that income tax rates and sales tax rates are not lower for the rich.  Sales tax is the same, and income tax is markedly higher.  Taxation on income from investments is lower, but that is for everyone as well, and my poor little mother manged to invest so she benefitted from it as well.  So could anyone who would forgo the tatts and nine inch nails.  There is no estate tax until the estate reaches 1.5 million, I believe, so middle income people can die and leave their property and money to their children tax free.  The ones who get caught most often one that on is people like those around here who inherit the family farm or the children of the small business owner who has managed to garner 2 or 3 million dollars.  The ultra rich have  people like YOU, lawyers (supposedly) who advise them to set up family trusts, mist fortunes, that are not touched by taxes.  I mean, seriously, if you are suck a crusader rabbit for the poor, why don't you adivse your wealthy clients in such a way that they will pay their 'fair share.'  Oh wait, you don't have clients.  That's why.


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income tax invites special interest lobbying and breaks given to special interest groups.
> Income tax invites underground economy and massive compliance.
> 56,000 pages of tax code which many times the best CPAs in the country can not figure out.
> Income tax compliance is very expensive and time consuming for the citizen.
> 
> Either one supports special interest groups receiving tax breaks through campaign lobbying as is the norm now or they don't.
> The current politicians we have now and the reason they DO NOTHING is they do not have to answer to the citizens.
> They answer to those that donate to their campaigns so they get tax breaks in the 56,000 page tax code.
> Why anyone with a brain has trouble accepting this is hard to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, this post makes more sense. But let me ask you this; IF I were a very VERY wealthy person and I had spent serious money on lobbyists to get the favorable tax treatment that I wanted, why in the fuk would I support changing the tax system to one in which my money would not buy influence and where I would pay MORE in taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some don't and those that want to solve the nation's problems do.
> Most people with wealth are not "greedy".
Click to expand...


Then it should be easy to name those ultra wealthy that are clamoring for a big change in the tax code. And those changes would not be in their favor. Who are they?

And did I say "greedy"? No. But I sure know that ultra wealthy spend more money on lobbyists trying to cut their taxes than lobbying to pay more tax. Call that what you will.

Do you persoanlly pay money to lobby for your interests?


----------



## Wildman

"fair share" in my opinion would be a "CONSUMPTION" tax.., the more one spends, the more tax one pays. 

NO tax on food, medicines, health care and other necessities !

"necessities".., that appears to be a loaded word, BUT !! bottled water is NOT a necessity nor is a $1,567,982.34 yacht !!


----------



## Mr Natural

Whatever the tax rates were "Back in the Good Old Days" are what they should be now.


----------



## Derideo_Te

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals,* what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?*_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



However much is necessary in order to no longer have a deficit and the national debt is paid off.

But let's add an* incentive *to taxation *across the board*. Every time there is less govt spending *ALL* of the tax rates *automatically go down* and every time there is more *ALL *of them automatically go up.

That means that every politician who votes for higher spending has to answer directly to the voters and vice versa. There can't be any "class warfare" because *ALL* tax brackets are impacted both ways.

The justification for any increased spending will have to have majority support nationwide. Ditto the justification for reduced spending. In essence this acts like a control on Congress by the voters.


----------



## Sunshine

KissMy said:


> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.



Before I retired I made over $100K and I paid enough income tax to support a family of 6 under than national poverty guidelines.  I should have retired last year because given my pensions and annuities, having fewer work expenses, less taxes to pay including a 2% local tax and 4% state income tax, I can't really tell a difference in my disposable income not working.


----------



## Mr Natural

Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wildman said:


> "fair share" in my opinion would be a "CONSUMPTION" tax.., the more one spends, the more tax one pays.
> 
> NO tax on food, medicines, health care and other necessities !
> 
> "necessities".., that appears to be a loaded word, BUT !! bottled water is NOT a necessity nor is a $1,567,982.34 yacht !!



You just created a loop hole with the word "necessites" and why do you or the goverment get to say what is a necessity?  We will then have paid lobbyist for that.


----------



## Sunshine

The rich actually do pay more taxes:



> pitchforks. The story is more complicated than that.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
> Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
> What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
> *
> The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes* in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
> 
> The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. *And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all*



The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes - Mar. 12, 2013


----------



## LoneLaugher

Gadawg73 said:


> I would pay more in taxes with the Fair Tax.
> But instead of supporting passing on massive debt to my children and society like most in this country support borrowing 45 cents of every dollar government spends I SEEK SOLUTIONS.
> And Fair Tax is the solution.
> And end the double taxation of taxing corporations.
> That brings back 21 trillion dollars held in overseas banks tomorrow.
> Either one is interested in economic growth or one is interested in blaming the rich.
> "They do not pay their fair share" is what a 5 year old says.




Please read and comment on the content in the following two opinion pieces regarding the Fair Tax. 

Thanks. 


Tax Update Blog: FAIR Tax isn't just a bad tactic; it's a bad idea.

Tennesseans for Fair Taxation


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mr Clean said:


> Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.



Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?


----------



## KissMy

Sunshine said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I retired I made over $100K and I paid enough income tax to support a family of 6 under than national poverty guidelines.  I should have retired last year because given my pensions and annuities, having fewer work expenses, less taxes to pay including a 2% local tax and 4% state income tax, I can't really tell a difference in my disposable income not working.
Click to expand...


That is because work is taxed to death in this country, that is why all the jobs left. Now that you are making money from entitlement pensions, you are not paying nearly as high of a tax rate or payroll taxes. Just imagine how it must be to be born rich & never have to pay those high rates & payroll taxes workers have to pay. Plus by not having to pay those high rates all investment. Capital & wealth would flow to you because you are a more efficient investment than those making $2 million a year or less due to being taxed less.


----------



## Sunshine

Derideo_Te said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?
Click to expand...


Where do you get these ideas?  The rich pay most of the taxes.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7320117-post75.html


----------



## Katzndogz

It's never been about paying a fair share.  That is a made up excuse.  It's being allowed to keep a share that is considered "fair" by social engineers.   If a person is taxed at 98% and allowed to keep only 2% of what they earned and that 2% is over a $500,000 a year, compared to someone making $30,000 a year the 2% still isn't fair.


----------



## eagle1462010

Sunshine said:


> The rich actually do pay more taxes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pitchforks. The story is more complicated than that.
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
> Many people think that the rich are able to weasel their way out of taxes, but they actually pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes in the United States.
> What's more, their share of the tax burden is increasing.
> *
> The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes* in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
> 
> The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. *And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes - Mar. 12, 2013
Click to expand...


CBO | Average Federal Taxes by Income Group

There is a CBO pub to back that data up from 2007.  The Federal Revenues for 2006 were the HIGHEST EVER RECORDED IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES at 2.5 plus TRILLION OR SO.  This was done with the Bush Tax Cuts in place.  

Why?  Because of Capital Gains, Divedends, and etc.  as a result of the Stock Markets going through the roof.  aka The Bubble Machine.  This increase is consistent with Historical Good Times in American Economics.  In Recessions, obviously the receipts go down.

I see posts in this thread from the Libs yelling TAX THE RICH AND TAX THE RICH which is absolutely NORMAL FROM THEM.  They will or course DISREGARD THE CBO REPORT AS BS like they always do.

Historically, the average FEDERAL REVENUES since WWII are about 18.1 percent of the GDP IRREGARDLESS OF THE TAX RATES.  It spans from roughly 15% to 20.5% during that time.  This based on ECONOMIC SITUATIONS AND NOT THE TAX RATES.  Which leads me to the CONCLUSION THAT THE TAX RATES AREN'T THE PROBLEM.  It's the SPENDING THAT'S THE PROBLEM.  

We've grown tooooo BIG AND SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD TO STAY THIS BIG.

We are now SPENDING 25% OF THE GDP OF THE U.S..........A kid in elementary school could figure this one out.  If I have 18 Dollars and I'm spending 25 Dollars I'm steadily going into debt.  And the LONGER I DO THIS THE MORE IN DEBT I GO.


----------



## Sunshine

Katzndogz said:


> It's never been about paying a fair share.  That is a made up excuse.  It's being allowed to keep a share that is considered "fair" by social engineers.   If a person is taxed at 98% and allowed to keep only 2% of what they earned and that 2% is over a $500,000 a year, compared to someone making $30,000 a year the 2% still isn't fair.



Well, KnD, we have reached a place in this country where those who do absolutely nothing have, or soon will have, passed the 51% mark.  That means we well never again be able to out vote them, and a new slavery class has been created - my children and yours.  Did you read the article I posted?  47% pay little or no tax at all.  Can you extrapolate where that is taking this country?


----------



## eagle1462010

> [Estimates for 2007
> In 2007, the overall* average federal tax rate was 20.4 *percent (see Table 1). Individual income taxes, the largest component, were 9.3 percent of household income. Social insurance taxes (also called payroll taxes) were the next-largest source, with an average rate of 7.4 percent. Corporate income taxes and excise taxes were smaller, with average tax rates of 3.0 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively.
> 
> The federal tax system is progressive&#8212;that is, average tax rates generally rise with income. Households in the *bottom fifth of the income distribution paid 4.0 percent of their income in federal taxes, the middle quintile paid 14.3 percent, and the highest quintile paid 25.1 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile: The top 1 percent faced an average rate of 29.5 percent.*
> 
> *Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2007, the highest quintile earned 55.9 percent of pretax income and paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes; the top 1 percent of households earned 19.4 percent of income and paid 28.1 percent of taxes. The share of taxes paid by high-income groups exceeded their share of income because average tax rates rise with income.* In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 4.0 percent of income and paid 0.8 percent of taxes, and the middle quintile earned 13.1 percent of income and paid 9.2 percent of taxes.
> 
> Much of the progressivity of the federal tax system derives from the individual income tax. In 2007, the bottom quintile&#8217;s average rate for the individual income tax was -6.8 percent, which means that refundable earned income and child tax credits exceeded the income tax owed by that group. On average, households in the second quintile also received more in credits than they paid in individual income taxes. The average income tax rate was 3.3 percent for the middle quintile and 6.2 percent for the fourth quintile. For the highest quintile, the rate was 14.4 percent. The top 1 percent, on average, paid 19.0 percent of their income in individual income taxes. Average rates for payroll taxes rise gradually across most of the income distribution, then fall at the top. The average payroll tax rate for the lowest quintile was 8.8 percent. That rate was 9.5 percent for the second quintile, 9.4 percent for the middle quintile, and 9.5 percent for the fourth quintile. The increase occurs because nontaxable transfer payments (for example, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and most Social Security benefits) make up a larger share of income at the bottom of the distribution. The payroll tax rate was 5.7 percent for the highest quintile. That rate is lower than others in part because much of the wages in that quintile are above the maximum income subject to Social Security taxes ($97,500 in 2007) and in part because capital income, such as interest, dividends, and capital gains, is a larger share of income at the top. Social insurance taxes account for the largest share of taxes paid by households in all but the top quintile. The impact of the corporate income tax also rises with income, because CBO assumes in this analysis that the tax is borne by those who receive capital income, and capital income is a larger share of income at the top of the distribution. The incidence of the corporate income tax is uncertain, and various models suggest that at least some of the tax is borne by workers in the form of reduced earnings, in which case the tax would not be as progressive as shown in CBO&#8217;s analysis. The effect of excise taxes, relative to income, is greatest for lower-income households, which tend to spend a greater proportion of their income on such goods as gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco, which are subject to excise taxes./QUOTE]


----------



## Wyatt earp

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been about paying a fair share.  That is a made up excuse.  It's being allowed to keep a share that is considered "fair" by social engineers.   If a person is taxed at 98% and allowed to keep only 2% of what they earned and that 2% is over a $500,000 a year, compared to someone making $30,000 a year the 2% still isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, KnD, we have reached a place in this country where those who do absolutely nothing have, or soon will have, passed the 51% mark.  That means we well never again be able to out vote them, and a new slavery class has been created - my children and yours.  Did you read the article I posted?  47% pay little or no tax at all.  Can you extrapolate where that is taking this country?
Click to expand...


So true, when more folks hop in the wagon then pull it, we are so fucked.....


----------



## Redfish

bear513 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been about paying a fair share.  That is a made up excuse.  It's being allowed to keep a share that is considered "fair" by social engineers.   If a person is taxed at 98% and allowed to keep only 2% of what they earned and that 2% is over a $500,000 a year, compared to someone making $30,000 a year the 2% still isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, KnD, we have reached a place in this country where those who do absolutely nothing have, or soon will have, passed the 51% mark.  That means we well never again be able to out vote them, and a new slavery class has been created - my children and yours.  Did you read the article I posted?  47% pay little or no tax at all.  Can you extrapolate where that is taking this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true, when more folks hop in the wagon then pull it, we are so fucked.....
Click to expand...




at the moment the socialists are winning and the country is losing.  2014 and 2016 will decide whether the USA continues to be a free democratic republic or becomes a socialist state run by a small group of elites who will control all of the power and all of the money.

We will become north korea.


----------



## KissMy

bear513 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been about paying a fair share.  That is a made up excuse.  It's being allowed to keep a share that is considered "fair" by social engineers.   If a person is taxed at 98% and allowed to keep only 2% of what they earned and that 2% is over a $500,000 a year, compared to someone making $30,000 a year the 2% still isn't fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, KnD, we have reached a place in this country where those who do absolutely nothing have, or soon will have, passed the 51% mark.  That means we well never again be able to out vote them, and a new slavery class has been created - my children and yours.  Did you read the article I posted?  47% pay little or no tax at all.  Can you extrapolate where that is taking this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true, when more folks hop in the wagon then pull it, we are so fucked.....
Click to expand...


Payroll taxes are pulling the wagon in this country. It's time for the entitled to get off & pay their freight.


----------



## eagle1462010

KissMy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, KnD, we have reached a place in this country where those who do absolutely nothing have, or soon will have, passed the 51% mark.  That means we well never again be able to out vote them, and a new slavery class has been created - my children and yours.  Did you read the article I posted?  47% pay little or no tax at all.  Can you extrapolate where that is taking this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true, when more folks hop in the wagon then pull it, we are so fucked.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Payroll taxes are pulling the wagon in this country. It's time for the entitled to get off & pay their freight.
Click to expand...


The Liberal Left's Dirty Little Secret: The Middle Class and Poor Pay For the Entitlement State - Forbes

If you do not believe me, an influential member of the media elite (from the New York Times editorial board, no less), let this secret slip in a remarkably candid admission. (Note his article appeared after the election):

The experience of many other developed countries suggests that paying for a government that could help the poor and the middle class cope in our brave new globalized world will require more money from the middle class itself.The United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world... Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources and reduce inequality than the tax codes of most other rich nations. Insisting on highly progressive taxes that draw most revenue from the rich may result in more inequality than if we relied on a flatter, more regressive tax schedule to raise money from everybody (!!!) and pay for a government that could help every American family attain a decent standard of living.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Sunshine said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you get these ideas?  The rich pay most of the taxes.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7320117-post75.html
Click to expand...


From Mitt Romney paying a *much lower tax percentage* than middle class wage earners are subjected to paying. When the bulk of the income for the wealthy is taxed at a pitiful 15% rate there is a problem with the system. If you cannot understand this problem then you are part of it.



> http://www.1040.com/federal-taxes/income/dividends/]Dividend Income ? Federal Tax Guide ? 1040.com ? File Your Taxes Online[/U]
> 
> Which tax rate the dividends qualify for depends on what the regular tax rate on the dividends would be. This is determined by your tax rate on earned income.
> 
> Dividends qualify for the 0% rate (tax-free) if you fall within the 10% or 15% tax brackets.
> *Dividends qualify for the 15% rate if you fall within a higher tax bracket.* There are exceptions, so see IRS Publication 550 for more information.


----------



## eagle1462010

Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................

Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.  

So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.

Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.

1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.

2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.

3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................

Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.


----------



## Gadawg73

LoneLaugher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would pay more in taxes with the Fair Tax.
> But instead of supporting passing on massive debt to my children and society like most in this country support borrowing 45 cents of every dollar government spends I SEEK SOLUTIONS.
> And Fair Tax is the solution.
> And end the double taxation of taxing corporations.
> That brings back 21 trillion dollars held in overseas banks tomorrow.
> Either one is interested in economic growth or one is interested in blaming the rich.
> "They do not pay their fair share" is what a 5 year old says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read and comment on the content in the following two opinion pieces regarding the Fair Tax.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Tax Update Blog: FAIR Tax isn't just a bad tactic; it's a bad idea.
> 
> Tennesseans for Fair Taxation
Click to expand...


In my business and in all businesses there is an imbedded tax in everything we sell or service we offer.
And that is around 22% now or higher in transportation businesses.
For instance because of payroll taxes and corporate taxes every loaf of bread sold in America has 22%+ of the cost of bringing that loaf of bread to market in taxes.
That is most all eliminated with the Fair Tax and the article does not address that.
No tax is pretty. Where has anyone claimed there was ever a tax that was?
And where does this article address the political power yielded by the income tax that will almost completely disappear with a sales tax?


----------



## RKMBrown

Fair Income tax? Zero.

Appropriate tax?  % of sales of interstate commerce.


----------



## Gadawg73

eagle1462010 said:


> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.



Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.

Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.


----------



## Gadawg73

Derideo_Te said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe someone can come up with a system that affords us to live in the best place on earth without actually having to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?
Click to expand...


The 1% keep getting wealthier because they keep doing the same things over and over and over that made them wealthy.
Not all of them but the majority of them.
Same as the moocher class. They keep doing the same things over and over and over that keep them poor.
Not all of them but most of them.
But it always easier to look down on the producer class as one makes excuses for their lack of effort in their own world.


----------



## FA_Q2

Gadawg73 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.
Click to expand...


This is why corporate tax should not exist.  It is nothing more than a tax scheme to HIDE the actual taxes that people pay.  All taxes should be readily available and out in the open.  Just like the SS tax where the government hides half of it by having the employer pay it as though that does not affect peoples pay.  If people knew what they really paid in taxes, they would be outraged.


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly how the 1% have gamed the system to their advantage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get these ideas?  The rich pay most of the taxes.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7320117-post75.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Mitt Romney paying a *much lower tax percentage* than middle class wage earners are subjected to paying. When the bulk of the income for the wealthy is taxed at a pitiful 15% rate there is a problem with the system. If you cannot understand this problem then you are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.1040.com/federal-taxes/income/dividends/]Dividend Income ? Federal Tax Guide ? 1040.com ? File Your Taxes Online[/U]
> 
> Which tax rate the dividends qualify for depends on what the regular tax rate on the dividends would be. This is determined by your tax rate on earned income.
> 
> Dividends qualify for the 0% rate (tax-free) if you fall within the 10% or 15% tax brackets.
> *Dividends qualify for the 15% rate if you fall within a higher tax bracket.* There are exceptions, so see IRS Publication 550 for more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


LOL  Your link didn't work SKIPPY............

Try this one and stop CHERRY PICKING YOUR DATA SKIPPY.

Capital Gains Tax Rates: Tax Rates for Short-Term & Long-Term Capital Gains

Planning Ahead for 2013

Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
*0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,*
15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.

Comment....................

They are talking about individual INCOME BRACKETS regarding TAX RATES.  Mitt Romney isn't in the 10% and 15% brackets SKIPPY.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Gadawg73 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> *Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck*.
Click to expand...


Hogwash! Any competent accountant will help your corporation from having to be "taxed twice". You can't blame the government because you don't hire good help.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.



Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.


----------



## Gadawg73

Derideo_Te said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> *Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash! Any competent accountant will help your corporation from having to be "taxed twice". You can't blame the government because you don't hire good help.
Click to expand...


You know nothing about business.
Shareholders buy stocks. Do you own any stocks?
What does that make you? A SHAREHOLDER.
Shareholders buy stocks why? As an investment to make money?
So if you own shares in a company and the company makes a profit what do you want?
A share of the profits?
That is what a dividend is Moe. Every good accountant out there advises corporations to pay as much as they can in dividends to their shareholders to keep the price of their stock high.
High corporate profits or low corporate profits. Which one makes a companies' stock price rise and puts money in the hands of shareholders and employees?

WELL DUH!
That is the first lesson.
Lesson #2.
Before I started each of my companies I consulted with my accountant BEFORE hand for tax advice. Those strategies and policies are IN PLACE before I made my first dollar.
They have to be. The moocher class is growing and government is plundering faster.


----------



## eagle1462010

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
Click to expand...


I'm very happy that you aren't in charge of this subject in this country, as NO BUSINESS IN THE WORLD WOULD INVEST HERE IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE.


----------



## Gadawg73

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
Click to expand...


So if you have capital to invest are you going to invest it where you only make 50% off of your gain or take it where there are NO capital gains taxes?

And where does capital go, to where it is rewarded or punished?

Capital investments carry RISK, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE YOU MAKE MONEY.

And currently one can only carry over 3K in losses each year to offset any gains, IF THERE ARE ANY.

And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.


----------



## Gadawg73

Most Americans do not have a fucking clue about simple economics or business and the massive risk we take inputting up OUR MONEY WE EARNED attempting to grow the economy, create jobs and make a profit.

They could care less. They believe everyone makes money and that money should be redistributed to the moocher class.

Real easy to be a liberal when you are using the power of government to plunder and take money that someone earned and give it to someone that did not earn it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

eagle1462010 said:


> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.



Where do you get these ideas?


----------



## LoneLaugher

eagle1462010 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very happy that you aren't in charge of this subject in this country, as NO BUSINESS IN THE WORLD WOULD INVEST HERE IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE.
Click to expand...


Prove it!!!!!!!!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Gadawg73 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> *Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash! Any competent accountant will help your corporation from having to be "taxed twice". You can't blame the government because you don't hire good help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know nothing about business.
> Shareholders buy stocks. Do you own any stocks?
> What does that make you? A SHAREHOLDER.
> Shareholders buy stocks why? As an investment to make money?
> So if you own shares in a company and the company makes a profit what do you want?
> A share of the profits?
> That is what a dividend is Moe. Every good accountant out there advises corporations to pay as much as they can in dividends to their shareholders to keep the price of their stock high.
> High corporate profits or low corporate profits. Which one makes a companies' stock price rise and puts money in the hands of shareholders and employees?
> 
> WELL DUH!
> That is the first lesson.
> Lesson #2.
> Before I started each of my companies I consulted with my accountant BEFORE hand for tax advice. Those strategies and policies are IN PLACE before I made my first dollar.
> They have to be. The moocher class is growing and government is plundering faster.
Click to expand...


Your erroneous assumptions and bigotry against the less fortunate come across loud and clear.


----------



## eagle1462010

NYcarbineer said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get these ideas?
Click to expand...


I POSTED THE DATA to justify my responses.

The rest is COMMON SENSE and HISTORY OF THIS WHOLE DANG THING.

Lets look at ITEM NUMBER 3.



> Companies Continue To Flee The Gloomy Business Climate In Otherwise Sunny California - Investors.com



Do you like the EAGLES?


----------



## NYcarbineer

All of you not-Rich people out there who want the Rich to pay lower taxes...

...how much are you willing to have your own taxes raised to make up the difference?


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get these ideas?  The rich pay most of the taxes.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7320117-post75.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Mitt Romney paying a *much lower tax percentage* than middle class wage earners are subjected to paying. When the bulk of the income for the wealthy is taxed at a pitiful 15% rate there is a problem with the system. If you cannot understand this problem then you are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.1040.com/federal-taxes/income/dividends/]Dividend Income ? Federal Tax Guide ? 1040.com ? File Your Taxes Online[/U]
> 
> Which tax rate the dividends qualify for depends on what the regular tax rate on the dividends would be. This is determined by your tax rate on earned income.
> 
> Dividends qualify for the 0% rate (tax-free) if you fall within the 10% or 15% tax brackets.
> *Dividends qualify for the 15% rate if you fall within a higher tax bracket.* There are exceptions, so see IRS Publication 550 for more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL  Your link didn't work SKIPPY............
> 
> Try this one and stop CHERRY PICKING YOUR DATA SKIPPY.
> 
> Capital Gains Tax Rates: Tax Rates for Short-Term & Long-Term Capital Gains
> 
> Planning Ahead for 2013
> 
> Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
> *0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,*
> 15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
> 20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
> Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.
> 
> Comment....................
> 
> They are talking about individual INCOME BRACKETS regarding TAX RATES.  Mitt Romney isn't in the 10% and 15% brackets SKIPPY.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the middle class and will continue to pay less even with these adjusted rates on the bulk of his income. Nice of you to also admit to being a major part of the problem too. Have a nice day.


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash! Any competent accountant will help your corporation from having to be "taxed twice". You can't blame the government because you don't hire good help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about business.
> Shareholders buy stocks. Do you own any stocks?
> What does that make you? A SHAREHOLDER.
> Shareholders buy stocks why? As an investment to make money?
> So if you own shares in a company and the company makes a profit what do you want?
> A share of the profits?
> That is what a dividend is Moe. Every good accountant out there advises corporations to pay as much as they can in dividends to their shareholders to keep the price of their stock high.
> High corporate profits or low corporate profits. Which one makes a companies' stock price rise and puts money in the hands of shareholders and employees?
> 
> WELL DUH!
> That is the first lesson.
> Lesson #2.
> Before I started each of my companies I consulted with my accountant BEFORE hand for tax advice. Those strategies and policies are IN PLACE before I made my first dollar.
> They have to be. The moocher class is growing and government is plundering faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your erroneous assumptions and bigotry against the less fortunate come across loud and clear.
Click to expand...


i.e.  Our facts are blowing your arguments OUT OF THE WATER, and it's hurting your IDEOLOGY.

*[quoteIt isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. &#8213; Ronald Reagan][/quote]*


----------



## eagle1462010

LoneLaugher said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very happy that you aren't in charge of this subject in this country, as NO BUSINESS IN THE WORLD WOULD INVEST HERE IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


LOL

I think the FACTS ARE HITTING RAW NERVE ENDINGS HERE.

Facts are terrible things LIB.   Your side is getting your arses handed to you here because of the FACTS.

DEAL WITH IT.


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Mitt Romney paying a *much lower tax percentage* than middle class wage earners are subjected to paying. When the bulk of the income for the wealthy is taxed at a pitiful 15% rate there is a problem with the system. If you cannot understand this problem then you are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  Your link didn't work SKIPPY............
> 
> Try this one and stop CHERRY PICKING YOUR DATA SKIPPY.
> 
> Capital Gains Tax Rates: Tax Rates for Short-Term & Long-Term Capital Gains
> 
> Planning Ahead for 2013
> 
> Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
> *0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,*
> 15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
> 20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
> Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.
> 
> Comment....................
> 
> They are talking about individual INCOME BRACKETS regarding TAX RATES.  Mitt Romney isn't in the 10% and 15% brackets SKIPPY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the middle class and will continue to pay less even with these adjusted rates on the bulk of his income. Nice of you to also admit to being a major part of the problem too. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.

Exactly how'd I prove your point?


----------



## LoneLaugher

eagle1462010 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very happy that you aren't in charge of this subject in this country, as NO BUSINESS IN THE WORLD WOULD INVEST HERE IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I think the FACTS ARE HITTING RAW NERVE ENDINGS HERE.
> 
> Facts are terrible things LIB.   Your side is getting your arses handed to you here because of the FACTS.
> 
> DEAL WITH IT.
Click to expand...


Please prove your assertion, dummy. I'll wait.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Gadawg73 said:


> [
> And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.



Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Gadawg73 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.
Click to expand...


If corporations don't pay 'one cent' in taxes, how come they spend millions lobbying for lower taxes?


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  Your link didn't work SKIPPY............
> 
> Try this one and stop CHERRY PICKING YOUR DATA SKIPPY.
> 
> Capital Gains Tax Rates: Tax Rates for Short-Term & Long-Term Capital Gains
> 
> Planning Ahead for 2013
> 
> Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
> *0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,*
> 15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
> 20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
> Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.
> 
> Comment....................
> 
> They are talking about individual INCOME BRACKETS regarding TAX RATES.  Mitt Romney isn't in the 10% and 15% brackets SKIPPY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the middle class and will continue to pay less even with these adjusted rates on the bulk of his income. Nice of you to also admit to being a major part of the problem too. Have a nice day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.
> 
> Exactly how'd I prove your point?
Click to expand...


Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that *proved* that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those *lower dividend tax rates* on the* bulk of their income*.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Gadawg73 said:


> Most Americans do not have a fucking clue about simple economics or business and the massive risk we take inputting up OUR MONEY WE EARNED attempting to grow the economy, create jobs and make a profit.
> 
> They could care less. They believe everyone makes money and that money should be redistributed to the moocher class.
> 
> Real easy to be a liberal when you are using the power of government to plunder and take money that someone earned and give it to someone that did not earn it.


----------



## Truthseeker420

Fair would be the same percent for everyone. But that will never happen as long as corporations control America.


----------



## jknowgood

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.
Click to expand...


And how much money has the goverment pumped into it?


----------



## thereisnospoon

editec said:


> Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like there's some magic number that fits for every occasion and circumstance?
> 
> You don't suppose the taxes might need to higher say in Dec 8th 1941 than they might have been on some other date?
> 
> Are you sock-puppet  cons _really_ as stupid as you play here in the net?
> 
> Frankly, I cannot believe anyone who posts here is _that stupid_
Click to expand...


If you cannot put a number on it, you cannot define it. Period.
It's a simple question. Define 'fair share'...


----------



## thereisnospoon

jknowgood said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how much money has the government pumped into it?
Click to expand...

$86 billion per month since the start of the open ended QE III.


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the middle class and will continue to pay less even with these adjusted rates on the bulk of his income. Nice of you to also admit to being a major part of the problem too. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.
> 
> Exactly how'd I prove your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that *proved* that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those *lower dividend tax rates* on the* bulk of their income*.
Click to expand...


No I did not.  The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.  

The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.


----------



## blackhawk

I said it on the first page of this thread and I will again no one has the slightest idea what a fair share is it's just a talking point.


----------



## eagle1462010

thereisnospoon said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how much money has the government pumped into it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $86 billion per month since the start of the open ended QE III.
Click to expand...


The Bubble Machine at work again.  Same dang thing that took us apart in 2008.  Our economy is getting better, but how much is from the FIAT MONEY PUMPING MACHINE?


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.
> 
> Exactly how'd I prove your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that *proved* that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those *lower dividend tax rates* on the* bulk of their income*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I did not.  The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.
> 
> The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.
Click to expand...


*DIVIDEND INCOME* paid to* INDIVIDUALS *is subject to* LOWER *tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.


----------



## Wyatt earp

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.
Click to expand...


Its artificial stupid shit even just a guy like me knows the feds are pumping out money that has no value. its god damn monoply money.


----------



## Skull Pilot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


When was the last time taxes were lowered for just the so called rich?

The bush tax cuts lowered tax rates across the board. In fact the lowest rate was dropped from 15% to 10% a more than 30% reduction.

 A new 10% tax bracket was created. This effectively lowered taxes of people who previously found themselves in the bottom 15% tax bracket. In 2010 the first $8,375 of a single individuals income will be taxed at 10%. Income earned between $8,375 and $34,000 will be taxed at 15%.

- The 28% tax bracket was lowered to 25%. In 2010 income earned between $34,000 and $82,400 will be taxed at this 25% rate.

- The 31% tax bracket was lowered to 28%. In 2010 income earned between $82,400 and $171,850 will taxed at this new 28% rate.

- The 36% tax bracket was lowered to 33%. In 2010 income earned between $171,850 and $373,650 will be taxed at this 33% tax rate.

- Finally, the top tax rate was lowered from 39.6% to 35%. In 2010 all income earned over $373,650 will be taxed at this 35% rate.

A summary of the facts and arguments behind the Bush tax cuts - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com


----------



## Truthseeker420

Gadawg73 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.
Click to expand...


 I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?

*The dual-taxation meme*

The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that *proved* that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those *lower dividend tax rates* on the* bulk of their income*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not.  The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.
> 
> The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *DIVIDEND INCOME* paid to* INDIVIDUALS *is subject to* LOWER *tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.
Click to expand...


BS.  I posted the data and link.  It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.

Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?

If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.

STOP SPINNING THE DATA.  IT DOESN'T WORK.


----------



## eagle1462010

Starting with the year 2013,* there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket.* The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
Click to expand...


Ok genius. Here we have you proposing the 70% tax for those earning $1,000,001.00 per year.
That means they will be left with $300.000.
So, lets say we have a small business that grosses over $1,000,000 per year. The owner 2 years back made just a hair over $500k. He decided to grow his business and double his payroll to keep the work flow to increase the revenue. 
So. You propose $500k pay 50%...Leaving $250k...One million, at 70% is $300k..
The business owner sees and effective increase in his tax burden of 2,800%...700k divided by 250k...Seeing his business is not going to be successful, he downsizes and in the process he firs HALF of his employees....
I would like to congratulate you on your goal of soaking the evil rich guy.
And so would the workers YOU just fired. Nice going, Ace.
Your sniveling greed for what others have and earn just put a bunch of people out on the street to look for work.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Truthseeker420 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?
> 
> *The dual-taxation meme*
> 
> The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon
Click to expand...


Rocket scientist....The OP just told you that Corporations are taxed TWICE..
Once is not enough?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Truthseeker420 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation.  Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................
> 
> Why?  SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION.  They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.
> 
> So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE?  It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.
> 
> Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT.  Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS.  WE'LL SHOW THEM.  HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES.  RAH RAH RAH.
> 
> 1.  They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE.  They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.
> 
> 2.  They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS.  We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE?  You get the point.
> 
> 3.  They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade.  Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................
> 
> Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword.  IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?
> 
> *The dual-taxation meme*
> 
> The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon
Click to expand...


You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?

In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.


----------



## Wry Catcher

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok genius. Here we have you proposing the 70% tax for those earning $1,000,001.00 per year.
> That means they will be left with $300.000.
Click to expand...


Funny you meant it as a sarcasm. Looking from your level a moron would be a real genius. 

I was talking about tax brackets. It means that nobody would pay effective 70%. And a person earning a million would pay around $350,000 in taxes.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Starting with the year 2013,* there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket.* The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
> 0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
> 15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
> 20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
> Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.



Simple tax questions for the home schooled;

1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?

2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?

(a) 39.6%
(b) 20%
(c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​
3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?

4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?​
Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
Click to expand...


Just a quetion who gets the money? just an example.
Illinois Tollway Salaries and Pensions 




> After retirement, however, tollway employees receive millions of dollars in pensions from state tax funds through the State Employee Retirement System (SERS). High tolls support high salaries, which bloat the multi-million dollar retirement packages. And whats more, Tollway employees arent required to pay tolls!


----------



## blackhawk

Wry Catcher said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
Click to expand...

Does this mean you feel the same way about George Soros using his great wealth to try and influence the direction of the country as you do the Koch brothers?


----------



## Gadawg73

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder, more hours and RISKED everything they have to attempt to earn more?
Fair to those that pay fewer taxes and demand that the power of government confiscate wealth that others have legally earned and give to someone else all with the myth of "fairness".
And income tax PUNISHES those that are willing to take those risks, create jobs and the economic growth that a capitalist system requires.
You get MORE of what you reward and less of what you punish.
Life is not fair and it is a bad lesson to practice and teach "everything should be fair" to our youth.
It has us where we are now, a growing moocher class.


----------



## ilia25

Gadawg73 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you have capital to invest are you going to invest it where you only make 50% off of your gain or take it where there are NO capital gains taxes?
> 
> And where does capital go, to where it is rewarded or punished?
> 
> Capital investments carry RISK, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE YOU MAKE MONEY.
> 
> And currently one can only carry over 3K in losses each year to offset any gains, IF THERE ARE ANY.
Click to expand...


Well, that's a shame. I would remove that 3K limit. 

Otherwise, taxes don't prevent people from investing. And if you make good money because you are good investor, you should be taxed. It's just another trade.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Wry Catcher said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
Click to expand...


The OP's poll sucks?
Yes, but if it were commissioned by liberals and the poll results the same, you'd be crowing  in support of the poll.


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with the year 2013,* there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket.* The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
> 0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
> 15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
> 20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
> Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple tax questions for the home schooled;
> 
> 1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?
> 
> 2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?
> 
> (a) 39.6%
> (b) 20%
> (c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​
> 3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?
> 
> 4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?​
> Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.
Click to expand...


Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there.  Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%.  Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive. ][/quote]

Item 4.  Long time versus short time investments.  

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%.  aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.


----------



## ilia25

Gadawg73 said:


> How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder



How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Gadawg73 said:


> How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder, more hours and RISKED everything they have to attempt to earn more?
> Fair to those that pay fewer taxes and demand that the power of government confiscate wealth that others have legally earned and give to someone else all with the myth of "fairness".
> And income tax PUNISHES those that are willing to take those risks, create jobs and the economic growth that a capitalist system requires.
> You get MORE of what you reward and less of what you punish.
> Life is not fair and it is a bad lesson to practice and teach "everything should be fair" to our youth.
> It has us where we are now, a growing moocher class.



No kidding, "but you didnt build that" ~ Obozo and  Elizabeth Warren's.....


----------



## Truthseeker420

Skull Pilot said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
> PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
> All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.
> 
> Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
> The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
> Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?
> 
> *The dual-taxation meme*
> 
> The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?
> 
> In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.
Click to expand...


Truck drivers tear up a lot of stuff on the road. But that is another thread.


----------



## Wry Catcher

blackhawk said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does this mean you feel the same way about George Soros using his great wealth to try and influence the direction of the country as you do the Koch brothers?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Truthseeker420 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?
> 
> *The dual-taxation meme*
> 
> The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?
> 
> In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truck drivers fuck up a lot of shit on the road. But that is another thread.
Click to expand...


Yes...so let's tax the shit out of them. And watch the cost of goods rise accordingly.


----------



## Wry Catcher

thereisnospoon said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP's poll sucks?
> Yes, but if it were commissioned by liberals and the poll results the same, you'd be crowing  in support of the poll.
Click to expand...


I would huh?  You're full of shit, but I suspect on some level you know that.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with the year 2013,* there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket.* The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
> 0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
> 15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
> 20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
> Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple tax questions for the home schooled;
> 
> 1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?
> 
> 2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?
> 
> (a) 39.6%
> (b) 20%
> (c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​
> 3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?
> 
> 4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?​
> Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The rates and history since 2003 are there.  Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%.  Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.
> 
> Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.
> 
> This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.
> 
> [quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.
> 
> Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.
> 
> Item 4.  Long time versus short time investments.
> 
> My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%.  aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.
Click to expand...


You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.


----------



## Sunshine

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple tax questions for the home schooled;
> 
> 1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?
> 
> 2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?
> 
> (a) 39.6%
> (b) 20%
> (c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​
> 3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?
> 
> 4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?​
> Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The rates and history since 2003 are there.  Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%.  Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.
> 
> Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.
> 
> This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.
> 
> [quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.
> 
> Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.
> 
> Item 4.  Long time versus short time investments.
> 
> My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%.  aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.
Click to expand...


You're not doing so well in English, yourself.


----------



## blackhawk

Wry Catcher said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you feel the same way about George Soros using his great wealth to try and influence the direction of the country as you do the Koch brothers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.


----------



## Sunshine

eagle1462010 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true, when more folks hop in the wagon then pull it, we are so fucked.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Payroll taxes are pulling the wagon in this country. It's time for the entitled to get off & pay their freight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Liberal Left's Dirty Little Secret: The Middle Class and Poor Pay For the Entitlement State - Forbes
> 
> If you do not believe me, an influential member of the media elite (from the New York Times editorial board, no less), let this secret slip in a remarkably candid admission. (Note his article appeared after the election):
> 
> The experience of many other developed countries suggests that paying for a government that could help the poor and the middle class cope in our brave new globalized world will require more money from the middle class itself.The United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world... Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources and reduce inequality than the tax codes of most other rich nations. Insisting on highly progressive taxes that draw most revenue from the rich may result in more inequality than if we relied on a flatter, more regressive tax schedule to raise money from everybody (!!!) and pay for a government that could help every American family attain a decent standard of living.
Click to expand...


Gee, I don't know.  I've seen how people on the other side of the world live, and I don't believe there is anyone in this country who, if they really wanted a decent standard of living instead of putting every cent they get up their noses, could have it.  And yes, I've worked in the projects.  That experience taught me that if worse came to worse and I had to live there, I could.  Many of those apartments are clean and expensively furnished.


----------



## Sunshine

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting that Mitt Romney paid less in taxes than the middle class and will continue to pay less even with these adjusted rates on the bulk of his income. Nice of you to also admit to being a major part of the problem too. Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.
> 
> Exactly how'd I prove your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that *proved* that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those *lower dividend tax rates* on the* bulk of their income*.
Click to expand...


Investments and earnings are taxed differently for everyone.


----------



## Truthseeker420

thereisnospoon said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?
> 
> In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truck drivers fuck up a lot of shit on the road. But that is another thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...so let's tax the shit out of them. And watch the cost of goods rise accordingly.
Click to expand...


Taxes have went down on big trucking companies. Cheap freight and fuel prices are the main reason for the price increase of goods.


----------



## Sunshine

ilia25 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.
Click to expand...


I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36.  I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units.  I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too.  But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Sunshine said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Payroll taxes are pulling the wagon in this country. It's time for the entitled to get off & pay their freight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Liberal Left's Dirty Little Secret: The Middle Class and Poor Pay For the Entitlement State - Forbes
> 
> If you do not believe me, an influential member of the media elite (from the New York Times editorial board, no less), let this secret slip in a remarkably candid admission. (Note his article appeared after the election):
> 
> The experience of many other developed countries suggests that paying for a government that could help the poor and the middle class cope in our brave new globalized world will require more money from the middle class itself.The United States already has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world... Taxes on American households do more to redistribute resources and reduce inequality than the tax codes of most other rich nations. Insisting on highly progressive taxes that draw most revenue from the rich may result in more inequality than if we relied on a flatter, more regressive tax schedule to raise money from everybody (!!!) and pay for a government that could help every American family attain a decent standard of living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I don't know.  I've seen how people on the other side of the world live, and I don't believe there is anyone in this country who, if they really wanted a decent standard of living instead of putting every cent they get up their noses, could have it.  And yes, I've worked in the projects.  That experience taught me that if worse came to worse and I had to live there, I could.  Many of those apartments are clean and expensively furnished.
Click to expand...


I haven't 'worked' in Public Housing [PH] ("the projects") but in college I worked as a recreation director for The City and I knew families who lived in PH, later I did searches and made arrests there and I can attest to the fact that the criminal element which lives in such housing is generally - not all - disrespectful of the property, the police and their neighbors.  There was PH in the SE corner of San Francisco which included such an element but also families - generally minorities but not all - who worked several jobs, had few benefits, but always sent their kids to school with the best attire they could afford and when work was not in the way attended parent nights at school.  Suggesting poverty's sole cause is drug addiction is both callous and ignorant.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I did not.  The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.
> 
> The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DIVIDEND INCOME* paid to* INDIVIDUALS *is subject to* LOWER *tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  I posted the data and link.  It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.
> 
> Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?
> 
> If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.
> 
> STOP SPINNING THE DATA.  IT DOESN'T WORK.
Click to expand...


*20% is a LOWER TAX RATE that 39.6%. *If you earn $100,000 from* ORDINARY* income and $900,000 from *DIVIDEND* income how much tax are* YOU* going to pay?

The entire premise is that the *BULK *of income for the wealthy comes from dividends and capital gains which will be taxed at the *LOWER RATE of only 20%*. (It was only 15% *BEFORE *the latest tax increase.)


----------



## Derideo_Te

Sunshine said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36.  I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units.  I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too.  But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.
Click to expand...


So are you expecting someone to polish your halo now?


----------



## FA_Q2

Wry Catcher said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
Click to expand...


And therein lies the problem with your progressive tax system.  A flat tax leaves zero room for manipulation.  20% is 20%, there is nothing to manipulate there.  Each progressive element you add to the system opens the door for further manipulation of the tax rate.  Now you have people advocating for changing the top rate for upper earners or eliminating taxes from the bottom earners completely (while continuing to tax the shit out of them through hidden payroll, SS and other taxes).  All this is to buy votes or finagle more money out of the rich for campaign funds.  The corruption is inherent in a progressive system precisely because it treats people differently and special interest groups are going to latch onto that insanity.

That is precisely why a flat rate income tax is FAR superior.  There is no manipulating that system, no special interests and no lobbing that can do a damn thing.  The rate is whatever it is.  There is no way to tax the poor more or the rich more, all dollars should be the same.

ANY other system is guaranteed to be rife with corruption and special interests.  It is unnerving that you cannot see where all the special tax breaks originate from.  It is the progressive tax system itself that generates them and you simply cannot have one without the other.  It will not happen.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bear513 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its artificial stupid shit even just a guy like me knows the feds are pumping out money that has no value. its god damn monoply money.
Click to expand...


If that were true inflation would be through the roof the dollar would be plummeting and interest rates would be skyhigh.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Sunshine said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36.  I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units.  I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too.  But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.
Click to expand...


And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,

thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.


----------



## Sunshine

NYcarbineer said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36.  I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units.  I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too.  But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,
> 
> thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.
Click to expand...


Well there are people on here who piss and moan because their entitlements are so small.  They can spend every off hour here, which for some is all the time, or going to school to better, but they refuse.  Of course I did it knowing my tax burden would increase.  And it did.  And this year is no exception because I retired mid year, the IRS is punishing me for working.  Next year I get a $200 raise and I can stop having $200/month withheld from SS.  So, Jan 1, it's essentially a $400/month raise.  I have 3 health insurance policies because I got to keep my work insurance along with Medicare and medigap, so my medicine that costs $100,000/year will be all paid for.  My retirement insurance from work is not considered medigap.  Was it worth it?  Oh HELL yes.  

As to your other question, I don't know how to measure 'harder' in percentage.  Well, maybe in some circumstances compared to flacid, but not as it applies to work.  I'm working harder than the neighborhood housewives if I take 1 class.  How much harder taking 4?  Or getting 3 degrees?  I know that I made one hell of a better living for myself than their husbands made for them.

But I can tell you this, if I were the age of some of the posters on here there is no way I would be wasting precious time here when I could be going to school or moonlighting a little for some extras like travel.  Most of my career I had more than one thing going.  Sometimes it was moonlighting a shift a week at a hospital, or consulting for pharmaceutical companies.  I was always doing something.  Now, I have a leisurely life and I can't apologize for it.

s


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple tax questions for the home schooled;
> 
> 1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?
> 
> 2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?
> 
> (a) 39.6%
> (b) 20%
> (c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​
> 3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?
> 
> 4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?​
> Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The rates and history since 2003 are there.  Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%.  Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.
> 
> Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.
> 
> This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.
> 
> [quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.
> 
> Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.
> 
> Item 4.  Long time versus short time investments.
> 
> My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%.  aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.
Click to expand...


Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.


----------



## eagle1462010

NYcarbineer said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its artificial stupid shit even just a guy like me knows the feds are pumping out money that has no value. its god damn monoply money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true inflation would be through the roof the dollar would be plummeting and interest rates would be skyhigh.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of Quantive Easing Bub?  aka FORCED DEFLATION VIA THE FED.  The CPI history is applicable here.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The rates and history since 2003 are there.  Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%.  Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.
> 
> Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.
> 
> This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.
> 
> [quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.
> 
> Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.
> 
> Item 4.  Long time versus short time investments.
> 
> My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%.  aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
Click to expand...


Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?


----------



## Sunshine

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The rates and history since 2003 are there.  Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%.  Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.
> 
> Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.
> 
> This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.
> 
> [quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.
> 
> Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.
> 
> Item 4.  Long time versus short time investments.
> 
> My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%.  aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
Click to expand...


When one doesn't have to file a return, he is not likely to know what a 'bracket' is.     Perhaps you could give him a picture.


S


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> *DIVIDEND INCOME* paid to* INDIVIDUALS *is subject to* LOWER *tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  I posted the data and link.  It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.
> 
> Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?
> 
> If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.
> 
> STOP SPINNING THE DATA.  IT DOESN'T WORK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *20% is a LOWER TAX RATE that 39.6%. *If you earn $100,000 from* ORDINARY* income and $900,000 from *DIVIDEND* income how much tax are* YOU* going to pay?
> 
> The entire premise is that the *BULK *of income for the wealthy comes from dividends and capital gains which will be taxed at the *LOWER RATE of only 20%*. (It was only 15% *BEFORE *the latest tax increase.)
Click to expand...


No shit Sherlock.

I posted that DATA AND LINK AS WELL.  And now you are teaching me.

LOL


----------



## Sunshine

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer this simple question;
> 
> If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?
Click to expand...


Each will have a different rate.  Go online and print some tax forms.  Then fill them in using these numbers.  Do the calculations. You will see.


----------



## eagle1462010

Derideo_Te said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get a "*F -*" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer this simple question;
> 
> If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?
Click to expand...



Go to hell.  I'm not answering it even though I know the answer.  I provided the information given in your test and somehow you are now the expert.  So go to hell on your ORDERING ME WHAT TO DO.

You are diverting from the topic at hand, trying to sound ELITIST.  Which by nature is a LIB ANYWAY.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  I posted the data and link.  It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.
> 
> Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?
> 
> If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.
> 
> STOP SPINNING THE DATA.  IT DOESN'T WORK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *20% is a LOWER TAX RATE that 39.6%. *If you earn $100,000 from* ORDINARY* income and $900,000 from *DIVIDEND* income how much tax are* YOU* going to pay?
> 
> The entire premise is that the *BULK *of income for the wealthy comes from dividends and capital gains which will be taxed at the *LOWER RATE of only 20%*. (It was only 15% *BEFORE *the latest tax increase.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit Sherlock.
> 
> I posted that DATA AND LINK AS WELL.  And now you are teaching me.
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...


Either we have crossed lines here or there is a failure to communicate somehow.

Mitt Romney paid about 18% in total taxes on his 2007 $20 million income because the BULK of that income came from DIVIDENDS. Anyone else earning $20 million of ORDINARY income would have paid the top rate of 35%, right?

So where is the problem with stating that the WEALTHY who obtain the BULK of their income from DIVIDENDS are paying a LOWER RATE than the middle class?


----------



## eagle1462010

Sunshine said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer this simple question;
> 
> If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each will have a different rate.  Go online and print some tax forms.  Then fill them in using these numbers.  Do the calculations. You will see.
Click to expand...


LOL

I liked that response.


----------



## ilia25

Sunshine said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts
Click to expand...


Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.

Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Sunshine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36.  I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units.  I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too.  But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,
> 
> thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there are people on here who piss and moan because their entitlements are so small.  They can spend every off hour here, which for some is all the time, or going to school to better, but they refuse.  Of course I did it knowing my tax burden would increase.  And it did.  And this year is no exception because I retired mid year, the IRS is punishing me for working.  Next year I get a $200 raise and I can stop having $200/month withheld from SS.  So, Jan 1, it's essentially a $400/month raise.  I have 3 health insurance policies because I got to keep my work insurance along with Medicare and medigap, so my medicine that costs $100,000/year will be all paid for.  My retirement insurance from work is not considered medigap.  Was it worth it?  Oh HELL yes.
> 
> As to your other question, I don't know how to measure 'harder' in percentage.  Well, maybe in some circumstances compared to flacid, but not as it applies to work.  I'm working harder than the neighborhood housewives if I take 1 class.  How much harder taking 4?  Or getting 3 degrees?  I know that I made one hell of a better living for myself than their husbands made for them.
> 
> But I can tell you this, if I were the age of some of the posters on here there is no way I would be wasting precious time here when I could be going to school or moonlighting a little for some extras like travel.  Most of my career I had more than one thing going.  Sometimes it was moonlighting a shift a week at a hospital, or consulting for pharmaceutical companies.  I was always doing something.  Now, I have a leisurely life and I can't apologize for it.
> 
> s
Click to expand...


Who "piss and moan because their entitlements are so small"?  Name them please.


----------



## Derideo_Te

eagle1462010 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer this simple question;
> 
> If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go to hell.  I'm not answering it even though I know the answer.  I provided the information given in your test and somehow you are now the expert.  So go to hell on your ORDERING ME WHAT TO DO.
> 
> You are diverting from the topic at hand, trying to sound ELITIST.  Which by nature is a LIB ANYWAY.
Click to expand...


So you know that I am right but don't want to admit as much. Your little lamprey must be right about you being a lawyer. Have a nice day.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Sunshine said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do.  Homework, you do your own,.
> 
> Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED.  Hell, your link didn't even work.
> 
> You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES.  i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.
> 
> Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer this simple question;
> 
> If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each will have a different rate.  Go online and print some tax forms.  Then fill them in using these numbers.  Do the calculations. You will see.
Click to expand...


Bingo! So now you agree that the wealthy (like Mitt Romney) whose income primarily comes from DIVIDENDS pay less than the middle class.


----------



## Pete7469

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.



I read a lot of posts and usually ignore the stupid shit. It doesn't do any good to post facts, attempt to refocus the thread on the original point, use logic or reason to encourage a rational independent though, or even try to argue with the bed wetters on matters that have to do with their envy and hatred.

They just regurgitate asinine shit like this. Well even if you don't like it "the fallacy of trickle-down economics," worked like a motherfucker. The world has never experienced the economic boom Reagan's policies created anywhere else at any time in it's history. That includes the period where we were the only industrialized nation not still smoldering in the ruin of WW2.

(Which BTW was caused by leftist despots)

For whatever else bed wetters point to that had a negative effect, the Reagan years helped free the slaves of the USSR, promoted global growth and prosperity never seen before in the recorded history of the fucking universe, and set the stage for the US to become a single global superpower that no one in the world dreamed of fucking with until the Clinton beat that idiot RINO Bush. 

The next thing you knew, insignificant children of Saudi businessmen could challenge us and blow up our embassies. They grew so bold they infiltrated our nation with sociopaths that flew airplanes into our buildings. We've spent a decade at war with these insignificant assholes while real challengers have built up their militaries, and are threatening the stability of the world. No one who owns a tank respects the moonbat messiah, and they shouldn't. He's a useless pseudointellectual thug, and if you don't know it you're as big an imbecile as Chris Mathews.

These same bed wetters have manipulated so many of our children with the politics of envy and hate that we have to make liberty "fashionable". We have to somehow convince people who should otherwise know better that %10 is fucking enough, and that the moonbats demanding more aren't even willing to pony up what they're telling the country "the rich" owe to "the poor". What number are you leftist assholes willing to settle on? Why can you NEVER answer that simple fucking question?

We literally have the fattest "poor" people in the world. I've seen orphan children in the streets of 3rd world countries fight over table scraps. Excuse the shit out of me, but I have no compassion for fat "poor" people. I'm faced with furlough cuts that will drastically impact my ability to support my family, and your moonbat messiah is the reason it's happening. Are welfare beneficiaries worried? Fuck no. Do you give shit about me? Fuck no. Then you wonder why I don't mind when you assholes abort yourselves. 

Frankly I see an upside to it. I'm devising a plan to convince you idiots that retroactive self abortion will combat climate change, and you can go down to Guyana and emulate the stupid commie bed wetters that followed Jim Jones to hell. There aren't word strong enough to articulate the depth of my contempt for you parasitic, insipid, mindless piles of steaming "progressive" shit.


----------



## Sunshine

ilia25 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.
> 
> Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.
Click to expand...


Here is something that may have escaped you.  You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money.  I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.  

Define 'pay.'


----------



## Sunshine

Wry Catcher said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,
> 
> thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there are people on here who piss and moan because their entitlements are so small.  They can spend every off hour here, which for some is all the time, or going to school to better, but they refuse.  Of course I did it knowing my tax burden would increase.  And it did.  And this year is no exception because I retired mid year, the IRS is punishing me for working.  Next year I get a $200 raise and I can stop having $200/month withheld from SS.  So, Jan 1, it's essentially a $400/month raise.  I have 3 health insurance policies because I got to keep my work insurance along with Medicare and medigap, so my medicine that costs $100,000/year will be all paid for.  My retirement insurance from work is not considered medigap.  Was it worth it?  Oh HELL yes.
> 
> As to your other question, I don't know how to measure 'harder' in percentage.  Well, maybe in some circumstances compared to flacid, but not as it applies to work.  I'm working harder than the neighborhood housewives if I take 1 class.  How much harder taking 4?  Or getting 3 degrees?  I know that I made one hell of a better living for myself than their husbands made for them.
> 
> But I can tell you this, if I were the age of some of the posters on here there is no way I would be wasting precious time here when I could be going to school or moonlighting a little for some extras like travel.  Most of my career I had more than one thing going.  Sometimes it was moonlighting a shift a week at a hospital, or consulting for pharmaceutical companies.  I was always doing something.  Now, I have a leisurely life and I can't apologize for it.
> 
> s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who "piss and moan because their entitlements are so small"?  Name them please.
Click to expand...


You have almost 15,000 posts and you have to ask!  Unbelievable.


----------



## blackhawk

I have two simple questions on this the rich need to pay their fair share business.
1- How much do you have to earn a year to be considered rich?
2- What percent in taxes would you need to pay to be considered paying your fair share?


----------



## Sunshine

Derideo_Te said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer this simple question;
> 
> If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each will have a different rate.  Go online and print some tax forms.  Then fill them in using these numbers.  Do the calculations. You will see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo! So now you agree that the wealthy (like Mitt Romney) whose income primarily comes from DIVIDENDS pay less than the middle class.
Click to expand...


And my mother who lived on SS and had a money market account paid less on her interest.  If you ever got smart enough to invest instead of spending every dime you make, you could pay less too.  I, too, pay less on interest income.  Why does it bother you so that people who save money and invest in the system get rewarded for saving money and investing in the system?


----------



## Sunshine

blackhawk said:


> I have two simple questions on this the rich need to pay their fair share business.
> 1- How much do you have to earn a year to be considered rich?
> 2- What percent in taxes would you need to pay to be considered paying your fair share?



Good luck with that one.


----------



## Desperado

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



Not a chance in hell!!!!!
WTF 20%?????
I would be for a national sales tax but it would have to be no more than 5%.
With the way the tax base would increase with a "No Loophole" Sales tax, you would not need any more that 5% to match today's revenue.


----------



## blackhawk

Sunshine said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have two simple questions on this the rich need to pay their fair share business.
> 1- How much do you have to earn a year to be considered rich?
> 2- What percent in taxes would you need to pay to be considered paying your fair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that one.
Click to expand...


Yeah I know I won't get a straight answer still it's amazing how much people like to talk about fair share but can't answer these two questions.


----------



## Two Thumbs

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



Why is it when I bring this up, I hate poor people?

But when you do it, you get a pass?



seriously, I took a beating from every leftist that read that I wanted to victimize irs agents with unemployment and fuck over the poor by going to war on them.


----------



## Billo_Really

blackhawk said:


> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.


What's wrong with that?

I pay 31%.

What is wrong, is someone making over $250K a year, paying only 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.


----------



## blackhawk

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with that?
> 
> I pay 31%.
> 
> What is wrong, is someone making over $250K a year, paying only 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
Click to expand...


When people talk about fair share they are not talking about the rate on capital gains and dividends but on salary income people like to throw that in there to try and muddy the waters on the discussion.


----------



## Billo_Really

blackhawk said:


> When people talk about fair share they are not talking about the rate on capital gains and dividends but on salary income people like to throw that in there to try and muddy the waters on the discussion.


Fair share is regarding the rate on taxable income.

Capital gains and dividends are taxable income.


----------



## blackhawk

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about fair share they are not talking about the rate on capital gains and dividends but on salary income people like to throw that in there to try and muddy the waters on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is regarding the rate on taxable income.
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxable income.
Click to expand...


We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Pete7469

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with that?
> 
> I pay 31%.
> 
> What is wrong, is someone making over $250K a year, paying only 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
Click to expand...


You're full of shit. Someone as stupid as you can't possibly EARN a salary that pays more than $25K, and no one under $50K pays an effective federal tax rate over %1 unless they're too stupid to file a return at all.

I'd be happy to pay %10 tax on my income, if everything else that I bought wasn't loaded up with fees and taxes that don't show up on my receipts. If "The Rich" and their businesses weren't saddled with having to have accountants and lawyers on full time salaries because of fascist pigs like you, everything I buy would cost a lot less. If corporate "profits" weren't taxed more than COMMUNIST CHINA we might not have to worry about the competition.

You bed wetters are useful idiots, and the reason this nation is in decline.


----------



## Antares

Sorry buckwheat, this is how the Left frames it.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

Pete7469 said:


> You're full of shit. Someone as stupid as you can't possibly EARN a salary that pays more than $25K, and no one under $50K pays an effective federal tax rate over %1 unless they're too stupid to file a return at all.
> 
> I'd be happy to pay %10 tax on my income, if everything else that I bought wasn't loaded up with fees and taxes that don't show up on my receipts. If "The Rich" and their businesses weren't saddled with having to have accountants and lawyers on full time salaries because of fascist pigs like you, everything I buy would cost a lot less. If corporate "profits" weren't taxed more than COMMUNIST CHINA we might not have to worry about the competition.
> 
> You bed wetters are useful idiots, and the reason this nation is in decline.


If you don't like what I said, then shove it up your ass and out your mouth!

I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends.

So fuck you and anyone who looks like you!


----------



## Billo_Really

blackhawk said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.


Yes we will.


----------



## Rozman

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with that?
> 
> I pay 31%.
> 
> What is wrong, is someone making over $250K a year, paying only 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
Click to expand...


What is wrong is someone earning money paying taxes on it investing it and then if they make money on that investment paying more then the current rate on Capital gains?

Of course the issue is Democrats feel any money earned belongs to government first.


----------



## Gadawg73

Derideo_Te said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash! Any competent accountant will help your corporation from having to be "taxed twice". You can't blame the government because you don't hire good help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about business.
> Shareholders buy stocks. Do you own any stocks?
> What does that make you? A SHAREHOLDER.
> Shareholders buy stocks why? As an investment to make money?
> So if you own shares in a company and the company makes a profit what do you want?
> A share of the profits?
> That is what a dividend is Moe. Every good accountant out there advises corporations to pay as much as they can in dividends to their shareholders to keep the price of their stock high.
> High corporate profits or low corporate profits. Which one makes a companies' stock price rise and puts money in the hands of shareholders and employees?
> 
> WELL DUH!
> That is the first lesson.
> Lesson #2.
> Before I started each of my companies I consulted with my accountant BEFORE hand for tax advice. Those strategies and policies are IN PLACE before I made my first dollar.
> They have to be. The moocher class is growing and government is plundering faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your erroneous assumptions and bigotry against the less fortunate come across loud and clear.
Click to expand...


Unlike you I get off my ass and do something for the unfortunate. I work at the local food bank, coached rec kids for 20 years and took many a poor kid home after practice, teach the unfortunate how to read, how to balance a check book, how to budget for food, how to plan a menu, how to teach their kids how to read, how to shop for food with coupons and other budget ideas, how to work on their car, where to go find a trusty mechanic in the area, how to formulate a house budget and many other things.

All you do is sit on your ass, call names and label folks "bigots" because they seek solutions  instead of offering nothing other than rank rhetoric like yours.


----------



## Gadawg73

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about fair share they are not talking about the rate on capital gains and dividends but on salary income people like to throw that in there to try and muddy the waters on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is regarding the rate on taxable income.
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxable income.
Click to expand...


They shouldn't be. They are investment income and that carries RISK.

Tell us please sir how many jobs where you had an income did you have where you worked 40 hours that week and did not know if and when you would get paid?

Real world for those that take the massive risks of the hard earned money they put at risk NEVER KNOWING if they will ever make any money off of their hard earned dollars, *ALREADY TAXED ONCE WHEN THEY MADE IT.

We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots. People that work extra hard and save their money to invest are now to be scorned on and punished.

How dare anyone make a profit off of their capital THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON ONCE!!!

We have to punish them and tax them again and again and again each time they make a cent off the capital they invested AFTER THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON IT ONCE.*


----------



## Gadawg73

NYcarbineer said:


> All of you not-Rich people out there who want the Rich to pay lower taxes...
> 
> ...how much are you willing to have your own taxes raised to make up the difference?



Respectfully, if you do not know that you can tax the rich at 90% and they still will pay little to no taxes then you are not paying attention.

Raise the tax rate and all of a sudden the wealthy HAVE NO TAXABLE INCOME.

Something about the 56,000 page tax code which you support blindly never knowing that it LEGALLY allows anyone and everyone TO PAY NO TAXES if they have NO INCOME other than TAX FREE INCOME per the tax code.

Raise the tax code to 100% and EVERY cent I have goes into tax free municipal bonds.



See how far your "tax the rich" idea goes with that.

Real world, please join us as you appear to be an above average thinker here.


----------



## Pete7469

Billo_Really said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit. Someone as stupid as you can't possibly EARN a salary that pays more than $25K, and no one under $50K pays an effective federal tax rate over %1 unless they're too stupid to file a return at all.
> 
> I'd be happy to pay %10 tax on my income, if everything else that I bought wasn't loaded up with fees and taxes that don't show up on my receipts. If "The Rich" and their businesses weren't saddled with having to have accountants and lawyers on full time salaries because of fascist pigs like you, everything I buy would cost a lot less. If corporate "profits" weren't taxed more than COMMUNIST CHINA we might not have to worry about the competition.
> 
> You bed wetters are useful idiots, and the reason this nation is in decline.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like what I said, then shove it up your ass and out your mouth!
> 
> I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends.
> 
> So fuck you and anyone who looks like you!
Click to expand...


This confirms you're full of shit, I'll bet you don't pay a goddamn dime in tax. If you did you'd be offended that so many oxygen thieves live off your income. 

You're just another useful idiot who regurgitates the bullshit line that "the rich" don't pay their fair share. Well if that's not enough, write a bigger check this year bed wetter. Like that asshole Buffet who claims he should be taxed more, but is in a long running legal battle over taxes he owes. You can't go fuck yourself hard enough to make up for that.

Better yet suffocate yourself with a plastic bag and take yourself off the welfare list. That will be the best thing you can do with your "life" and you'll decrease "global warming" while you're at it. Eat a shit sandwich along the way too fuckstick.

/ignore


----------



## Gadawg73

What is the best way someone that is poor comes out of poverty?:

A. They receive guidance and training from someone that owns a private business and works their way out of poverty with some short term assistance of government and a lot of assistance FROM THE COMMUNITY THEY LIVE IN.

B. They keep having children out of wedlock, do not work and keep doing the same things that made them poor to begin with and government will pay their way.

Which is better?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Wry Catcher said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polls are only as good as the questions asked.  Your poll sucks.
> 
> A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional.  If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.
> 
> Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment.  Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth.  As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth.  In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).
> 
> No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country.  Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed.  But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax.  The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians.  Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR,  but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology.  Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become.  Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP's poll sucks?
> Yes, but if it were commissioned by liberals and the poll results the same, you'd be crowing  in support of the poll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would huh?  You're full of shit, but I suspect on some level you know that.
Click to expand...


Yes. You would.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with that?
> 
> I pay 31%.
> 
> What is wrong, is someone making over $250K a year, paying only 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
Click to expand...


Hey slick..There is no such thing as a 31% tax bracket..And even if there were, then to pay that percentage, you'd be well into the 80th p[ercentile of earners....
Spare us the whine...
28%	$87,850 to $183,250	$146,400 to $223,050	$125,450 to $203,150
33%	$183,250 to $398,350	$223,050 to $398,350	$203,150 to $398,350
Updated: 2013 Federal Income Tax Brackets And Marginal Rates - Forbes
What kills me is how your side's partisanship regarding taxation is so narrow minded that you believe the federal government deserves two full bites at the apple.
Where do you people get off thinking that because the earnings of others make you uncomfortable, the federal government should do YOU a solid and take more from them?
And for what. Why should the government get to tax more?


----------



## ilia25

Sunshine said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.
> 
> Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is something that may have escaped you.  You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money.  I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.
> 
> Define 'pay.'
Click to expand...


"Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is everyone but you paying more.
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with that?
> 
> I pay 31%.
> 
> What is wrong, is someone making over $250K a year, paying only 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey slick..There is no such thing as a 31% tax bracket..
Click to expand...


I don't think you know how tax brackets work.



> Where do you people get off thinking that because the earnings of others make you uncomfortable, the federal government should do YOU a solid and take more from them?
> And for what. Why should the government get to tax more?



Because the rich receiving too big a share of the pie. At the expense of the rest.


----------



## auditor0007

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



28% including capital gains and inheritance taxes.  That being the highest tax bracket would kick in at $200,000 for a single person.  Secondly, the home mortgage deduction would be phased out over the next 15 years.  As for the rest of the rates, 15%, 22%, and the top rate of 28%.  And last of all, increase the payroll tax cap to $200,000, but make it so that nobody ever pays over 28% between their share of the payroll tax and their federal income tax.


----------



## auditor0007

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



Yea, just like the states do it.  In just about every state the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes and the highest income earners pay the least.  A tax system based on sales taxes is terribly regressive and a very bad idea.


----------



## Gadawg73

ilia25 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.
> 
> Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something that may have escaped you.  You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money.  I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.
> 
> Define 'pay.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.
Click to expand...


Could it be that their skill set is 100 times more in demand than someone else's skill set?
Something about supply and demand.
NO ONE forces anyone to *PAY* anyone 100 times what others make.

In one of my businesses I make $100+ a hour because there are few people that are as skilled as myself in that area and they are more happy to pay it.

*SKILL SET*
Folks go to college and major in Greek Literature and wonder why they can not find a job making $60K a year.
And nothing against folks that major in Greek Literature as that is their choice.


----------



## Gadawg73

auditor0007 said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, just like the states do it.  In just about every state the lowest income earners pay the highest percentage of taxes and the highest income earners pay the least.  A tax system based on sales taxes is terribly regressive and a very bad idea.
Click to expand...


NO it isn't regressive if there is a rebate level.
In fact it brings in MORE revenue as it is a consumption tax and many wealthy people later in life have NO taxable income so this taxes their consumption.
Taxing income, how hard someone works, is a terrible idea.
The most unfair system around, especially for lower income people that work hard and then make more money. What happens to them when they make it out of the lower income through THEIR HARD WORK? The government takes MORE FROM THEM and gives it to "the unfortunate", the "poor" and others THE GOVERNMENT ALONE determines needs more than the person that *EARNED IT. *


----------



## mudwhistle

'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.



Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters. 

Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something that may have escaped you.  You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money.  I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.
> 
> Define 'pay.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Could it be that their skill set is 100 times more in demand than someone else's skill set?
> Something about supply and demand.
> NO ONE forces anyone to PAY anyone 100 times what others make.*
> In one of my businesses I make $100+ a hour because there are few people that are as skilled as myself in that area and they are more happy to pay it.
> 
> *SKILL SET*
> Folks go to college and major in Greek Literature and wonder why they can not find a job making $60K a year.
> And nothing against folks that major in Greek Literature as that is their choice.
Click to expand...


LMAO. Dude, you ever hear about Ivy League colleges? Boards of Directors? Insider trading? Political connections? Families of great wealth?

The above are partly the reasons that large corporations have senior executives that make obscene salaries and bonuses. Having nothing to do with hard work or job performance. Hell, todays executives can have a "golden parachute" (and most do) where they get paid millions for basically getting let go. Fired in other words.

Just remember; at the ultra weathy level, it's not what you know, it is WHO you know. And the amount of wealth you control.

And you never did name names for those ultra wealthy that are asking for their taxes to be increased. Why?


----------



## ilia25

Gadawg73 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something that may have escaped you.  You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money.  I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.
> 
> Define 'pay.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pay" means income, genius. A person making 100s times the average cannot justify it by claiming he is working "considerably" harder. Because he is not working 4000 hour weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could it be that their skill set is 100 times more in demand than someone else's skill set?
> Something about supply and demand.
> NO ONE forces anyone to *PAY* anyone 100 times what others make.
Click to expand...


Yes, free market system is not perfect and sometimes it creates undesirable outcomes. Too high income inequality is one of them, and it should be corrected with redistribution through taxes. 

All developed nations do that, including the US. We just not doing enough of it -- in the past 30 we have dramatically slashed taxes on the rich while income inequality was growing.


----------



## ilia25

I 





auditor0007 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 28% including capital gains and inheritance taxes.  That being the highest tax bracket would kick in at $200,000 for a single person.  Secondly, the home mortgage deduction would be phased out over the next 15 years.  As for the rest of the rates, 15%, 22%, and the top rate of 28%.  And last of all, increase the payroll tax cap to $200,000, but make it so that nobody ever pays over 28% between their share of the payroll tax and their federal income tax.
Click to expand...


That's a good proposal, but why stop at 28%? There is little evidence that much higher marginal rates -- up to 70% -- have noticeable impact on the economy. And the less inequality we end up with, the better.


----------



## Gadawg73

ilia25 said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 28% including capital gains and inheritance taxes.  That being the highest tax bracket would kick in at $200,000 for a single person.  Secondly, the home mortgage deduction would be phased out over the next 15 years.  As for the rest of the rates, 15%, 22%, and the top rate of 28%.  And last of all, increase the payroll tax cap to $200,000, but make it so that nobody ever pays over 28% between their share of the payroll tax and their federal income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good proposal, but why stop at 28%? There is little evidence that much higher marginal rates -- up to 70% -- have noticeable impact on the economy. And the less inequality we end up with, the better.
Click to expand...


Who is stopping you from donating 70% of your income to the government?

Who determines what is "equality"?

*THE GOVERNMENT?*

That is some scary shit there.


----------



## ilia25

Gadawg73 said:


> What happens to them when they make it out of the lower income through THEIR HARD WORK?



Hard work does not justify 100s times the average salary. Nobody works 4000 hour weeks. 



> The government takes MORE FROM THEM and gives it to "the unfortunate", the "poor" and others THE GOVERNMENT ALONE determines needs more than the person that *EARNED IT. *



The government from the people, by the people. It is elected by the majority and acts in their interests.

As for "earned it" -- no, you didn't build that, not on your own. Millions people had to do the right thing so you could succeed. You owe it to them just as much as you owe it to yourself.


----------



## Wildman

bear513 said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> 
> "fair share" in my opinion would be a "CONSUMPTION" tax.., the more one spends, the more tax one pays.
> 
> NO tax on food, medicines, health care and other necessities !
> 
> "necessities".., that appears to be a loaded word, BUT !! bottled water is NOT a necessity nor is a $1,567,982.34 yacht !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just created a loop hole with the word "necessites" and why do you or the goverment get to say what is a necessity?  We will then have paid lobbyist for that.
Click to expand...


YES !! as i said, "necessities" is a loaded word.., so i'll try to define it, 

"necessities": food, medicine and material items necessary to sustain life.


----------



## NYcarbineer

mudwhistle said:


> 'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.
> 
> Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.



You really think that low/middle income Americans with families do not derive any benefit from a $1000 per child tax credit?  

You really think that paying 10% on your first 20,000 of income, or whatever it is, isn't better than paying 20%?


----------



## RKMBrown

NYcarbineer said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.
> 
> Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that low/middle income Americans with families do not derive any benefit from a $1000 per child tax credit?
> 
> You really think that paying 10% on your first 20,000 of income, or whatever it is, isn't better than paying 20%?
Click to expand...


40m+ on welfare... yeah not one democrat is benefiting from those checks.


----------



## mudwhistle

RKMBrown said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Fair share' is screwing the rich in favor of the Democrat base.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Democrat base doesn't actually receive any benefit, but they're convinced by the state that they do. Really, that's all that matters.
> 
> Somebody gets screwed and Democrat voters enjoy knowing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that low/middle income Americans with families do not derive any benefit from a $1000 per child tax credit?
> 
> You really think that paying 10% on your first 20,000 of income, or whatever it is, isn't better than paying 20%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40m+ on welfare... yeah not one democrat is benefiting from those checks.
Click to expand...


The Dem base doesn't care if Obama increases the welfare state, they just like that he constantly talks about fucking the rich. Fact is he's just fucking his political opponents over and using government agencies to do it through lawsuits, harrassment, and fear.


----------



## DiamondDave

Well.. I don't think it is a specific number right now...

BUT....

It should be an equal rate across the board... none of this subjective BULLSHIT that the 'rich' can afford to pay more, etc... and all budget and ACTUAL spending should be limited to the intake of tax income from the previous year at a MAXIMUM. And any 'emergency' spending should be approved by a 2/3 majority in congress, and signed off by the executive, and taken out of the next year's spending


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
Click to expand...


I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.

I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Billo_Really said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're full of shit. Someone as stupid as you can't possibly EARN a salary that pays more than $25K, and no one under $50K pays an effective federal tax rate over %1 unless they're too stupid to file a return at all.
> 
> I'd be happy to pay %10 tax on my income, if everything else that I bought wasn't loaded up with fees and taxes that don't show up on my receipts. If "The Rich" and their businesses weren't saddled with having to have accountants and lawyers on full time salaries because of fascist pigs like you, everything I buy would cost a lot less. If corporate "profits" weren't taxed more than COMMUNIST CHINA we might not have to worry about the competition.
> 
> You bed wetters are useful idiots, and the reason this nation is in decline.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like what I said, then shove it up your ass and out your mouth!
> 
> I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends.
> 
> So fuck you and anyone who looks like you!
Click to expand...

You don't pay 31%....There is no 31% bracket.
Now, you expect all forms of income to be taxed at the same rate? That's ludicrous.
That money was taxed at the higher rate when it was earned. Are you implying that the federal government should get a second FULL bite at the apple just because someone decided to invest in a company through its stock offering? A company that without the investments of others that could not create the jobs that the investment capital provided?
And let's discuss all the people that have 401k's and those union workers who's pension funds are all invested in those very same firms? 
Should the pensioner's allowance after he or she retires be taxed at the full rate as regular income? The 401k investor? The IRA saver? 
Are you so pissed off at anyone who made some additional income for their future or to pay for a new home or a swimming pool, or to just live more comfortably, that you would rather see government tax the shit out of them and remove all incentive to save or invest?
IS that the kind of world in which you wish to live?
Damn the people! Give all the cash to the government, right genius?
Have you ever asked your parents( assuming they are still alive) or grandparents if they ever invested in GM or Coca Cola? If so, would you walk up to them and say, "I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends."?....
Are you are  now boiling mad as you shoot back with " that's different. They worked hard for their money!!"...? How would that be any different? Go ahead and try to explain that one.
Now you can curse like a drunken sailor at me.
Meanwhile your premise of full double taxation goes nowhere.


----------



## thereisnospoon

KissMy said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through income tax alone the middle class pays the highest effective tax rate. When you add in payroll taxes the middle class gets completely screwed. Income tax facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. In 2007 once you start making $2 million a year your effective tax rates go down & you are being subsidized. Workers making $200K were paying higher effective income tax rates than billionaires. That is before adding in payroll taxes that make the rates even worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter. The top 10% of all earners pay 40% of the federal tax burden. The top 25% pay well over 70% of the federal tax burden.
> The problem is not revenue. The problem is SPENDING...There is too much of it.
> The fact that a measly $85 bln of a total continuing resolution( remember, there is no federal budget right now) of over $3 trillion caused such a ruckus. There is just far too much dependency on government.
> The other fact ignored is there were NO CUTS in the sequester. Only reductions in increases. Which the libs call a "cut"...
> No, you guys get plenty. Your side needs to figure out good stewardship of the people's money before you can ask for more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I warned you in this post "If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field."
> 
> You have clearly demonstrated you are to retarded to understand subsidies or tax codes!  You are clueless as to how the tax code made all the capital, investment & wealth flow to the rich because their lower effective tax rate & exemption from payroll tax generated greater return on investment than others could.  You don't have the mental capacity to understand.
> 
> I never asked for more revenue, only less from the upper middle class in order to stop the $2 million & above income from paying lower rates than us who are subsidizing them.
Click to expand...


There is no table, no truth to the contrary that the top earners pay the majority of the federal tax burden. That is the end of the story. 
Your nonsense about subsidies and other lib talking point material is nothing but political rhetoric. 
I believe you absolutely despise anyone with more than what makes you feel comfortable.
As you drive through a wealthy neighborhood you seethe with anger. You scream "who are those people to think they deserve to live in such luxury. Fuck them"..
Such a mindset is illogical. 
What you refuse to acknowledge is the federal government already got its full bite at the apple when the money was earned. 
And at the end of your rant, suppose for a moment the tax code was replaced with only the things YOU want. What then? Do you think it will change your situation one iota?

Now, as for your uncalled for insult..
Be advised, I don't give a rats ass about forum rules. I leave no stone unturned. 
You come at me, I will bury you. 
Now, do you want to have a discussion? Or do you want to lose a war of insults?
Your choice.


----------



## thereisnospoon

rightwinger said:


> Let's start with pre-Reagan tax rates and see how it goes



Why?


----------



## Billo_Really

thereisnospoon said:


> You don't pay 31%....There is no 31% bracket.
> Now, you expect all forms of income to be taxed at the same rate? That's ludicrous.
> That money was taxed at the higher rate when it was earned. Are you implying that the federal government should get a second FULL bite at the apple just because someone decided to invest in a company through its stock offering? A company that without the investments of others that could not create the jobs that the investment capital provided?
> And let's discuss all the people that have 401k's and those union workers who's pension funds are all invested in those very same firms?
> Should the pensioner's allowance after he or she retires be taxed at the full rate as regular income? The 401k investor? The IRA saver?
> Are you so pissed off at anyone who made some additional income for their future or to pay for a new home or a swimming pool, or to just live more comfortably, that you would rather see government tax the shit out of them and remove all incentive to save or invest?
> IS that the kind of world in which you wish to live?
> Damn the people! Give all the cash to the government, right genius?
> Have you ever asked your parents( assuming they are still alive) or grandparents if they ever invested in GM or Coca Cola? If so, would you walk up to them and say, "I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends."?....
> Are you are  now boiling mad as you shoot back with " that's different. They worked hard for their money!!"...? How would that be any different? Go ahead and try to explain that one.
> Now you can curse like a drunken sailor at me.
> Meanwhile your premise of full double taxation goes nowhere.


31% of my last paycheck was deducted from the gross.

Since I have no medical, it was all government related deductions.


----------



## Billo_Really

Rozman said:


> What is wrong is someone earning money paying taxes on it investing it and then if they make money on that investment paying more then the current rate on Capital gains?
> 
> Of course the issue is Democrats feel any money earned belongs to government first.


They're not investing their capital gains savings, they're hoarding it.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average is NOT all Americans.
> Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
> When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
> And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
> And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.
> 
> What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.
> 
> The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
> That is called INDEXING.
> A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
> What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
> I made that point in the other post.
Click to expand...

According to an inflation calculator I used off the internet.....Converter of current to real US dollars | using the GDP deflator.....
1975 $12,000 US Dollars is equivalent to $41,595,78 in 2013 US Dollars.


----------



## Billo_Really

Gadawg73 said:


> They shouldn't be. They are investment income and that carries RISK.
> 
> Tell us please sir how many jobs where you had an income did you have where you worked 40 hours that week and did not know if and when you would get paid?
> 
> Real world for those that take the massive risks of the hard earned money they put at risk NEVER KNOWING if they will ever make any money off of their hard earned dollars, *ALREADY TAXED ONCE WHEN THEY MADE IT.
> 
> We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots. People that work extra hard and save their money to invest are now to be scorned on and punished.
> 
> How dare anyone make a profit off of their capital THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON ONCE!!!
> 
> We have to punish them and tax them again and again and again each time they make a cent off the capital they invested AFTER THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON IT ONCE.*


*Capital gains is income that should be taxed at 25%.*


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.
> 
> I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.
Click to expand...


In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.


----------



## ilia25

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average is NOT all Americans.
> Producers are indexed as the tax code IS INDEXED.
> When one was taxed on $12,000 a year in 1973 to compensate for inflation that income is not $36,000 a year.
> And they pay more taxes NOW on the 36K which bought the same amount of things NOW as it did in 1973 for 12K which was taxed FAR LESS than the 36K NOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
> And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.
> 
> What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.
> 
> The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
> That is called INDEXING.
> A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
> What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
> I made that point in the other post.
Click to expand...



This is effective tax rate -- i.e. the share of income people making a million a year (adjusted for inflation) would actually pay.


----------



## LoneLaugher

DiamondDave said:


> Well.. I don't think it is a specific number right now...
> 
> BUT....
> 
> It should be an equal rate across the board... none of this subjective BULLSHIT that the 'rich' can afford to pay more, etc... and all budget and ACTUAL spending should be limited to the intake of tax income from the previous year at a MAXIMUM. And any 'emergency' spending should be approved by a 2/3 majority in congress, and signed off by the executive, and taken out of the next year's spending



That is a recipe for economic disaster.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Billo_Really said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldn't be. They are investment income and that carries RISK.
> 
> Tell us please sir how many jobs where you had an income did you have where you worked 40 hours that week and did not know if and when you would get paid?
> 
> Real world for those that take the massive risks of the hard earned money they put at risk NEVER KNOWING if they will ever make any money off of their hard earned dollars, *ALREADY TAXED ONCE WHEN THEY MADE IT.
> 
> We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots. People that work extra hard and save their money to invest are now to be scorned on and punished.
> 
> How dare anyone make a profit off of their capital THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON ONCE!!!
> 
> We have to punish them and tax them again and again and again each time they make a cent off the capital they invested AFTER THEY ALREADY PAID TAXES ON IT ONCE.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital gains is income that should be taxed at 25%.*
Click to expand...

*
How did you arrive at that figure? And why?*


----------



## thereisnospoon

LoneLaugher said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. I don't think it is a specific number right now...
> 
> BUT....
> 
> It should be an equal rate across the board... none of this subjective BULLSHIT that the 'rich' can afford to pay more, etc... and all budget and ACTUAL spending should be limited to the intake of tax income from the previous year at a MAXIMUM. And any 'emergency' spending should be approved by a 2/3 majority in congress, and signed off by the executive, and taken out of the next year's spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a recipe for economic disaster.
Click to expand...

Please explain and expound on that answer.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.
> 
> I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.
> 
> I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.
Click to expand...


That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.

Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.

Your argument is class-warfare mentality at its finest. "_He has more, so I automatically have to have less. Take what he has!_"


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be a point you are trying to make. What is it? That incomes have risen since 1973? Yes they have. And that items are more expensive today than in 1973? Yes they are.
> And seeing as how income taxes are applied as a percentage of income, then yes, I pay more dollars in taxes today than I did in 1973.
> 
> What was your point? Do you have a "way back machine"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of inflation $36K buys NOW what 12K bought in 1973.
> 
> The effective tax rate for what you paid taxes on in 1973 was FAR LESS than what one pays taxes now on 36K.
> That is called INDEXING.
> A word Democrats run from like monkeys on fire.
> What someone paid taxes on when they had a middle income of 12K in 1973 is FAR LESS than what they pay now on 36K of income.
> I made that point in the other post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is effective tax rate -- i.e. the share of income people making a million a year (adjusted for inflation) would actually pay.
Click to expand...


Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.

Here's a real source, with factual, *non-misleading* information.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf


----------



## Derideo_Te

Gadawg73 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about business.
> Shareholders buy stocks. Do you own any stocks?
> What does that make you? A SHAREHOLDER.
> Shareholders buy stocks why? As an investment to make money?
> So if you own shares in a company and the company makes a profit what do you want?
> A share of the profits?
> That is what a dividend is Moe. Every good accountant out there advises corporations to pay as much as they can in dividends to their shareholders to keep the price of their stock high.
> High corporate profits or low corporate profits. Which one makes a companies' stock price rise and puts money in the hands of shareholders and employees?
> 
> WELL DUH!
> That is the first lesson.
> Lesson #2.
> Before I started each of my companies I consulted with my accountant BEFORE hand for tax advice. Those strategies and policies are IN PLACE before I made my first dollar.
> They have to be. The moocher class is growing and government is plundering faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your erroneous assumptions and bigotry against the less fortunate come across loud and clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you I get off my ass and do something for the unfortunate. I work at the local food bank, coached rec kids for 20 years and took many a poor kid home after practice, teach the unfortunate how to read, how to balance a check book, how to budget for food, how to plan a menu, how to teach their kids how to read, how to shop for food with coupons and other budget ideas, how to work on their car, where to go find a trusty mechanic in the area, how to formulate a house budget and many other things.
> 
> All you do is sit on your ass, call names and label folks "bigots" because they seek solutions  instead of offering nothing other than rank rhetoric like yours.
Click to expand...


Your empty boasting impresses no one but yourself just as your erroneous assumptions about those you know nothing about just makes you look foolish.


----------



## noose4

91% wouldnt be communism that was what the top rate was during the Eisenhower administration.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.



That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.


----------



## Derideo_Te

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what numbers you advocate for.
> 
> I just wanted to see how many other leftists agree with your extreme views. Thankfully for America, we're outnumbering you extremists 2 to 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.
> 
> *Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.*
Click to expand...


That sounds like something the wealthy nobles would have said prior to losing their heads during the French Revolution.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.
Click to expand...


What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?

Then what is the right figure?



> Here's a real source, with factual, *non-misleading* information.
> 
> http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf



Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?


----------



## JoeNormal

tooAlive said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me how many people actually forked over 91% of any portion of their income to the government.
> 
> Also, please find me someone that is willing to work for .10 cents on the dollar. I want to hire them.
Click to expand...


First of all, if they were in the 90% range, you couldn't possibly afford them and second, who pays 35% today?


----------



## JoeNormal

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?
> 
> Then what is the right figure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a real source, with factual, *non-misleading* information.
> 
> http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non misleading? Really? The would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?
Click to expand...


Sure, I'll explain it to you.  As the top rate has gone down, the slack has been made up by lower and middle income earners.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me how many people actually forked over 91% of any portion of their income to the government.
Click to expand...


No one paid 91% -- but people making over 1 million in today's dollars did pay 66% of their income in taxes.


----------



## AmazonTania

Billo_Really said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people talk about fair share they are not talking about the rate on capital gains and dividends but on salary income people like to throw that in there to try and muddy the waters on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair share is regarding the rate on taxable income.
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxable income.
Click to expand...


That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.


----------



## Billo_Really

AmazonTania said:


> That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.


Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.

In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.


----------



## AmazonTania

noose4 said:


> 91% wouldnt be communism that was what the top rate was during the Eisenhower administration.



Only 352 households out of 54 million filed income taxes in the top marginal bracket in 1954. Even then their effective rate was still around the 60's. The top 50% in that time period paid 6% of all federal taxes, while the same top 50% today pays 97.21% of all federal taxes. The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor. Not the rich.

But as far as I'm concerned, the federal income tax is a direct tax which is un-apportioned, which is unlike the 16th amendment demands. Going by this understanding, no one in the country is really paying their fair share of taxes.


----------



## Billo_Really

thereisnospoon said:


> How did you arrive at that figure? And why?


I took 15% and added 10.


----------



## AmazonTania

Billo_Really said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.
Click to expand...


That's your opinion. If you were a shareholder of a business, you would certainly want to reconsider. As these types of investments are subject to double taxation. Not to mention owning these assets doesn't necessarily mean that it comes with a free lunch or 'get rich quick' scheme. These are investment decisions which essentially means you forgo consumption in the present, possibly for greater consumption in the future.

The keyword being, 'possibly.'



> In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.



This is only because most business owners or CEO's choose to take either no salary or a low salary. Capital averages are not the lion share of their annual income. In most cares, capital gains ARE their income. This is how individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have fooled the masses into believing their secretaries pay more in taxes than they do.


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor.



What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???

I guess what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.

But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.


----------



## AmazonTania

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???
> 
> *I guess *what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.
> 
> But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.
Click to expand...


Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.

And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prosperity that everyone considers so great under the Eisenhower Administration/91% top marginal tax rate came off the backs of the middle class and the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???
> 
> *I guess *what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.
> 
> But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.
> 
> And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.
Click to expand...


Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.


----------



## Borillar

The current tax system is cumbersome and inequitable. A flat tax would certainly simplify matters. The problem with most proposals is that only income is considered. One proposal I have read about is the "2-4-8 Weath-Sales-Income tax blend."  The 2-4-8 Tax Blend is a federal tax reform plan that would replace the payroll taxes with a 2% net wealth tax (excluding $15,000 cash and retirement funds up to $500,000). This enables the income tax rate to be lowered to a flat 8%. The same 2% wealth tax rate and 8% income tax rate would apply to all. Because 50% of the population has only 1% of the wealth and 10% owns 75% of the wealth the combination tax rate is progressive even though the rates are identical for rich and poor.

For business, there would be a 4% VAT and the C corporation income tax rate would be reduced to 8% (for the lowest business tax rates in the developed world).

I'm not an economist, but this looks like something I could support.

Tax Net Wealth


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???
> 
> *I guess *what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.
> 
> But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.
> 
> And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
Click to expand...


They do hurt the economy.

The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*

Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.


----------



## Billo_Really

AmazonTania said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. If you were a shareholder of a business, you would certainly want to reconsider. As these types of investments are subject to double taxation. Not to mention owning these assets doesn't necessarily mean that it comes with a free lunch or 'get rich quick' scheme. These are investment decisions which essentially means you forgo consumption in the present, possibly for greater consumption in the future.
> 
> The keyword being, 'possibly.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only because most business owners or CEO's choose to take either no salary or a low salary. Capital averages are not the lion share of their annual income. In most cares, capital gains ARE their income. This is how individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have fooled the masses into believing their secretaries pay more in taxes than they do.
Click to expand...

You're pretty hot, we should mate!


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.
Click to expand...


Oh really?

You tax the rich and then what? Are poor people magically going to get their salaries raised and more money will appear in their bank accounts?

The fact is the more money that is taken from the rich is spent by the government, and many times the poor and working class don't get to see any of it.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?
> 
> Then what is the right figure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a real source, with factual, *non-misleading* information.
> 
> http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?
Click to expand...


It means that although tax rates have been as high as 90%, the average effective tax rate has remained roughly the same throughout.


----------



## tooAlive

Derideo_Te said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.
> 
> *Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds like something the wealthy nobles would have said prior to losing their heads during the French Revolution.
Click to expand...


Only ignorant socialists would have a problem with what I said because it trumps their class-warfare mentality.

Wealth isn't finite. Simply because I have more does not mean you automatically have to have less.


----------



## AmazonTania

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???
> 
> *I guess *what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.
> 
> But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.
> 
> And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
Click to expand...


The argument is fallacious just as the conclusion. The reasoning stems from the higher tax rates from the 1950's up to the late 1970's, and concludes that higher taxes doesn't harm the economy, simply because the country have had much higher taxes in the past. However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.

Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy. People have avoided just as many taxes  during the 50's and 60's as they did during the present. Probably many more. The point I am getting out is that much fewer people paid them when the rates were higher, as oppose to the amount of individuals paying when taxes are lower.

Given the reasoning, if higher taxes doesn't harm the economy, then lower taxes doesn't harm the economy either.


----------



## AmazonTania

Billo_Really said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. If you were a shareholder of a business, you would certainly want to reconsider. As these types of investments are subject to double taxation. Not to mention owning these assets doesn't necessarily mean that it comes with a free lunch or 'get rich quick' scheme. These are investment decisions which essentially means you forgo consumption in the present, possibly for greater consumption in the future.
> 
> The keyword being, 'possibly.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only because most business owners or CEO's choose to take either no salary or a low salary. Capital averages are not the lion share of their annual income. In most cares, capital gains ARE their income. This is how individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have fooled the masses into believing their secretaries pay more in taxes than they do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're pretty hot, we should mate!
Click to expand...


I'm saving myself for Chuck Norris... But I guess Jack Bauer is just as good.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.
> 
> And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
Click to expand...


YES THEY DID!

A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.



Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.



> Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy.



Nobody is making that argument.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> You tax the rich and then what? Are poor people magically going to get their salaries raised and more money will appear in their bank accounts?
Click to expand...


Yes, really -- we can tax the poor and the middle class less if we tax the rich more. Starting with payroll taxes, which are applied even to the minimal wage. That would be the same as putting more money to their account.

And what's wrong with actually putting money into their accounts? The government can match every dollar that low income earners make.



> It means that although tax rates have been as high as 90%, the average effective tax rate has remained roughly the same throughout.



But we are not talking about the average! The point is that high income earners were paying much more in the past, and the economy was doing OK.



> Wealth isn't finite. Simply because I have more does not mean you automatically have to have less.



Not automatically. But other things equal, the poor would receive more if the rich would receive less. And there is no evidence that the other things would not be equal if we do a bit more wealth redistribution.


----------



## thereisnospoon

noose4 said:


> 91% wouldnt be communism that was what the top rate was during the Eisenhower administration.



Yeah yeah yeah..And about 200 people actually paid that. 
Plus it only kicked in on earnings OVER a certain amount
You boneheads want every fucking dime to be taxed. Why? Because you want government to have it. Why? Who knows. 
Giving more money to government is the equivalent of giving a fat person more to eat to help them lose weight.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.
Click to expand...


And this does what?  For the benefit of whom?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Derideo_Te said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams. The only reason we don't tax the rich more is that Americans remain misinformed about this issue. And because there is no politician who would champion it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the allocation of wealth. That has nothing to do with Americans wanting to tax the rich more.
> 
> *Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more. In fact, you don't fix wealth inequality at all. There's nothing to fix.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds like something the wealthy nobles would have said prior to losing their heads during the French Revolution.
Click to expand...

How so?...
You don't get to wave at the issue. Disagree, yes. But explain why you disagree. Then counterpoint. 
And leave out the talking points. 
This idea of "just raise taxes" is garbage. It serves no logical purpose.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't get much less credible than MotherCommunist Magazine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you saying -- that a person making a million in today's dollars would NOT pay 66% of his income in taxes back then?
> 
> Then what is the right figure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a real source, with factual, *non-misleading* information.
> 
> http://blackburn.house.gov/uploaded...torical_tax_rates_rhetoric_vs_reality.pdf.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?
Click to expand...


Effective marginal rate....The rate paid on adjusted gross income is calculated.
Pretty simple stuff.
The marginal rate is what one would pay if they took only the standard deduction.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Billo_Really said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did you arrive at that figure? And why?
> 
> 
> 
> I took 15% and added 10.
Click to expand...


You left out the "why"...Explain.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What??? Whose prosperity came of the backs of the middle class and the working poor???
> 
> *I guess *what you were trying to acknowledge is that the income inequality was much lower in Eisenhower times. That's why the middle class and the poor were benefiting most from growing economy. And, as a consequence, their share in taxes was bigger.
> 
> But as usual, you've managed to say something completely opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.
> 
> And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
Click to expand...


That's an opinion. 
Post facts. Explain how higher taxes do not adversely affect the economy.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES THEY DID!
> 
> A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.
Click to expand...


You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.


----------



## AmazonTania

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.
Click to expand...


No there weren't. The Top 50% only consisted of rough 18,000+ filers. The only people who paid an effective rate were 300+ tax filers out of 54 million. That's not plenty.



> Nobody is making that argument.



There are people who do make that argument.


----------



## francoHFW

EFFECTIVE 39%. So everyone gets richer at the same rate, not the rich getting 60X faster like now...


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is making that argument.
Click to expand...


By your logic Mitt Romney should have paid roughly a 30% effective tax rate. Why did he get away with paying only 14.1%?

I'll tell you why. Because he did the exact same thing they did back in the 50s.

Nobody ever paid those ridiculous tax rates. Ever. At least not here.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, the ones making the argument that higher taxes doesn't hurt the economy, also are arguing that lower taxes DOES harm the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is making that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your logic Mitt Romney should have paid roughly a 30% effective tax rate. Why did he get away with paying only 14.1%?
> 
> I'll tell you why. Because he did the exact same thing they did back in the 50s.
> 
> Nobody ever paid those ridiculous tax rates. Ever. At least not here.
Click to expand...


Stop posting nonsense and start reading your own sources:
"So, when the top rate was 90 percent, it applied to only 1 percent of AGI." -- that means somebody's income was taxed at 90% marginal rate.

http://blackburn.house.gov/uploadedf...eality.pdf.pdf


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, this argument fails to look beneath the surface at who actually paid these high taxes during this point in time: which was almost no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there weren't. The Top 50% only consisted of rough 18,000+ filers. The only people who paid an effective rate were 300+ tax filers out of 54 million. That's not plenty.
Click to expand...


Those making equivalent of a million, and paying 66% effective rate were below the top bracket. So there were more than a few hundreds of them.

Also, the fact that there weren't many millionaires back then is important on its own. The reason for taxing the rich in the first place is to reduce inequality. And 50s and 60s show that you don't need high inequality (i.e. we don't have to let the "job creators" to keep their millions) for the economy to grow fast.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES THEY DID!
> 
> A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.
Click to expand...


For those math challenged and who can't google.

1) $1,000,000 in 1963 dollars was $135,000
DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator

Tax brackets in 1963:

$0 			-	$4,000 		20.00%
$4,000 		-	$8,000 		22.00%
$8,000 		-	$12,000 	26.00%
$12,000 	-	$16,000 	30.00%
$16,000 	-	$20,000 	34.00%
$20,000 	-	$24,000 	38.00%
$24,000 	-	$28,000 	43.00%
$28,000 	-	$32,000 	47.00%
$32,000 	-	$36,000 	50.00%
$36,000 	-	$40,000 	53.00%
$40,000 	-	$44,000 	56.00%
$44,000 	-	$52,000 	59.00%
$52,000 	-	$64,000 	62.00%
$64,000 	-	$76,000 	65.00%
$76,000 	-	$88,000 	69.00%
$88,000 	-	$100,000 	72.00%
$100,000 	-	$120,000 	75.00%
$120,000 	-	$140,000 	78.00%
$140,000 	-	$160,000 	81.00%
$160,000 	-	$180,000 	84.00%
$180,000 	-	$200,000 	87.00%
$200,000 	-	$300,000 	89.00%
$300,000 	-	$400,000 	90.00%
$400,000 	-	and	over	91.0%

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf

According to this table, a person making $140,000 would pay $84240 in taxes, or 60% (I was a bit off, but not by much).


----------



## The2ndAmendment

I say 10%.

The entirety which is collected by the local government.

3/4 of it is retained by the local government.
1/8 to the State government
1/8 to the federal government.

The local/state/federal governments may not collect any taxes if they reach a sufficiently large surplus, they must spend it first, before resuming taxation. No level of government may burrow money.

And the final catch: All of these transactions would be in Gold or Silver.

During times of Invasion (not just war), the tax distribution would look like this:

Local = 1/2
state = 1/8
federal = 3/8

All local and state surpluses would go to the federal government. This is only for times of invasion on *our own land*.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-misleading? Really? Then would you care to explain the meaning of the red line on the chart above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective marginal rate....The rate paid on adjusted gross income is calculated.
Click to expand...


Wrong answer.



> Pretty simple stuff.
> The marginal rate is what one would pay if they took only the standard deduction.



Even more nonsense.


----------



## NYcarbineer

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial problem is that you keep guessing . There is a bit of advice I can give to remedy that: Stop. Build a premise first before creating fallacious arguments for other people.
> 
> And if you must know what I am acknowledging, I am merely pointing out the circular reasoning behind those who believe higher taxes on the wealthy were the reason for economic prosperity during the 1950's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
Click to expand...


The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.


----------



## Gadawg73

NYcarbineer said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
Click to expand...



Wrong but I will give you some slack on this because I believe what you mean is that everyone gets about 20K as personal deductions each year.


----------



## RKMBrown

NYcarbineer said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
Click to expand...


More specifically the high rates only apply to taxable income.  There were a lot more tax shelters back when the rates were higher.  The effective rates paid by the rich were actually lower back then than they are now.  The reason was the plethora of tax shelters.


----------



## RKMBrown

Tell  rich man you are gonna take all his money he'll just leave.


----------



## DiamondDave

There is no 'fair' share.. because fairness is a subjective thing.. when it is 'fair' to you, it is most likely not 'fair' to someone else

This is why we need to get away from this 'fairness' bullshit in government and get to equality in treatment.. BLIND to situation, impact, outcome, whining, favoritism, pandering, etc.. when you have a true equality in treatment, you have no grounds to stand on in complaint.. while it may impact you in one way while it impacts me in another, there is no argument to be had that the government did it because of being in some favored group or status...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Gadawg73 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong but I will give you some slack on this because I believe what you mean is that everyone gets about 20K as personal deductions each year.
Click to expand...


No.  'Taxable income' is what is left after deductions.  The rate on taxable income that falls within any given bracket is the same for everyone.


----------



## RKMBrown

NYcarbineer said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong but I will give you some slack on this because I believe what you mean is that everyone gets about 20K as personal deductions each year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  'Taxable income' is what is left after deductions.  The rate on taxable income that falls within any given bracket is the same for everyone.
Click to expand...



Yeah but the exemptions/deductions available to everyone are not available to the folks that are stupid enough to have more income than the people want them to have.  AMT is Nutz.


----------



## saveliberty

LIberals want you to send ALL your money into the government.  Then they can decide what you need.  By the way, leave their money alone.


----------



## tooAlive

NYcarbineer said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody says that higher taxes were the reason. The argument is that high taxes don't hurt the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
Click to expand...


I know how taxes work.

I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.


----------



## RKMBrown

tooAlive said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how taxes work.
> 
> I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.
Click to expand...

Eminent domain.  There are many cases where the government has taken all of a person's assets "for the good of the people."  As another example, after paying 35% income tax you may also have to pay both parts of SS/Med that gets you to 50%..  add in fees and other federal taxes you can easily approach 60% effective... throw in double taxation such as investment and death taxes and you can easily argue you are paying 80-90%.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do hurt the economy.
> 
> The reason they didn't hurt the economy back then was because *nobody ever actually paid those astronomically high rates.*
> 
> Those high tax rates were merely symbolic. Nobody ever paid them, and therefore it would be silly to attribute anything to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how taxes work.
> 
> I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.
Click to expand...


And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know how taxes work.
> 
> I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.
Click to expand...


He is 100% correct

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com


> The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthyincluding doctors, lawyers, business owners and executiveswere versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.


----------



## ilia25

bear513 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know how taxes work.
> 
> I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is 100% correct
> 
> Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com
Click to expand...


And you have failed to read your own sources too:
_"In the same year [1958], roughly *10,000* of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of *81% or higher*."_


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


Punkin, if the issue "has nothing to do with a 'fair share'", how come the fucking leftists keep SAYING IT?!

_What is the American dream? The American dream is one big tent. One big tent. And on that big tent you have four basic promises: equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, equal access, and *fair share*. - Jesse Jackson

Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a *fair shar*e and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one can stop us. - Elizabeth Warren

Now, the president would like to do tax reform, which would obviously lower rates for most people in America and make the tax code fair and get rid of loopholes and special treatment. But absent tax reform, the president believes the right way to get our fiscal house in order is ask the wealthy to pay their *fair share*. - David Plouffe

Our platform calls for a balanced deficit reduction plan where the wealthy pay their fair share. And when your country is in a costly war, with our soldiers sacrificing abroad and our nation facing a debt crisis at home, being asked to pay your *fair share* isn't class warfare - it's patriotism. - Cory Booker

Friends, I'm angry about what's happening in politics today! Why is it wrong to ask the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations to pay their *fair share*? - Richard Trumka

The rich are not paying their *fair share* in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues (that the United States is), whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are .. Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what -- it's growing like crazy. And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty  ... There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandoned it, to our regret in my opinion. - Hillary Clinton

[W]hat people really want is fairness. They want people paying their *fair share* of taxes." "All I'm saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their *fair share* in taxes." "Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates  people who dont need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? Because we cant afford to do both. - Barack Obama_


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The high rates only apply to the money made in that bracket.  The tax rate you pay on your first 20,000 (for example) of taxable income is the same rate a billionaire pays on that income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know how taxes work.
> 
> I'm saying that nobody has ever paid 91% of any portion of their income in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.
Click to expand...


I've read, and re-read similar reports numerous times. 

You're the one that is either deliberately or unknowingly misinterpreting what it says.

While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..

By your logic Mitt Romney paid a ~30% effective rate in 2011, as he earned $13 million dollars. He didn't. His effective tax rate was 14.1%, even though the highest tax bracket applies to him.

The same thing happened in the 50s, Ilia. People that technically fell in the 90% tax bracket ended up paying a much, much lower rate because of deductions, exemptions, ect.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ilia25 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I keep saying that you are WRONG. Read the report you have quoted from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is 100% correct
> 
> Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have failed to read your own sources too:
> _"In the same year [1958], roughly *10,000* of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of *81% or higher*."_
Click to expand...


lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in.  I dont know believe what ever you want. but they were scam artist back then as they are today.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..



You are an idiot. If you are eligible for a deduction, then the top rate does NOT apply to you. If IRS says that it does apply, then you have to pay, or go to jail.


----------



## ilia25

bear513 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is 100% correct
> 
> Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have failed to read your own sources too:
> _"In the same year [1958], roughly *10,000* of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of *81% or higher*."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in.
Click to expand...


Sure thing, USA was a banana republic, and always will be. Tell me, how can you avoid paying taxes after you report your income to IRS? And if nobody reports their true income, how IRS knew that 10,000 people were subject to rate of 81% or higher?


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot. If you are eligible for a deduction, then the top rate does NOT apply to you. If IRS says that it does apply, then you have to pay, or go to jail.
Click to expand...


Why isn't Warren Buffet in jail? Why isn't Bill Gates in jail? Why isn't Mitt Romney in jail? *Why isn't Barack Obama in jail?*

The truth is all those people are multimillionaires and paid a much lower effective tax rate than the actual tax brackets would suggest.

This is exactly the same thing that happened in the 50s. You're here trying to convince us that people back then were actually happy to fork over 90% of their highest income.

They didn't, and never will. At least not here in the US.


----------



## mmmjvpssm

* 70% was good enough for President Kennedy *


----------



## mmmjvpssm

* Very interesting too that 91% is the "communist" rate because that's the top tax rate we had under Eisenhower *


----------



## mmmjvpssm

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



Raise taxes on the poor and cut taxes for the rich. No


----------



## mmmjvpssm

* Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't *


----------



## tooAlive

mmmjvpssm said:


> * Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't *



Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?

A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.


----------



## Foxfyre

bear513 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is 100% correct
> 
> Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have failed to read your own sources too:
> _"In the same year [1958], roughly *10,000* of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of *81% or higher*."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in.  I dont know believe what ever you want. but they were scam artist back then as they are today.
Click to expand...


But those who take advantage of whatever loopholes, deductions, and credits the law allows are not scam artists.  Nobody refuses to pay a sale price just because others elsewhere are paying the full retail price.  Those with a clue in how the law is written and structured will use the law to their maximum benefit, and I don't care WHO they are, liberal, conservative, or little green men from Mars.

So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.  Except for a very rare possible exception, no American is going to go to work when they are allowed to keep only 14% of what they earn.


----------



## tooAlive

And can    [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%? 






United States Government Revenue History - Charts

I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the maximum tax bracket "applies" to some people, they don't actually pay that rate, on any portion of their income. Why, you ask? Because of things like deductions, "loopholes," capital gains, ect..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot. If you are eligible for a deduction, then the top rate does NOT apply to you. If IRS says that it does apply, then you have to pay, or go to jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why isn't Warren Buffet in jail? Why isn't Bill Gates in jail? Why isn't Mitt Romney in jail? *Why isn't Barack Obama in jail?*
Click to expand...


Because according to IRS top rate does not apply to most of their income. But 91% top rate DID apply to some people income circa 1960 -- according to IRS.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



Yes, but then the well connected wouldn't be able to avoid taxes. And how would the IRS attack the Tea Party for Obama?


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.



I went to a fine restaurant.

The meal for my wife and I cost 10% of my wages for the week.

The man at the third table down drove a Bentley. If his meal was $300 as mine was, he was only paying 2% of his weekly wage.

So should the restaurant be required to charge a percentage of income, rather than a price for the meal, just to be fair?
*
Trickle through stupidity* is the basis of the left.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Foxfyre said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have failed to read your own sources too:
> _"In the same year [1958], roughly *10,000* of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had income subject to a rate of *81% or higher*."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol but no one paid the tax braket they were in.  I dont know believe what ever you want. but they were scam artist back then as they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But those who take advantage of whatever loopholes, deductions, and credits the law allows are not scam artists.  Nobody refuses to pay a sale price just because others elsewhere are paying the full retail price.  Those with a clue in how the law is written and structured will use the law to their maximum benefit, and I don't care WHO they are, liberal, conservative, or little green men from Mars.
> 
> So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.  Except for a very rare possible exception, no American is going to go to work when they are allowed to keep only 14% of what they earn.
Click to expand...


True, I shouldnt have used that word to describe it. But from first hand experience, been around a few lawyer's, accounting folks in social settings and I always hated the way they would broast.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.



Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.

As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mmmjvpssm said:


> * 70% was good enough for President Kennedy *



A world without the polio vaccine and the widespread use of antibiotics was good enough for President Kennedy, too.  What's your point?  God help us if we're really incapable of learning from the past and improving beyond it.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
> 
> As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
Click to expand...


Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's.  American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????


----------



## tooAlive

tooAlive said:


> And can    [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Government Revenue History - Charts
> 
> I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.



Waiting for your reply.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> And can    [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Government Revenue History - Charts
> 
> I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting for your reply.
Click to expand...


Google "payroll taxes".


----------



## ilia25

bear513 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, those 10,000 cited were in that 86% tax bracket and probably had some income subject to that 86%.  But you can bet your bottom dollar that they paid nowhere near close to that on most of their income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
> 
> As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's.  American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
Click to expand...


If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.


----------



## Wyatt earp

f





ilia25 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
> 
> As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's.  American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.
Click to expand...


So what are you saying I am wrong about manufacturing in the U.S. compared till today then the 50's and 60's??? I wont write a novel on it to impress you on how much I know. Unless you pay me If you dont have a clue, reasearch it yourself.  Godamn it would be a frickin 5000 word post on how it changed.


----------



## Gadawg73

Never amazes me that the very folks that pay little to NO taxes always are the first ones to demand we pay more and higher taxes. 
Exhibit A of the growth of the moocher class.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ilia25 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all we know that they had to pay 2/3 of their income that made them subject to 81% marginal rate. That's about 700,000 in taxes on an income slightly over a million in today's dollars.
> 
> As for whether they also had an investment income, and how much -- your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's.  American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.
Click to expand...


Anyways if you need a clue.. you could start with this guy, Long story short I have a Catholic priest as a godfather and he knew how much I wanted to learn and He had two spots open for one of the last Dr. Deming's seminars and filled one of them with me.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming: The Father of the Quality Evolution



> The teachings of Dr. Deming affected a quality revolution of gargantuan significance on American manufacturers and consumers. Through his ideas, product quality improved and, thus, popular satisfaction. His influential work in Japan-- instructing top executives and engineers in quality management--was a driving force behind that nation's economic rise. Dr. Deming contributed directly to Japan's phenomenal export-led growth and its current technological leadership in automobiles, shipbuilding and electronics. The Union of Japanese Science and Engineering (JUSE)


----------



## ilia25

bear513 said:


> f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont really want to start a fight, the high tax code was one thing, But one thing I never understood is why dont you folks understand the times of the day? it was after WWII, Europe was in ruins, The U.S. manufacturing abandoned quality control, American company's were making money inspite of themself's up to the Japaneese invasion of the mid 70's.  American's can not just start up say a small plastic plant like it used to and compete, you have to have capitol in the equipment and ISO approved certifications.. It is a different world in manufacturing compared to the 50's~70's and If folks want to go back to the high tax rates can we also go back to the way government spent in the 50's?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to argue that high taxes could not hurt the economy in 60s, but they would now, you need to do a far better job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are you saying I am wrong about manufacturing in the U.S. compared till today then the 50's and 60's???
Click to expand...


I'm saying that I don't see how is that relevant to taxes and their effect on economy.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES THEY DID!
> 
> A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For those math challenged and who can't google.
> 
> 1) $1,000,000 in 1963 dollars was $135,000
> DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator
> 
> Tax brackets in 1963:
> 
> $0 			-	$4,000 		20.00%
> $4,000 		-	$8,000 		22.00%
> $8,000 		-	$12,000 	26.00%
> $12,000 	-	$16,000 	30.00%
> $16,000 	-	$20,000 	34.00%
> $20,000 	-	$24,000 	38.00%
> $24,000 	-	$28,000 	43.00%
> $28,000 	-	$32,000 	47.00%
> $32,000 	-	$36,000 	50.00%
> $36,000 	-	$40,000 	53.00%
> $40,000 	-	$44,000 	56.00%
> $44,000 	-	$52,000 	59.00%
> $52,000 	-	$64,000 	62.00%
> $64,000 	-	$76,000 	65.00%
> $76,000 	-	$88,000 	69.00%
> $88,000 	-	$100,000 	72.00%
> $100,000 	-	$120,000 	75.00%
> $120,000 	-	$140,000 	78.00%
> $140,000 	-	$160,000 	81.00%
> $160,000 	-	$180,000 	84.00%
> $180,000 	-	$200,000 	87.00%
> $200,000 	-	$300,000 	89.00%
> $300,000 	-	$400,000 	90.00%
> $400,000 	-	and	over	91.0%
> 
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf
> 
> According to this table, a person making $140,000 would pay $84240 in taxes, or 60% (I was a bit off, but not by much).
Click to expand...


Anyone can google the marginal tax rates of the time. Now how about you google what people actually PAID..Have fun.
If you can find someone who made a million and was forced to surrender $910,000, you win the argument.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> And can    [MENTION=34909]ilia25[/MENTION] or some another far-lefty explain to me how government revenue as a percentage of GDP has not only been rising as taxes have been going down, but they were actually at one of the lowest points in the '40s and '50s when top rates were over 90%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Government Revenue History - Charts
> 
> I would assume it'd be higher, if people were actually forking over 80% or even 90% of their highest income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting for your reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google "payroll taxes".
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.

Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates. However, leftists such as yourself that support broken economic systems like socialism will try to twist reality into something that supports their ideology.

Find me someone willing to work for $0.09 cents on the dollar.

I want to hire them.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will not be allowed to get by with that. Provide some sort of data that backs up your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those math challenged and who can't google.
> 
> 1) $1,000,000 in 1963 dollars was $135,000
> DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator
> 
> Tax brackets in 1963:
> 
> $0 -$4,000 20.00%
> $4,000 -$8,000 22.00%
> $8,000 -$12,000 26.00%
> $12,000 -$16,000 30.00%
> $16,000 -$20,000 34.00%
> $20,000 -$24,000 38.00%
> $24,000 -$28,000 43.00%
> $28,000 -$32,000 47.00%
> $32,000 -$36,000 50.00%
> $36,000 -$40,000 53.00%
> $40,000 -$44,000 56.00%
> $44,000 -$52,000 59.00%
> $52,000 -$64,000 62.00%
> $64,000 -$76,000 65.00%
> $76,000 -$88,000 69.00%
> $88,000 -$100,000 72.00%
> $100,000 -$120,000 75.00%
> $120,000 -$140,000 78.00%
> $140,000 -$160,000 81.00%
> $160,000 -$180,000 84.00%
> $180,000 -$200,000 87.00%
> $200,000 -$300,000 89.00%
> $300,000 -$400,000 90.00%
> $400,000 -andover91.0%
> 
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal Tax Brackets.pdf
> 
> According to this table, a person making $140,000 would pay $84240 in taxes, or 60% (I was a bit off, but not by much).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can google the marginal tax rates of the time. Now how about you google what people actually PAID..Have fun.
> If you can find someone who made a million and was forced to surrender $910,000, you win the argument.
Click to expand...


Hey, asshole. You've asked for a proof that a millionaire would have paid 2/3 of his income in taxes. And I gave it to you. 

And now you are demanding that I find an actual person? Fuck you!


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting for your reply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google "payroll taxes".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
> 
> Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
Click to expand...


Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless. 

And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

tooAlive said:


> Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?



the top 1% paid 20% of all income tax in 1980, today they pay 40% and the clamor for the rich to pay their fair share is louder than ever.

Its never enough because the more people liberals put on crippling welfare entitlements the more those remaining at work will have to pay.

Its much like a Stalin 5 year plan. When the first one did not work, the next one was even more ambitious to compensate for the failure of the first one.

Our government was bigger than ever when Obama took over and all he can think of is making it bigger still. Liberals are anti-science and anti rational. The evidence does not matter to them one bit.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google "payroll taxes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
> 
> Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
> 
> And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
Click to expand...


No, they didn't.

In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.



> One answer is that taxes in the 50s werent really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate  that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
> 
> And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.








http://www.nber.org/papers/w15369.pdf


----------



## theDoctorisIn

0.05% transaction tax on _everything_.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
> 
> Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
> 
> And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One answer is that taxes in the 50s werent really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate  that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
> 
> And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nber.org/papers/w15369.pdf
Click to expand...


yes and government spending as a share of GNP went from around 25% in 1950 to around 37% today!! Republicans would love to go back to 1950 taxing and spending levels!!


----------



## Billo_Really

thereisnospoon said:


> You left out the "why"...Explain.


I don't have a "why"!


----------



## Billo_Really

AmazonTania said:


> I'm saving myself for Chuck Norris... But I guess Jack Bauer is just as good.


Jack Bauer!

Is he the guy from 24?


----------



## saveliberty

Government has grown too large.  Any increase is wrong.


----------



## KissMy

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, you don't fix wealth inequality by taxing the rich more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Wealth is built by income, so by redistributing income you eventually redistributing wealth.
Click to expand...


That is why the Middle Class has no wealth. The Middle Class has to pay larger tax rates & payroll taxes. Wealth is redistributed to the Rich who have tax loopholes & low or no payroll tax & low dividend tax. If you are Rich the tax code redistributes wealth to you.

Get rid of payroll taxes & loopholes & watch the economy soar. The producers can build wealth.


----------



## KissMy

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yes and government spending as a share of GNP went from around 25% in 1950 to around 37% today!! Republicans would love to go back to 1950 taxing and spending levels!!



You won't get there electing out of control spending Republicans like both Bush presidents. We need presidents like Regan, Clinton & Obama.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
> 
> And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren&#8217;t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to *almost* no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.

Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.

And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.

It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
> 
> And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One answer is that taxes in the 50s weren&#8217;t really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to *almost* no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
Click to expand...


Enjoy this one then.

The *top 1%* of earners from 1966 to 1970 paid an *effective tax rate of 30%*.



> The data itself tells an entirely different story from the idealized 91% tax rate.  According to Internal Revenue Service data, presented below on a graph, from 1966 to 1970 the effective tax rate of an average tax payer in the top 1% was 30.85%.  Throughout the time period in question, the effective tax rate of the average top 1% never exceeded 35%.








EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What the Top 1% Really Paid When the Top Tax Bracket Was 91%

Granted the information doesn't go back to 1960 (IRS Public Use File data data only goes back to 1966), rates were still in the 70% range during this time. How do you explain 1%ers only paying 30%?


----------



## DiamondDave

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know you don't have an answer. Just wanted you to admit it.
> 
> Nobody here believes your arguments. High taxes in the '60s didn't hurt the economy because people didn't actually pay high tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
> 
> And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One answer is that taxes in the 50s werent really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to almost no one. What matters more is the average marginal tax rate  that is, the average rate paid on the next dollar of earned income. That figure tells you more about the incentives facing individuals working in the economy.
> 
> And based on data from a 2009 study by Robert Barro and Charles Redlick, the good old days in terms of economic growth were also pretty good in terms of taxes. Barro and Redlick calculated average marginal tax rates inclusive of federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, and state income taxes. In the 1950s, the average marginal rates equaled just 25%, versus 37% in the 2000s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nber.org/papers/w15369.pdf
Click to expand...


They just don't get it...

Ones like these morons, TDM, etc just spew out these rates that they would love to punish people with out of jealousy.. and don't quite get that what was considered income, what was deductible, etc was MUCH different.. and that the effective rates were indeed LOWER...

What morons


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich.* There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income.* *And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.*
> 
> *It was much more egalitarian society*, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.



Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.

[ame=http://youtu.be/rv5t6rC6yvg]Thatcher's Last Stand Against Socialism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

ilia25 said:


> Hey, asshole. You've asked for a proof that a millionaire would have paid 2/3 of his income in taxes. And I gave it to you.
> 
> And now you are demanding that I find an actual person? Fuck you!



No, that is not proof. You failed to include deductions and loopholes that would shelter 90% of that income from any taxes at all. After Reagan restructured taxes, the burden on the top 10% of income earners went UP - not down. Why? Because 90% of loopholes were eliminated.


 A tax that places significantly different burdens on taxpayers in similar economic circumstances is not fair. For example, if two similar families have the same income, they should ordinarily pay roughly the same amount of income tax, regardless of the sources or uses of that income.

 Tax Reform report of the Treasury Department to President Ronald Reagan, November 1984


----------



## Uncensored2008

theDoctorisIn said:


> 0.05% transaction tax on _everything_.



Impossible to enforce.

Make it a 15% sales tax so that it is equitable to all, and people grasp what they REALLY pay in taxes.


----------



## ilia25

Uncensored2008 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, asshole. You've asked for a proof that a millionaire would have paid 2/3 of his income in taxes. And I gave it to you.
> 
> And now you are demanding that I find an actual person? Fuck you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not proof. You failed to include deductions and loopholes that would shelter 90% of that income from any taxes at all.
Click to expand...


I have not failed, I was not asked to account for the loopholes. The question was how a million of non-investment income would be taxed, and the answer is that 2/3 of it would have to be given away.

But you are free to list any deductions and loopholes that would apply to this scenario.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich.* There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income.* *And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.*
> 
> *It was much more egalitarian society*, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.
Click to expand...


Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.

Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich people did pay. There weren't as many of them as there are now, but they paid nonetheless.
> 
> And the economy didn't suffer neither because super-rich were taxed like hell, nor because there weren't many opportunities to become a super-rich in the first place. Both facts prove that reducing inequality via redistribution would not hurt the economy either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One answer is that taxes in the 50s werent really high. Yes, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but it applied to *almost* no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
Click to expand...


During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.

Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.  And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.

But even WITH that disparity, history records this:



> The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity. It was often described as an economic miracle. The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .
> 
> And this. . . .
> 
> There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more equal, that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantlyand in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s*while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchangedthe wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.*
> The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History



And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.
> 
> Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.  And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.
> 
> But even WITH that disparity, history records this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity. It was often described as an economic miracle. The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .
> 
> And this. . . .
> 
> There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more equal, that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantlyand in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s*while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchangedthe wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.*
> The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.
Click to expand...


Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?


----------



## FA_Q2

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enjoy this one then.
> 
> The *top 1%* of earners from 1966 to 1970 paid an *effective tax rate of 30%*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The data itself tells an entirely different story from the idealized 91% tax rate.  According to Internal Revenue Service data, presented below on a graph, from 1966 to 1970 the effective tax rate of an average tax payer in the top 1% was 30.85%.  Throughout the time period in question, the effective tax rate of the average top 1% never exceeded 35%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EconomicPolicyJournal.com: What the Top 1% Really Paid When the Top Tax Bracket Was 91%
> 
> Granted the information doesn't go back to 1960 (IRS Public Use File data data only goes back to 1966), rates were still in the 70% range during this time. How do you explain 1%ers only paying 30%?
Click to expand...

Why have you ignored this chart ilia?  Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?

Here is a simple truth  the wealth distribution in this nation has virtually nothing to do with the tax rates in general.  It has everything to do with the explosion of other low pay and easily replicable jobs in this nation as the high paying jobs have moved to a world stage.  We use to be so far ahead of the world that there was no competition at all.  With automation, globalization and the rise of several other industrial juggernauts we have begun to lose the MASSIVE advantage that we had.  Likely, that is never coming back.  Technology is NOT going away and we are no longer able to support a population of extremely rich people while the rest of the world is dirt poor.  

How to fix this?  I am not sure but I do know that taxing the crap out of producers is not going to do anything but move MORE of that production to other nations.  I dont understand why this is such a difficult concept.  The payroll taxes are part of that and an insane tax that is levied on not only the poor but the operating costs of business itself.  Junking that would go a long way but increasing the tax on the rich is not going to do anything at all to balance that out.  They will continue to pay around 30% and you simply are not going to get a whole lot more than that out of them.


----------



## ilia25

FA_Q2 said:


> Why have you ignored this chart ilia?  Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?



I'm not ignoring it. It shows that 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. And that is my point:
_"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."_



> Here is a simple truth &#8211; the wealth distribution in this nation has virtually nothing to do with the tax rates in general.  It has everything to do with the explosion of other low pay and easily replicable jobs in this nation as the high paying jobs have moved to a world stage.



That is true, and that is why we have to use taxes to redistribute wealth back from the rich to the poor.



> How to fix this?  I am not sure but I do know that taxing the crap out of producers is not going to do anything but move MORE of that production to other nations. I don&#8217;t understand why this is such a difficult concept.



Because it is not true. Production is moved where it is profitable. But its profitability has nothing to do with personal taxes.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich.* There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income.* *And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.*
> 
> *It was much more egalitarian society*, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.
> 
> Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
Click to expand...


So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.

Gotcha.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why have you ignored this chart ilia?  Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring it. Here is my answer:
> _"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."_
Click to expand...


*Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.*

So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.
> 
> Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.  And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.
> 
> But even WITH that disparity, history records this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, &#8220;the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity.&#8221; It was often described as an &#8220;economic miracle.&#8221; The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .
> 
> And this. . . .
> 
> There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more &#8220;equal,&#8221; that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantly&#8212;and in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s&#8212;*while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchanged&#8212;the wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.*
> The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?
Click to expand...


It depends on what is in the bill.  The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself.  If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.

However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.
> 
> In fact, effective tax rates were much lower back then compared to now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.
> 
> Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.
Click to expand...


You've misunderstood the statement -- if it was made that way. May be they did not have records earlier than 1967, but inequality was less then and it has been rising steadily since then.









> And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.



The fact is that it was much harder to become super-rich then, than it is now.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why have you ignored this chart ilia?  Is it perhaps because it totally destroys your 91% or the other 2/3 fallacy that was claimed in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring it. Here is my answer:
> _"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.*
> 
> So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.
Click to expand...


That's because 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. If they were, they would have to pay much more in taxes. Like 0.01 percenters did back then.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring it. Here is my answer:
> _"And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would have to give away most of their earnings in taxes."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.*
> 
> So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. If they were, they would have to pay much more in taxes. Like 0.01 percenters did back then.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!

So you admit that you were wrong, and nobody has paid 90% of any portion of their income?

But FYI, the 1%ers back then *did* belong in the top tax bracket. You even said so yourself. Not many, but "some." Or were you wrong about that too?


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Margaret Thatcher has a great response for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.
> 
> Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.
> 
> Gotcha.
Click to expand...


Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Top 1%ers paid an effective tax rate of 30% from 1966 to 1970.*
> 
> So no, they would not be giving away most of their money in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because 1 percenters back then were not nearly as rich as they are now. If they were, they would have to pay much more in taxes. Like 0.01 percenters did back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> So you admit that you were wrong, and nobody has paid 90% of any portion of their income?
Click to expand...


No. Some did reach 90% bracket, but they were making much more than the 1% threshold.



> But FYI, the 1%ers back then *did* belong in the top tax bracket. You even said so yourself. Not many, but "some."



Exactly -- only very few richest members of the top 1% reached the top tax bracket. That is why most other 1 percenters paid much lower marginal rate.

Jesus, that math is so simple a second-grader would understand!


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.
> 
> Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.
Click to expand...


Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow, less money to invest so that businesses can grow, less money for new businesses, expansions, fewer new jobs, fewer benefits.   Why?  Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.

The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.   Far more effective and compassionate and humane policy is that which encourages the poor to become richer.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich were poorer as well.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow
Click to expand...


The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.



> less money to invest so that businesses can grow, less money for new businesses, expansions



That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.



> , fewer new jobs, fewer benefits.   Why?  Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.



That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs. 




> The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.



That is not a fact -- more like a myth.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.
> 
> Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.  And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.
> 
> But even WITH that disparity, history records this:
> 
> 
> 
> And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on what is in the bill.  The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself.  If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.
> 
> However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?
Click to expand...


Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Derideo_Te said:


> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?



no, for the 1000th time!! A Democratic jobs bill is a tax and spend jobs bill. They take the money from the private sector thereby contracting it, then spend in the public sector thereby expanding it, so the net gain is 0 !

for the 1000th time you willl have to ignore the above because you lack the courage to face that you are too ignorant as a liberal to understand it.


----------



## AmazonTania

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is not true. A guy making an equivalent of a million would pay 66.4% effective tax rate (not marginal rate, he would have to give up 2/3 of his total income). And there were plenty of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there weren't. The Top 50% only consisted of rough 18,000+ filers. The only people who paid an effective rate were 300+ tax filers out of 54 million. That's not plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those making equivalent of a million, and paying 66% effective rate were below the top bracket. So there were more than a few hundreds of them.
> 
> Also, the fact that there weren't many millionaires back then is important on its own. The reason for taxing the rich in the first place is to reduce inequality. And 50s and 60s show that you don't need high inequality (i.e. we don't have to let the "job creators" to keep their millions) for the economy to grow fast.
Click to expand...


There were plenty of millionaires back then. There just weren't as many as there were now. It was very easy to get away with not paying as many taxes during 50's and 60's.


----------



## Uncensored2008

ilia25 said:


> Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.
> 
> Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.



I've never understood this attitude. "I'd rather have less than see you get a better raise than I do."

So petulant, so childish, the basis of all leftism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.



except its not a zero sum game. 500 hundred years ago everyone was poor, while today everyone is rich in comparison although there is still inequality.

What's astounding is how well off the poor are now despite how little they contribute to society. For example they get state of the art medical care that they couldn't invent or buy in a 1000 years. Everything must trickle down under captialism, its the very nature of capitalism.


----------



## Derideo_Te

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, for the 1000th time!! A Democratic jobs bill is a tax and spend jobs bill. They take the money from the private sector thereby contracting it, then spend in the public sector thereby expanding it, so the net gain is 0 !
> 
> for the 1000th time you willl have to ignore the above because you lack the courage to face that you are too ignorant as a liberal to understand it.
Click to expand...


Your delusions of "superior knowledge" are amusing.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.
> 
> Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood this attitude. "I'd rather have less than see you get a better raise than I do."
> 
> So petulant, so childish, the basis of all leftism.
Click to expand...


Perhaps... but still, laying off millions of workers while offshoring their jobs and also while increasing executive pay by the exact amount saved by offshoring?  Yeah, it's not hard to understand why the folks would not appreciate the value of the Executives' windfall bonus check apparently earned by his act of moving their job to our communist enemies.


----------



## ilia25

Uncensored2008 said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thatcher failed. Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower than the overall economy because bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.
> 
> Unless you can make an argument that the economy was growing faster thanks to the rising inequality -- and Thatcher never made it -- then you have to conclude that rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood this attitude. "I'd rather have less than see you get a better raise than I do."
Click to expand...


You have problem with reading comprehension. This is not my attitude and a never said anything like this. The goal is to make the poor having more.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> The goal is to make the poor having more.



stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except its not a zero sum game.
Click to expand...


You are right, it's not. But this is not about the poor getting poorer. It's about their incomes growing too slow, so the incomes of those already rich could grow faster.


----------



## Derideo_Te

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to make the poor having more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
Click to expand...


There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , fewer new jobs, fewer benefits.   Why?  Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
Click to expand...


You don't understand how a market based economy works. You do however, have a firm grasp of liberal class envy talking points.
Where you got the notion that in matters economic/fiscal that less is more and that government in control of wealth equals prosperity is a God damned mystery. 
Because it just ain't true.
Please reference the old USSR...


----------



## thereisnospoon

Derideo_Te said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to make the poor having more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.
Click to expand...


can we conclude you believe in hand outs rather than hand ups?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Derideo_Te said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to make the poor having more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.
Click to expand...


ad hominem from typical liberal without IQ for substance


----------



## AmazonTania

The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except its not a zero sum game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, it's not. But this is not about the poor getting poorer. It's about their incomes growing too slow, so the incomes of those already rich could grow faster.
Click to expand...


That's false. The number of wealthy and of people entering and staying in the middle class has grown significantly in the last 40 years.
Additional and more confiscatory taxation will not assist the poor in becoming more prosperous. It simply makes those who produce wealth less prosperous.
Wealth creation does not and never will _begin_ with government. It _ends_ because of government.


----------



## Derideo_Te

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can we conclude you believe in hand outs rather than hand ups?
Click to expand...


Republicans are notorious for withholding hand ups.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can we conclude you believe in hand outs rather than hand ups?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans are notorious for withholding hand ups.
Click to expand...


if so why be so afraid to present your best example? What does your fear tell you about the liberal IQ??


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, asshole. You've asked for a proof that a millionaire would have paid 2/3 of his income in taxes. And I gave it to you.
> 
> And now you are demanding that I find an actual person? Fuck you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not proof. You failed to include deductions and loopholes that would shelter 90% of that income from any taxes at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not failed, I was not asked to account for the loopholes. The question was how a million of non-investment income would be taxed, and the answer is that 2/3 of it would have to be given away.
> 
> But you are free to list any deductions and loopholes that would apply to this scenario.
Click to expand...

You excluded the deductions to make your point which is NOT based in fact.
For example. 
Let's say you made oh, $300,000 last year. If you are single, own no property, have no charitable contributions, no children, no business losses, no business expenses..In other words you took the Standard Deduction..Then yes, you would pay the rate for that level of income. As we know, nearly everyone has deductions other than their personal exemptions.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.
> 
> Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.  And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.
> 
> But even WITH that disparity, history records this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity. It was often described as an economic miracle. The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .
> 
> And this. . . .
> 
> There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more equal, that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantlyand in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s*while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchangedthe wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.*
> The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?
Click to expand...


There already was a jobs "bill"...It was called 'stimulus' . Nearly one trillion dollars and no results.
Job creation cannot begin with government spending or taxation.
I wonder who it is who told you it did.


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can we conclude you believe in hand outs rather than hand ups?
Click to expand...


Can we also conclude that you don't know what a hand up is?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

thereisnospoon said:


> There already was a jobs "bill"...It was called 'stimulus' . Nearly one trillion dollars and no results.
> Job creation cannot begin with government spending or taxation.
> I wonder who it is who told you it did.



great points, perhaps the liberal can reflect on the fact that we got from the stone age to here based on private sector inventions which are what cause economc growth, and not from government which does not invent new products and therefore can't grow the economy or create net new  jobs.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to read your own sources is truly pathetic.
> 
> Average rates don't matter, we are talking about the rich.
> 
> And you keep ignoring my central argument about the economy in 50s-60s. It was growing fast despite the fact that it was impossible for people to get really rich. There was much less opportunity to make millions in non-investment income. And even if someone managed to do that (very few did), they would  have to give away most of their earnings in taxes.
> 
> It was much more egalitarian society, yet the economy did not suffer. And that confirms that we can fix much higher income inequality by taxing the rich more and helping working poor and middle class without hurting the overall economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the 2012 campaign, it was broadly discussed that the income gap between rich and poor had increased to its highest level since 1967.
> 
> Did you get that?  The last time the income gap was this broad was in the 1960's.  And there wasn't a great deal of change in that between the 1950's and 60's suggesting that in the years since, the disparity has been something less than it was then.
> 
> But even WITH that disparity, history records this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The performance of the American economy in the decades after World War II appeared to many contemporaries to be, as one historian wrote at the time, the crossing of a great divide in the history of humanity. It was often described as an economic miracle. The GNP was growing fourteen times as fast as the population and seven times the rate of inflation. The average family income grew as much in the ten years after World War II as it had grown in the previous fifty years combined. Between 1940 and 1965, average income grew from about $2,200 per family per year to just under $8,000; when adjusted for inflation, that means average family incomes almost tripled. . . .
> 
> And this. . . .
> 
> There were many claims at the time that not only was America becoming wealthier, but that it was becoming more equal, that wealth was being redistributed at the same time it was increasing. That was not true. There was no significant redistribution of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s, up or down, simply an increase in the total amount of wealth. But significantlyand in sharp contrast to the period since the mid-1970s*while there was no downward redistribution of wealth, neither was there an upward distribution of wealth. Distribution patterns, in other words, remained unchangedthe wealthy and the poor experienced roughly the same rates of growth. The gap between them remained the same.*
> The Fifties | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I believe research of the 1 percenters will show that a whole bunch of them got their start in the 1950's and 60's that encouraged prosperity rather than discouraged it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?
Click to expand...

The objection was to the tax increases that go along with the bill that really would not create any jobs.
These so called jobs bills are simply political payoffs to those who support the current administration. In other words 'subsidies'. 
There is a poster on here that calls himself, 'one percenter'...he has made it abundantly clear he believes only wealthy GOP controlled businesses get subsidies.


----------



## KissMy

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except its not a zero sum game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, it's not. But this is not about the poor getting poorer. It's about their incomes growing too slow, so the incomes of those already rich could grow faster.
Click to expand...


The tax code subsidizes the rich causing this. They get all the wealth that the middle class makes. &#8220;There&#8217;s class warfare, all right,&#8221; Warren Buffett said, &#8220;but it&#8217;s my class, the rich class, that&#8217;s making war, and we&#8217;re winning.&#8221;

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He entered how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn&#8217;t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. &#8220;How can this be fair?&#8221; he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. &#8220;How can this be right?&#8221;

We have to get rid of payroll taxes before 400 billionaires own the entire country. That is their objective in order to impose agenda 21 on all of us.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rising inequality do hurts the poor and benefits the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except its not a zero sum game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right, it's not. But this is not about the poor getting poorer. It's about their incomes growing too slow, so the incomes of those already rich could grow faster.
Click to expand...


Jobs Gates Ellison Ford, GM etc etc are getting richer and richer only because the poor all around the world keep buying more and more of their products. The poor make the rich richer and the rich make the poor richer. They are 100% dependent on each other. There is no data or line of reasoning that makes it possible for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. If you have it please present it or admit the very concept is contradictory and liberal.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't obstructing jobs bills a way of discouraging prosperity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what is in the bill.  The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself.  If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.
> 
> However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
Click to expand...


LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what is in the bill.  The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself.  If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.
> 
> However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.
Click to expand...


if it worked you'd think some country would have tried it by now and all the world would agree it worked?? Europe has 50% of GDP spending and 12% unemployment and a huge recession!! 

FDR tried it too:

Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal jobs bills: 

"We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal 
is urgently needed


----------



## PMZ

It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable. 

So, as a country, we use our taxation policy to counter that natural economic system tendency, in order to keep society stable. 

What the wealthy would prefer of course is to take advantage of the system to gather wealth and just keep it. And hope that the collapse of society occurs after they die. 

So the question, "what is enough" has to be asked of everyone and consider both the upward and downward forces. 

In a famous poll, Americans were asked what wealth distribution was ideal, and what they thought was where we actually are. They were aghast to see where we actually are compared to both of those.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what is in the bill.  The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself.  If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.
> 
> However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.
Click to expand...


Employment and unemployment is a function of business, not government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

PMZ said:


> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up.



of course thats really really stupid since Gates and Jobs cant get wealthy without distributing goods or wealth  downward!!

Henry Ford made $1.29 a car by giving far far more wealth to the millions and millions who bought his cars!! Capitalism distributes  wealth down which explains why the poor now have Iphones, access to state of the art medical care, and $12,000 per capita per year year in free public education.





]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

PMZ said:


> So, as a country, we use our taxation policy to counter that natural economic system tendency, in order to keep society stable.



too stupid of course!! Europe has far higher taxes and has less stability than we do with several countries rioting in the streets!!


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats really really stupid since Gates and Jobs cant get wealthy without distributing goods or wealth  downward!!
> 
> Henry Ford made $1.29 a car by giving far far more wealth to the millions and millions who bought his cars!! Capitalism distributes  wealth down which explains why the poor now have Iphones, access to state of the art medical care, and $12,000 per capita per year year in free public education.
> 
> 
> ]
Click to expand...



Henry Ford, Jobs, and Gates never built a thing. They owned the factories that other people used to create wealth from their labor. The value of the wealth workers created then allowed the workers to buy the wealth created by other workers. 

Ford had one good idea that created all of his wealth. Pay the workers enough to afford cars. 

Jobs was a megalomaniac who happened to befriend Wozniak at a time when nobody else had yet envisioned personal computers. Same with Gates. If they hadn't done what they did someone else surly would have.


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, as a country, we use our taxation policy to counter that natural economic system tendency, in order to keep society stable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid of course!! Europe has far higher taxes and has less stability than we do with several countries rioting in the streets!!
Click to expand...


You are as good an example as I've seen of folks who let Rush and Rupert think for them. 

No rioting in Europe. Comparable taxes. Comparable extreme wealth distribution. One difference. Europe fell for government austerity measures, as Republicans tried to sell here, and have therefore failed to recover from Bush's Great Recession as quickly as we have with demand side investment.


----------



## AmazonTania

PMZ said:


> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.



Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.
> 
> So, as a country, we use our taxation policy to counter that natural economic system tendency, in order to keep society stable.
> 
> What the wealthy would prefer of course is to take advantage of the system to gather wealth and just keep it. And hope that the collapse of society occurs after they die.
> 
> So the question, "what is enough" has to be asked of everyone and consider both the upward and downward forces.
> 
> In a famous poll, Americans were asked what wealth distribution was ideal, and what they thought was where we actually are. They were aghast to see where we actually are compared to both of those.


Umm The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue so that government can perform essential functions.
Taxation is NOT for the creation of stability or to make things "even"...
That's a lot of crap.
Of course your idea fits the liberal template perfectly. That the purpose of taxation is to 'take away' that which makes those who do not like wealth or the wealthy, feel comfortable.
You people see taxation as a way to modify or control behavior, pick winners and losers and to punish those who irritate you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course thats really really stupid since Gates and Jobs cant get wealthy without distributing goods or wealth  downward!!
> 
> Henry Ford made $1.29 a car by giving far far more wealth to the millions and millions who bought his cars!! Capitalism distributes  wealth down which explains why the poor now have Iphones, access to state of the art medical care, and $12,000 per capita per year year in free public education.
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford, Jobs, and Gates never built a thing. They owned the factories that other people used to create wealth from their labor. The value of the wealth workers created then allowed the workers to buy the wealth created by other workers.
> 
> Ford had one good idea that created all of his wealth. Pay the workers enough to afford cars.
> 
> Jobs was a megalomaniac who happened to befriend Wozniak at a time when nobody else had yet envisioned personal computers. Same with Gates. If they hadn't done what they did someone else surly would have.
Click to expand...


Spoken like someone who has no experience with or respect for working between the ears, instead of with the muscles.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time. Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment and unemployment is a function of business, not government.
Click to expand...

Whoa!!! I thought we needed Congress to pass jobs bills in order to have government create jobs?
Now you reverse yourself and claim employment and unemployment are functions of business....
Make up your mind.


----------



## Derideo_Te

thereisnospoon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what is in the bill.  The title often bears little resemblance to the actual content and intent of the legislation itself.  If anybody is obstructing the people keeping more of what they earn, is obstructing private sector growth and jobs creation, is obstructing private initative and innovation, then yes, obstructing jobs bills discourages prosperity.
> 
> However your question is non sequitur to the post you quoted isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time.* Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.*
Click to expand...


Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?


----------



## noose4

AmazonTania said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?
Click to expand...


Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.

Hostess as an example:

Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes


----------



## thereisnospoon

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time.* Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?
Click to expand...


All funded with tax dollars. Tax dollars taken from the private sector.
Simply creating make work federal jobs does NOT improve the economy. 
Increasing federal employment as a course of job creation is simply moving the chess pieces around the board.


----------



## thereisnospoon

noose4 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
Click to expand...

Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
For example.
Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall. 
And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.


----------



## noose4

thereisnospoon said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
> For example.
> Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
> And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.
Click to expand...


Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

noose4 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
> For example.
> Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
> And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
Click to expand...


Wow.  With insightful business acumen like that, you must have an MBA . . . from Joe Bob's School of Finance and Auto Repair.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. If the issue was discouraging prosperity then anything that obstructs the creation of jobs would meet that definition. That you felt the need to parse the context rather than to accept it as a simple statement of fact means that you are finding excuses rather than addressing the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time.* Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?
Click to expand...


Sure there were temporary jobs created which is far preferable to handing out welfare.  At least the people were able to keep their dignity until the economy righted itself and private sector jobs came back.

But look at the legacy of that.  It so accelerated the rolling snowball of government power, government cost, and government dependency that has been gainng momentum since the Teddy Roosevelt administration that it now overshadows all of American economics.

And there is growing sentiment among historians of that era that Roosevelt's policies did more harm than good and actually extended the depression:



> . . . .But the political crisis was caused by the double-digit unemployment, and in my new book, FDR&#8217;s Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003), I report mounting evidence developed by dozens of economists, at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, that double-digit unemployment was prolonged by FDR&#8217;s own New Deal policies.
> Fresh Debate About FDR's New Deal | Cato Institute



The government we have feeds upon itself and drains more and more resources from the private sector economy every year that passes.  Government no longer exists to help anybody but only to perpetuate itself.  And only those who help government perpetuate itself receive any benefit from the government these days.

A compassionate government would make itself small, lean, efficient, and effective and release as much resources as possible back to the people and let the free market do its job.

There really can be no 'fair share' of taxes for any demographic when most of the taxes go to fuel an ever bloated, inefficient, ineffective, but ever more authoritarian federal government.


----------



## noose4

Cecilie1200 said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
> For example.
> Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
> And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  With insightful business acumen like that, you must have an MBA . . . from Joe Bob's School of Finance and Auto Repair.
Click to expand...


And still more aware than you. Are you really trying to act like you are a big time intellectual while posting on the USMB boards?


----------



## thereisnospoon

noose4 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
> For example.
> Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
> And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
Click to expand...


Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you. 
Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?


----------



## noose4

thereisnospoon said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. These companies are taken over venture capital companies at great financial risk, in order to save them from going under.
> For example.
> Cannon Mills, a major league player in the white goods business merged with Fieldcrest in an attempt to stave off the pressure of foreign competition. That worked for a few years. The company was in big trouble. So a venture capital firm bought the assets and renamed the firm Pillowtex. This kept the factories going for a few more years until the operation just became too expensive to be competitive. The workers got what amounted to a 5 year grace period, but the handwriting was on the wall.
> And of course instead of thanking the people who owned the business for that 5 years grace, they cursed them. Now that is the definition of logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
> You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
> Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?
Click to expand...


In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....One more time.* Government cannot simply wave a magic wand( pass a law that mandates spending) and create a single job.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible to penetrate the layers of ignorance that resulted in posting anything that vacuous. To expose just how completely false that statement actually is what happened when government passed the law to set up NASA? Then there were laws like the Area Redevelopment Act and the National Parks Service Act. All this without even getting started on the slew of acts passed under FDR. Was no spending authorized and no jobs created under any of that legislation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there were temporary jobs created which is far preferable to handing out welfare.  At least the people were able to keep their dignity until the economy righted itself and private sector jobs came back.
> 
> But look at the legacy of that.  It so accelerated the rolling snowball of government power, government cost, and government dependency that has been gainng momentum since the Teddy Roosevelt administration that it now overshadows all of American economics.
> 
> And there is growing sentiment among historians of that era that Roosevelt's policies did more harm than good and actually extended the depression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .But the political crisis was caused by the double-digit unemployment, and in my new book, FDRs Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003), I report mounting evidence developed by dozens of economists, at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, that double-digit unemployment was prolonged by FDRs own New Deal policies.
> Fresh Debate About FDR's New Deal | Cato Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government we have feeds upon itself and drains more and more resources from the private sector economy every year that passes.  Government no longer exists to help anybody but only to perpetuate itself.  And only those who help government perpetuate itself receive any benefit from the government these days.
> 
> A compassionate government would make itself small, lean, efficient, and effective and release as much resources as possible back to the people and let the free market do its job.
> 
> There really can be no 'fair share' of taxes for any demographic when most of the taxes go to fuel an ever bloated, inefficient, ineffective, but ever more authoritarian federal government.
Click to expand...


Once again, you have shown that Mr Foxfyre is a pretty lucky guy.


----------



## thereisnospoon

noose4 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
> You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
> Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
Click to expand...

Dude, the only way you could be the smartest person in the room is if you were alone.
And what the fuck does the concept of black and white vs grey have to do with anything?
Since you opened the door, you people live in a world of grey because it allows you to exist in a world without rules. Without right and wrong. Without morals or standards. 
But anyway, back to the subject matter of your anti business rantings... Stay on point.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



What a stupid fricken thread


----------



## thereisnospoon

OohPooPahDoo said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid fricken thread
Click to expand...

It's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.
What is "fair share"...Just a number will do.
None of you will touch it.


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.



Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid fricken thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.
> What is "fair share"...Just a number will do.
> None of you will touch it.
Click to expand...


Have you read the thread?


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to make the poor having more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
Click to expand...


No, it will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings (for example, you earn $10 an hour, IRS adds $5 to your paycheck)
3) tax the rich to pay for it


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid fricken thread
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.
> What is "fair share"...Just a number will do.
> None of you will touch it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the thread?
Click to expand...


Is that a trick question?


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to make the poor having more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
> 1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
> 2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings
> 3) tax the rich to pay for it
Click to expand...

The right incentives..Yes, for starters, all able bodied persons should be required to work in order to receive benefits. Low or no cost tuition can be arranged should the recipient desire technical or trade training. The requirement is in order to receive the discounted or no cost training, the recipient must PASS all courses. 
All benefits will have a 5 year time limit. If still unable to support one's self, the recipient must reapply for benefits at the BACK OF THE LINE.
All recipients will submit to random drug screenings using urine and hair samples.
Failure to submit will result in suspension of benefits until the drug screen is administered or the recipient can show cause as to the reason the test was refused.
Your side sees these requirements as 'cruel'. You live in a world of "but what about"...To satisfy that, you support policies in which people are permitted to live off the public dole, no questions asked and in perpetuity.
Now, if there ever was a reason to have no incentive to improve one's self it is the unfettered availability of public assistance. 
I don;t know...Maybe it's just me. I happen to think that people who are productive are much more healthy and they feel better about themselves. 

Give a person a fish, and they will eat for a day. Teach a person how to fish and they will eat for a lifetime. 
That is incentive.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

thereisnospoon said:


> oohpoopahdoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooalive said:
> 
> 
> 
> i keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> but when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, i thought i'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid fricken thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's stupid to you because you like other libs refuse to answer a simple question.
> What is "fair share"...just a number will do.
> None of you will touch it.
Click to expand...


42


----------



## FA_Q2

noose4 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
> You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
> Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
Click to expand...

Pot  meet kettle.


noose4 said:


> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.


Seems you are projecting.  This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact.  You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures  they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad.  That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.  

Try independent thought, it is far more healthy.


----------



## noose4

FA_Q2 said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right. You have learned your liberal talking points well...
> You are just the smartest person in the room, aren't you.
> Ya know what? I confess. The truth is all business exists to screw people. Ya happy now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pot  meet kettle.
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems you are projecting.  This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact.  You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures  they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad.  That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.
> 
> Try independent thought, it is far more healthy.
Click to expand...


You should give it a try first, and you should also follow a conversation from it's beginning to understand how it has progressed.


----------



## FA_Q2

noose4 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a room that contains me and you yes I am the smartest in the room, and the reason why is the conservative mindset exists in black and white, all or nothing, the concept of gray areas and some but not all escapes them.
> 
> 
> 
> Pot  meet kettle.
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horse shit they take them over, fill them with debt, and then pick the bones off the corpse, and walk away with a hefty profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems you are projecting.  This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact.  You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures  they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad.  That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.
> 
> Try independent thought, it is far more healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it a try first, and you should also follow a conversation from it's beginning to understand how it has progressed.
Click to expand...


I have.  Not surprising that you have deflected though.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> All recipients will submit to random drug screenings using urine and hair samples.
> Failure to submit will result in suspension of benefits until the drug screen is administered or the recipient can show cause as to the reason the test was refused.
> Your side sees these requirements as 'cruel'.



Because they are cruel. You want the low income earners to start feeling good about themselves, but you insist on treating them as low life criminals. There is nothing logical about it, you advocate such policies only because you are a mean bastard.

Nobody on the left advocates policies the lead to the dependency. But in an economy that creates an ever bigger income inequality (meaning less good paying jobs), it's the government responsibility to make even a poor paying job worth having.

And you can't achieve that that by forcing people to submit to a drug screening.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my statement again. Higher top taxes would not make poor poorer -- the opposite is true. And Thatcher never disputed that. Her claim was that rising inequality did not make poor poorer in absolute terms, but that's beside the point. Which is that rising inequality left the poor with lower income, than they would have otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , fewer new jobs, fewer benefits.   Why?  Because it is so often the rich that provides the market for small business, and it is mostly American business that provides jobs and opportunity for anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
Click to expand...


Ah yes.  You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.

You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.

You who are so naive you don't understand that often a judicious use of credit allows a business to grow and expand and accept contracts and hire people that they otherwise could not do.

You who naively think that there were proportionately fewer rich people in the 50s and 60s or that the gap between rich and poor was much less then because you apparently have never read the very credible evidence to the contrary or were unable to understand it if you did.

And please explain your rationale for how my prosperity, earned through my expertise, experience, and effort and all honorably gained, my savings, my investments, and the jobs I can offer you make you in any way poorer.  Or how taking more of what I earn benefits you in any way.

And please point to poor people who can offer me a job.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is to make the poor having more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
> 1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
> 2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings (for example, you earn $10 an hour, IRS adds $5 to your paycheck)
> 3) tax the rich to pay for it
Click to expand...


"the government" can match? You mean the taxpayers...
Tax the rich....Your solution to everything, 
Hey look, if you keep taxing the job creators and investors, they will bury their money, stop creating jobs and of course the next thing is inbound revenue to the federal government will slow.
BTW, NO ONE deserves to live tax free. If one wants entitlements, they should have some skin in the game.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> All recipients will submit to random drug screenings using urine and hair samples.
> Failure to submit will result in suspension of benefits until the drug screen is administered or the recipient can show cause as to the reason the test was refused.
> Your side sees these requirements as 'cruel'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are cruel. You want the low income earners to start feeling good about themselves, but you insist on treating them as low life criminals. There is nothing logical about it, you advocate such policies only because you are a mean bastard.
> 
> Nobody on the left advocates policies the lead to the dependency. But in an economy that creates an ever bigger income inequality (meaning less good paying jobs), it's the government responsibility to make even a poor paying job worth having.
> 
> And you can't achieve that that by forcing people to submit to a drug screening.
Click to expand...

Mean? Grow up..People who are clean of drugs feel better about themselves.
"Nobody on the left advocates policies the lead to the dependency."
Yer kidding right? Obama entire presidency has been about creating dependency on government. The logic is simple. The more people riding in the boat, the more they will vote for those who allowed them to ride in the boat for free.
There is NO SUCH THING as income inequality. This is a class envy talking point.
Income levels were never meant to be equal. 
" it's the government responsibility to make even a poor paying job worth having."..
It is? Who told you that? Where did you get that idea?
Look, if you know someone who you believe is underpaid, by all means, write a check. But don't demand that I have to chip in.
If you really care about this person, show then how to apply to a tech or trade school so that they can improve their skills and EARN more money.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Higher taxes on the rich means less money the rich have to put in the bank for others to borrow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, you will invariably hurt the poor any time you attempt to make the rich less rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes.  You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
> 
> You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
Click to expand...


And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.

Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc and you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor. Also, end the liberal attack on the family and you will have millions fewer poor single mothers and kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
> 1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
> 2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings (for example, you earn $10 an hour, IRS adds $5 to your paycheck)
> 3) tax the rich to pay for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the government" can match? You mean the taxpayers...
Click to expand...


Yes, I mean the taxpayers -- read the item 3)



> Hey look, if you keep taxing the job creators and investors, they will bury their money, stop creating jobs and of course the next thing is inbound revenue to the federal government will slow.



That is a myth not based on any evidence.



> BTW, NO ONE deserves to live tax free.



Aside from being a mean bastard, do you have any other reason for making that statement?



> Mean? Grow up..People who are clean of drugs feel better about themselves.



They don't if they are constantly reminded that they can't be trusted to remain clean.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes.  You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
> 
> You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
> 
> Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
Click to expand...


No dear.  Capitalism is NOT a means to the well-being of the people.  Government was never intended to do that and Capitalism cannot.

Engaging in capitalism is for the benefit of the person engaged in it and nothng else.  Capitalism is not socialism nor charity nor forced income redistribution.  Capitalism is me acquiring and keeping as much of my profit as I can.   I may like, even love others working with me and for me, but other than within negotiated contractual agreements, their benefit and well being has everything to do with my sense of charity or good will and has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

But however selfish my motives are for engaging in capitalism, I nevertheless benefit many others.  I benefit those who I acquire property from, those I pay taxes to, those I purchase supplies, services, and labor (i.e. employees) from, and all those to whom I provide a service or product that they need or want.  And they in turn, quite coincidentally,  benefit me by engaging in their own self serving interests.

No government official--no government of any type--is ever smart enough, wise enough, or resourceful enough to benefit people or prosper them anywhere nearly as efficiently as is reasonably regulated capitalism can do.  (By reasonably regulated I mean only the bare minimum necessary to prevent people from doing deliberate economic or environmental or social violence to each other.)

Some years ago Walter Williams wrote a brilliant essay explaining why capitalism is superior to any other.  Most publications running the essay titled it something similar to 'An Economic Miracle."

Excerpted here:



> Our economic system consists of billions of different elements that include members of our population, businesses, schools, parcels of land and homes. A list of possible relationships defies imagination and even more so if we include international relationships. Miraculously, there is a tendency for all of these relationships to operate smoothly without congressional meddling. Let's think about it.
> 
> The average well-stocked supermarket carries over 60,000 different items. Because those items are so routinely available to us, the fact that it is a near miracle goes unnoticed and unappreciated.
> 
> Take just one of those items &#8212; canned tuna. Pretend that Congress appoints you tuna czar; that's not totally out of the picture in light of the fact that Congress has recently proposed a car czar for our auto industry. My question to you as tuna czar is:  Can you identify and tell us how to organize all of the inputs necessary to get tuna out of the sea and into a supermarket? The most obvious inputs are fishermen, ships, nets, canning factories and trucks. But how do you organize the inputs necessary to build a ship, to provide the fuel, and what about the compass? The trucks need tires, seats and windshields. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that millions of inputs and people cooperate with one another to get canned tuna to your supermarket.
> 
> But what is the driving force that explains how millions of people manage to cooperate to get 60,000 different items to your supermarket? Most of them don't give a hoot about you and me, some of them might hate Americans, but they serve us well and they do so voluntarily. The bottom line motivation for the cooperation is people are in it for themselves; they want more profits, wages, interest and rent, or to use today's silly talk &#8212; people are greedy.
> 
> Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
> 
> If you have doubts about Adam Smith's prediction, ask yourself which areas of our lives are we the most satisfied and those with most complaints. Would they be profit motivated arenas such supermarkets, video or clothing stores, or be nonprofit motivated government-operated arenas such as public schools, postal delivery or motor vehicle registration?
> 
> By the way, how many of you would be in favor of Congress running our supermarkets?
> Walter Williams



Now what promotes or benefits or contributes more to the well being of society?  The government taking as much as it dares to take in taxes from the capitalist?  Or the government putting a system into place that allow the capitalist to profit, expand, and grow the most?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:




you mean stop giving them free education, health care,  housing, food, etc so you will have fewer poor rather than rapidly propagating poor living on the dole????


----------



## AmazonTania

noose4 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's well known that capitalism as an economic system distributes wealth up. That's how and why it works. Left only to its own devices all of the wealth would end up very concentrated and society would go unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
Click to expand...


Oh, that nice. You don't really understand how bankruptcy works, either...


----------



## AmazonTania

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.
Click to expand...


Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States

         Top 1%     Bottom: 99%

1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7% 
1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2% 
1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3% 
1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4% 
1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8% 
1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1% 
1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2% 
1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8% 
1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4% 
1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1% 
1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1% 
1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9% 
1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5% 
1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8% 
1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9% 
1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9% 
1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7% 
1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2% 
1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5% 
1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1% 
2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4% 
2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3% 
2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6% 
2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The others would not have to borrow if they had their own money to spend.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. People would still save and those saving will be invested. The only difference would be that less of those saving would come the rich, and more from the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the lesson from 50s-60s -- the economy had less rich people, but it was still growing fast, generating a lot of jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a fact -- more like a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes.  You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
> 
> You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
> 
> Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
Click to expand...

No. Regulated capitalism, which is our system, does the best for the most. There is no other system like it on Earth.
The cornerstone of this nation is the idea that each of us has the freedom and liberty to be the absolute best we can be. The people allow the government to protect that idea.
Unfortunately, there is a growing faction of the entitled. Those who see what others have and want it.....Now. Those that support this notion look to government to serve their wants. They believe that government exists to "take care of all of us"...That is not the purpose of government. 
Neither is it the purpose of government to place people into groups.


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average share of wealth between the Top 1% and Bottom 99% historically has more or less been the same and has remained relatively stable. Most generally talks about income inequality are mostly misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?
> 
> Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States
> 
> Top 1%     Bottom: 99%
> 
> 1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
> 1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
> 1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
> 1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
> 1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
> 1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
> 1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
> 1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
> 1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
> 1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
> 1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
> 1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
> 1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
> 1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
> 1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
> 1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
> 1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
> 1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
> 1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
> 1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
> 2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
> 2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
> 2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
> 2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%
> 
> Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Click to expand...


It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:

_Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)._

There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes.  You of the group who believes jobs materialize out of thin air and nobody else's efforts make them happen.
> 
> You of the group who believes government to be the source of all that is good and the rich to be the source of all that is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
> 
> Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dear.  Capitalism is NOT a means to the well-being of the people
Click to expand...


Yes dear, it is. In your own words:
_But however selfish my motives are for engaging in capitalism, I nevertheless benefit many others.  I benefit those who I acquire property from, those I pay taxes to, those I purchase supplies, services, and labor (i.e. employees) from, and all those to whom I provide a service or product that they need or want.  And they in turn, quite coincidentally,  benefit me by engaging in their own self serving interests._

If capitalism would not benefit most of the society members, we would replace is by something else long ago. Actually, the only reason we haven't is that we learned to replace laissez-faire capitalism with a modern welfare state.

Bottom line is that there is a place for the government, and its primary task is to correct bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

thereisnospoon said:


> They believe that government exists to "take care of all of us"...That is not the purpose of government.



The real problem may be that so many of us are so rich and soft after years of success or after years on welfare that we can't bear to watch others in a sink or swim situation. Giving them crippling entitlements is just psychologicially easier than watching them suffer, grow, learn and become independent contributors to society.

Many modern parents spoil their kids this way too so the attitude is not hard to understand.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you of the group who recognizes only two colors -- black and white. It's either a laissez-faire capitalism, or it is back to the USSR. Either the government provides anything and everything, or it should be made so small it can be drowned in a bathtub.
> 
> Forgive me, but that as simplistic -- and wrong -- as it can get. Both capitalism and the government are only means to the end -- which is well-being of the people. They should both be used to extent it serves that goal. No more, no less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dear.  Capitalism is NOT a means to the well-being of the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes dear, it is. In your own words:
> *But however selfish my motives are for engaging in capitalism, I nevertheless benefit many others.  I benefit those who I acquire property from, those I pay taxes to, those I purchase supplies, services, and labor (i.e. employees) from, and all those to whom I provide a service or product that they need or want.  And they in turn, quite coincidentally,  benefit me by engaging in their own self serving interests.*
> 
> If capitalism would not benefit most of the society members, we would replace is by something else long ago. Actually, the only reason we haven't is that we learned to replace laissez-faire capitalism with a modern welfare state.
> 
> Bottom line is that there is a place for the government, and its primary task is to correct bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.
Click to expand...

Once again, there is no such thing as income inequality.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.



The free market is self-correcting so it cant cause depressions!!

Obviously you can explain how capitalism, rather than liberal interference with capitalism, caused the Great Depression or the current depression.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dear.  Capitalism is NOT a means to the well-being of the people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes dear, it is. In your own words:
> *But however selfish my motives are for engaging in capitalism, I nevertheless benefit many others.  I benefit those who I acquire property from, those I pay taxes to, those I purchase supplies, services, and labor (i.e. employees) from, and all those to whom I provide a service or product that they need or want.  And they in turn, quite coincidentally,  benefit me by engaging in their own self serving interests.*
> 
> If capitalism would not benefit most of the society members, we would replace is by something else long ago. Actually, the only reason we haven't is that we learned to replace laissez-faire capitalism with a modern welfare state.
> 
> Bottom line is that there is a place for the government, and its primary task is to correct bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, there is no such thing as income inequality.
Click to expand...


Whatever you shall want to call it


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market is self-correcting so it cant cause depressions!!
Click to expand...


Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.

Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let the workers go and they cut spending even further. And round we go until millions have no work and no income.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will just add more misery to already poor people. If we want them to work, we should create the right incentives:
> 1) reduce or eliminate altogether taxes for low income earners (payroll, etc)
> 2) if that is not enough, the government can match part of their earnings (for example, you earn $10 an hour, IRS adds $5 to your paycheck)
> 3) tax the rich to pay for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the government" can match? You mean the taxpayers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I mean the taxpayers -- read the item 3)
> 
> 
> 
> That is a myth not based on any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, NO ONE deserves to live tax free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from being a mean bastard, do you have any other reason for making that statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mean? Grow up..People who are clean of drugs feel better about themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't if they are constantly reminded that they can't be trusted to remain clean.
Click to expand...

"Aside from being a mean bastard, do you have any other reason for making that statement?"
Skin in the game, Pal. It's an incentive to raise one's self above their current station. 
 Why the hell should the taxpayers fund a mythical pay raise for anyone? Total nonsense. And it will NEVER happen. 
"They don't if they are constantly reminded that they can't be trusted to remain clean."...
If an abuser wants to be recognized as clean, he or she must be tested. The crime is not that were caught. The crime is what they did. 
Trust is not the issue. Because drug use is so rampant among social program recipients, the public has grown tired of people on the public dole using drugs. So in order for the recipient to remain one, they should have to prove they don't use illegal drugs.
If that offends you, too bad.


----------



## Zona

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



Whatever the tax rate was under regan is fine with me.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market is self-correcting so it cant cause depressions!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let workers go, and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
Click to expand...


dear, was the Great Depression or the current depression caused by capitalism or by liberal interference with capitalism??

This is Econ 101 for you!! Welcome to your first lesson.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The free market is self-correcting so it cant cause depressions!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let the workers go and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
Click to expand...


The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself. 
Government interference in the economy invariably results in disaster. 
It has every time. 
One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out. Interest rates are artificially low. The federal government is buying $85 billion in securities each month just to prop up the financial markets.
None of this should be done. 
But it's political. No administration wants to be the one with the bottoming out economy. So they use certain tactics to kick the can down the road.


----------



## thereisnospoon

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free market is self-correcting so it cant cause depressions!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let workers go, and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, was the Great Depression or the current depression caused by capitalism or by liberal interference with capitalism??
> 
> This is Econ 101 for you!! Welcome to your first lesson.
Click to expand...

You'll get some nonsense that the economy slows due to the absence of government control. And then some other gobbledeygook about fairness.


----------



## noose4

FA_Q2 said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pot  meet kettle.
> 
> Seems you are projecting.  This is an example of black and white thinking devoid completely of actual fact.  You ignore the myriad success stories of companies that have used venture capital to recover, gloss over the fact that these companies dont exactly get attacked by so called vultures  they ASK for them to come in and help and come to the completely erroneous conclusion that venture capital = bad.  That is a talking point, no more valid than the myriad of republican talking points that you seem to deplore and belittle people for repeating.
> 
> Try independent thought, it is far more healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it a try first, and you should also follow a conversation from it's beginning to understand how it has progressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  Not surprising that you have deflected though.
Click to expand...


Not surprising that you think you have when you havent.


----------



## noose4

AmazonTania said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one business where the CEO or Boss pays himself before paying all of his operating expenses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that nice. You don't really understand how bankruptcy works, either...
Click to expand...


Oh that's nice you get shown how executives take big money while sinking a company destroying what you said and you act like you actually have some knowledge, yes the different color nail polish discussion is more your intellectual speed.


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let workers go, and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, was the Great Depression or the current depression caused by capitalism or by liberal interference with capitalism??
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about? I just explained it how a free-market economy runs into the ground with no outside help!


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> The free market is self-correcting so it cant cause depressions!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let the workers go and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
Click to expand...


Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.



> Government interference in the economy invariably results in disaster.



On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.




> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.



And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let workers go, and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, was the Great Depression or the current depression caused by capitalism or by liberal interference with capitalism??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? I just explained it how a free-market economy runs into the ground with no outside help!
Click to expand...


and I asked for examples and you are running away with your liberal tail between your legs!!


----------



## Desperado

If 10%  is good enough for God, it should also be good enough for the government


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, was the Great Depression or the current depression caused by capitalism or by liberal interference with capitalism??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? I just explained it how a free-market economy runs into the ground with no outside help!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I asked for examples and you are running away with your liberal tail between your legs!!
Click to expand...


Examples are pretty much any recent recession, or Great Depression. I though it was obvious.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? I just explained it how a free-market economy runs into the ground with no outside help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I asked for examples and you are running away with your liberal tail between your legs!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples are pretty much any recent recession, or Great Depression. I though it was obvious.
Click to expand...

dear, please pick your best example and explain why it was caused by capitalism rather than liberal interference with capitalism or admit as a fool liberal you lack the IQ to do so!!!


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I asked for examples and you are running away with your liberal tail between your legs!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Examples are pretty much any recent recession, or Great Depression. I though it was obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, please pick your best example and explain why it was caused by capitalism rather than liberal interference with capitalism or admit as a fool liberal you lack the IQ to do so!!!
Click to expand...


I don't think you can read, but try again:
_Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let workers go, and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income._

Current depression is an example. The event that scared the consumers was the Financial Crisis of 2008, but it could have been anything (in 2001 it was the Internet Bubble). And it did scare the consumers, and when those cut on spending, then and only then the real economy went into tailspin.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let the workers go and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government interference in the economy invariably results in disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
Click to expand...


That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do  not have to artificially prop up the economy. 
DO you really believe everything should be roses all the time? That there should never be peaks and valleys in the economy? Surely you cannot be that naive.
Have you ever asked yourself why annualized GDP growth has been under 2% for the last 15 quarters?
The fact is no matter what government does, it cannot avoid the inevitable forever. The Federal Reserve cannot keep printing currency and the government cannot keep borrowing forever. 
May as well get it over with. 
Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes dear, it is. In your own words:
> *But however selfish my motives are for engaging in capitalism, I nevertheless benefit many others.  I benefit those who I acquire property from, those I pay taxes to, those I purchase supplies, services, and labor (i.e. employees) from, and all those to whom I provide a service or product that they need or want.  And they in turn, quite coincidentally,  benefit me by engaging in their own self serving interests.*
> 
> If capitalism would not benefit most of the society members, we would replace is by something else long ago. Actually, the only reason we haven't is that we learned to replace laissez-faire capitalism with a modern welfare state.
> 
> Bottom line is that there is a place for the government, and its primary task is to correct bad outcomes that the free market creates. Like economic depressions, or too big an inequality.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, there is no such thing as income inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you shall want to call it
Click to expand...

It has no name because it does not exist. 
The term presupposes the norm being all income is equal. Now please, stop the nonsense.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do  not have to artificially prop up the economy.
> DO you really believe everything should be roses all the time? That there should never be peaks and valleys in the economy? Surely you cannot be that naive.
> Have you ever asked yourself why annualized GDP growth has been under 2% for the last 15 quarters?
> The fact is no matter what government does, it cannot avoid the inevitable forever. The Federal Reserve cannot keep printing currency and the government cannot keep borrowing forever.
> May as well get it over with.
> Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.
Click to expand...


Except your band aid analogy is backwards. If the government, like they did in Europe, does not borrow and make up for the demand the laid off workers would normally be spending, the recession lasts longer, and costs the government more revenue, over a longer period of time. Done effectively as Obama has apparently done it, the borrowing has good payback. Of course the best scenario is to not have resessions, but business does not seem to be able to pull that off.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do  not have to artificially prop up the economy.
Click to expand...


No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.

Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.

Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.

Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.

Not that I expect you to understand any of this.



> Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.



The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously someone was living under the rock for the past 80 years.
> 
> Depression is simple -- people a scared by some event, and cut on their spending. Businesses can't sell, have to let the workers go and they cut spending even further. And down we go until millions have no work and no income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government interference in the economy invariably results in disaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
Click to expand...


Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.  The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration.  The Great Depression lasted for ten years.   The current one is headed for that record.   I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression.  FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression.  WWII did that.  And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.

The government can simply not do what the private sector does.  Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.  It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government.  And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.  The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration.  The Great Depression lasted for ten years.   The current one is headed for that record.   I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression.  FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression.  WWII did that.  And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.
> 
> The government can simply not do what the private sector does.  Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.  It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government.  And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.
Click to expand...


The private sector created the problem following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others. That's the best that they can do. Optimize individually. 

Recessions are systemic problems caused by the collective result of individuals optimizing locally. 

Left to their own devices, individual businesses, would recover very slowly. The current recession was caused by them individually giving American jobs to cheap foreign labor that they recruited here, or jobs that they sent there. 

They, individually aren't motivated to recover, because they are looking only at their own costs and not collective consumer demand. 

Unemployment benefits are the only force maintaining demand from unemployed workers. We are not taking the funds from the private sector we are borrowing them. The loans will be repaid by the recovery. Just like companies do. 

There is no force in history, with the possible exception of religion, that has rendered people more ignorant than the current republican dogma that all problems stem from government.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is cyclical. It fixes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons why we are in such an economic malaise is because the government will not allow the economy to bottom out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.
Click to expand...


That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.

The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression. 



> The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration.



You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around. 



> FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression.  WWII did that.



People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts. 



> The government can simply not do what the private sector does.



But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy. 



> Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.



You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend. 

Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.


----------



## boedicca

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.  The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration.  The Great Depression lasted for ten years.   The current one is headed for that record.   I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression.  FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression.  WWII did that.  And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.
> 
> The government can simply not do what the private sector does.  Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.  It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government.  And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The private sector created the problem following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others. That's the best that they can do. Optimize individually.
> 
> Recessions are systemic problems caused by the collective result of individuals optimizing locally.
> 
> Left to their own devices, individual businesses, would recover very slowly. The current recession was caused by them individually giving American jobs to cheap foreign labor that they recruited here, or jobs that they sent there.
> 
> They, individually aren't motivated to recover, because they are looking only at their own costs and not collective consumer demand.
> 
> Unemployment benefits are the only force maintaining demand from unemployed workers. We are not taking the funds from the private sector we are borrowing them. The loans will be repaid by the recovery. Just like companies do.
> 
> There is no force in history, with the possible exception of religion, that has rendered people more ignorant than the current republican dogma that all problems stem from government.
Click to expand...




Economic illiteracy runs deep it does, in ^^^this post^^^...yessssss....

It's clear you have never run a business, understand very little about human nature, have no appreciation for the damage done by unbridled government power, and do not understand that the US economy is nothing like a free market.

The recession was caused by a confluence of government overreach, fiat currency expansion driving bubble after bubble, and cronyism.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.
> 
> The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government can simply not do what the private sector does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.
> 
> Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.
Click to expand...


I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.  And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.

I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject.  You have furnished none.

But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:



> Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> 
> After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
> 
> "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
> 
> In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. . . .
> 
> More at:
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom



A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves.  No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.  The two that have had massive government help was during FDR's term and the current administration.  The Great Depression lasted for ten years.   The current one is headed for that record.   I have posted reams of credible material showing that FDR's policies did not shorten but rather prolonged the Great Depression.  FDR's policies did not end the Great Depression.  WWII did that.  And history will also not be kind re Obama's policies of trying to spend us out of this one.
> 
> The government can simply not do what the private sector does.  Every dime it spends is a dime taken out of the private sector, so any benefit is offset by a weakened private sector.  It is also a dime much less reduced in value because most of it goes to feed an ever more bloated government.  And if the dime is borrowed, it just increases the size of the burden on the backs of the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The private sector created the problem following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others. That's the best that they can do. Optimize individually.
> 
> Recessions are systemic problems caused by the collective result of individuals optimizing locally.
> 
> Left to their own devices, individual businesses, would recover very slowly. The current recession was caused by them individually giving American jobs to cheap foreign labor that they recruited here, or jobs that they sent there.
> 
> They, individually aren't motivated to recover, because they are looking only at their own costs and not collective consumer demand.
> 
> Unemployment benefits are the only force maintaining demand from unemployed workers. We are not taking the funds from the private sector we are borrowing them. The loans will be repaid by the recovery. Just like companies do.
> 
> There is no force in history, with the possible exception of religion, that has rendered people more ignorant than the current republican dogma that all problems stem from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economic illiteracy runs deep it does, in ^^^this post^^^...yessssss....
> 
> It's clear you have never run a business, understand very little about human nature, have no appreciation for the damage done by unbridled government power, and do not understand that the US economy is nothing like a free market.
> 
> The recession was caused by a confluence of government overreach, fiat currency expansion driving bubble after bubble, and cronyism.
Click to expand...


What's clear is that you haven't had an independent thought in a couple of decades.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.
> 
> The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.
> 
> Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.  And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.
> 
> I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject.  You have furnished none.
> 
> But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> 
> After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
> 
> "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
> 
> In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. . . .
> 
> More at:
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves.  No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.
Click to expand...


I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."

But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails. 

Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.
> 
> The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.
> 
> Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.  And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.
> 
> I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject.  You have furnished none.
> 
> But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
> 
> After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
> 
> "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
> 
> In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. . . .
> 
> More at:
> FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves.  No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."
> 
> But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.
> 
> Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.
Click to expand...


The private sector does not pretend to be anything other than self serving with a profit motive.  But secure the rights of the people and leave the private sector alone to do that, and it will benefit all far better than any government ever can.

Only a fool thinks that the federal government that we have intends to serve anybody or anything that does not increase the power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes of those in government.  The difference is that government pretends and deceives us that it does it for us when it is entirely self serving.  And government self service benefits nobody but government.

Those who benefit from government do so because they can benefit government.  When the government no longer needs them, they will no longer be able to count on those benefits.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every other severe recession we have had has righted itself within a fairly short period without government help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.
> 
> The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.
> 
> Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.
Click to expand...


So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, in the long run it fixes itself. But not before it leaves millions unemployed for years.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary -- it prevented another Great Depression for so many years that we forgot the lessons. Then it happened again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where was the bottom? 25% unemployed? Or 75%? And how long it would take to crawl back?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do  not have to artificially prop up the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.
> 
> Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.
> 
> Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.
> 
> Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.
> 
> Not that I expect you to understand any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.
Click to expand...


In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles. 
What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again. 
It is what it is. 
Government interference prolongs the negative.
Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery. 
Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
Shock to the system is just what is required. 
Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive. 
The President is saving his own ass. 
How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke. 
BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.  And while we are well off track on the question in the OP, it was Roosevelt's manipulation of wages and government spending that prolonged the Great Depression by many years.
> 
> I have posted link after link to authoritative articles from nonpartisan and credible sources on this subject.  You have furnished none.
> 
> But on the off chance that somebody might choose to educate themselves on this subject, here is one more:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair wage is the value of labor established in a free market system by free people who have their rights secured and then are left alone to work for themselves.  No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."
> 
> But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.
> 
> Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The private sector does not pretend to be anything other than self serving with a profit motive.  But secure the rights of the people and leave the private sector alone to do that, and it will benefit all far better than any government ever can.
> 
> Only a fool thinks that the federal government that we have intends to serve anybody or anything that does not increase the power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes of those in government.  The difference is that government pretends and deceives us that it does it for us when it is entirely self serving.  And government self service benefits nobody but government.
> 
> Those who benefit from government do so because they can benefit government.  When the government no longer needs them, they will no longer be able to count on those benefits.
Click to expand...


You appear to be unable to distinguish between democracy and tyranny. And between macro and micro economics. And between the real world and the one that you've been told to want. 

Some pretty big obstacles between you and the truth there.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point. The federal government has been running up huge debt, money we do  not have to artificially prop up the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.
> 
> Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.
> 
> Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.
> 
> Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.
> 
> Not that I expect you to understand any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either the band aid gets pulled off slowly and the pain lasts a long time, or pull it off quickly. The pain is more intense but lasts just a moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
> What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
> It is what it is.
> Government interference prolongs the negative.
> Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
> Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
> Shock to the system is just what is required.
> Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
> If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
> The President is saving his own ass.
> How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
> You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
> BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.
Click to expand...


Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."

And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.
> 
> The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.
> 
> Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?
Click to expand...


I believe I have.  Again I have provided a number of links that dispute most or all of your statements.  And you have yet to provide a single credible source to support your statements.


----------



## PMZ

Further, show us evidence that Europe's austerity recovery from Bush's great Recession worked better than our Keynesian recovery did.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone who would disagree with "No government can ever be as effective in promoting prosperity for all."
> 
> But, people who paid attention from 2001 to 2009 know that each business optimizing only itself fails us overall on a pretty regular basis. They have their role of individual optimization and government has their role of serving we, the people when business fails.
> 
> Only a fool would think that it's all one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The private sector does not pretend to be anything other than self serving with a profit motive.  But secure the rights of the people and leave the private sector alone to do that, and it will benefit all far better than any government ever can.
> 
> Only a fool thinks that the federal government that we have intends to serve anybody or anything that does not increase the power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes of those in government.  The difference is that government pretends and deceives us that it does it for us when it is entirely self serving.  And government self service benefits nobody but government.
> 
> Those who benefit from government do so because they can benefit government.  When the government no longer needs them, they will no longer be able to count on those benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You appear to be unable to distinguish between democracy and tyranny. And between macro and micro economics. And between the real world and the one that you've been told to want.
> 
> Some pretty big obstacles between you and the truth there.
Click to expand...


And you seem to be a paid stooge or detractor assigned to derail threads or else you have such poor reading comprehension that you honestly can't understand what is being said.

Hmmm.  I wonder which of us is as we seem to be to the other?


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. Every recession since 80s resulted in a long slump. The term "jobless recovery" was coined in early 90s.
> 
> The recessions before that were created by Fed fighting off inflation. As soon as Fed decided that the economy had suffered enough it would lower the rates and started recovery. But recent recessions happened when the inflation was already low, so Fed could not do much about it. Meaning slow recovery -- the harder is the initial shock, the longer the depression.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got your logic backwards. It's the severity of recession that prompted the government response, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> People making that argument are called military Keynesians. The government spending only helps the economy if it buys military equipment. That's nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> But the government can do what private sector won't -- increase spending when facing a weak economy.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been living under the rock in the past years. Haven't you heard about the Fed and the printing press? The economy is awash with money. Companies in particular are sitting on mountains of cash they don't want to spend.
> 
> Government spending in these conditions won't crowd out the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?
Click to expand...

It is not up to the OP to dispute anything. The burden of proof is on you.
This is right out of the Lib playbook. Throw statements out whether true/accurate or not and then demand others prove them wrong. 
Nce try. That doesn't wash. 
You make the claim, you prove it. 
We don't prove negatives here.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I have.
Click to expand...


No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you won't find any credible, non partisan source to back up your statements here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not up to the OP to dispute anything. The burden of proof is on you.
> This is right out of the Lib playbook. Throw statements out whether true/accurate or not and then demand others prove them wrong.
> Nce try. That doesn't wash.
> You make the claim, you prove it.
Click to expand...


Which claim??? I've made several, for example I said that Fed was printing money like there is no tomorrow in the past years. You really think that is not true?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, unemployment is the point. You, like many other people, for some reason think that unemployment is a punishment for past sins. Or a bitter medicine that has to be endured for the economy to get better.
> 
> Except that comforting picture has nothing to do with reality. Even you should be able to understand that preventing millions of able and willing people from working cannot possibly solve anything. Especially the debt problem. On the contrary, it makes it harder to pay off the debt.
> 
> Unemployment is not a solution, it is a problem. Moreover, it's a technical issue, and totally avoidable given the right monetary and fiscal policy.
> 
> Keynes called it a magneto problem. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, he argued, no more than with a stalled engine. You just have to crank it long enough and it will start again.
> 
> Not that I expect you to understand any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> The economy is not working that way. The opposite is true. The bigger the shock, the more chance that it will overwhelm the standard policy response and put the economy into a long depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
> What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
> It is what it is.
> Government interference prolongs the negative.
> Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
> Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
> Shock to the system is just what is required.
> Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
> If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
> The President is saving his own ass.
> How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
> You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
> BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."
> 
> And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.
Click to expand...


Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.

I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.


----------



## tooAlive

PMZ said:


> Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."



I have a better question for you.

Name me one centrally planned economy that hasn't ended in utter failure.

USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. All failures. Two of which are still standing, yet on the verge of collapsing.



> And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.



And why should they? Why should anyone invest to produce something that isn't in demand?

Only a stupid, incompetent government would spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make a factory that produces blue widgets, when everyone really wants red widgets.


----------



## thereisnospoon

tooAlive said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better question for you.
> 
> Name me one centrally planned economy that hasn't ended in utter failure.
> 
> USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. All failures. Two of which are still standing, yet on the verge of collapsing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should they?
> 
> Only a stupid, incompetent government would spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make a factory that produces blue widgets, when everyone really wants red widgets.
Click to expand...


Think of France. That nation has these ridiculous labor laws which essentially prevent all except the most miserable worker to be separated from their employer. 
The French government will pay subsidies to firms so that unneeded workers are retained. 
It's no wonder people with a means to do so are expatriating. The taxes are absurd.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.
Click to expand...


I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.

Then you retort by saying that you had originally mean 1% of the top 1% of earners, yet have no data to back that up.

The only way you can make socialism look good is by lying. Which you've already done a few times in this thread, and other similar ones.


----------



## tooAlive

thereisnospoon said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better question for you.
> 
> Name me one centrally planned economy that hasn't ended in utter failure.
> 
> USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, ect.. All failures. Two of which are still standing, yet on the verge of collapsing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should they?
> 
> Only a stupid, incompetent government would spend billions in taxpayer dollars to make a factory that produces blue widgets, when everyone really wants red widgets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think of France. That nation has these ridiculous labor laws which essentially prevent all except the most miserable worker to be separated from their employer.
> The French government will pay subsidies to firms so that unneeded workers are retained.
> It's no wonder people with a means to do so are expatriating. The taxes are absurd.
Click to expand...


I remember reading not too long ago that one of the highest courts in france ruled on a new tax hike being unconstitutional.

And a lot of French celebrities have even said they're turning in their citizenship because of the already-high taxes.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.



You are such a stupid liar! Show me where I said that.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'.



It doesn't.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why haven't you disputed a single one of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.
Click to expand...


I dare you to show that I have not posted links that disprove your comments and theories.

See?  It is so easy to play a thoroughly dishonest and manipulative game to derail the discussion.  But for one, I completely destroyed your argument that FDR's policies were necessary in the Great Depression and showed that his policies actually prolonged the Depression by many years.  I did it in my own words and I have provided you links from credible sources to back up my opinion.   You have not provided one single source to rebut that other than your own stated opinion.

And we're still nowhere close on what is a fair wage which I will continue to maintain is always set by a free market, and not by government.


----------



## tooAlive

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a stupid liar! Show me where I said that.
Click to expand...


Ahh, forgive me. You said 66% - not 70%. My bad.



ilia25 said:


> No one paid 91% -- but people making over 1 million in today's dollars did pay 66% of their income in taxes.





ilia25 said:


> YES THEY DID!
> 
> A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.





ilia25 said:


> "So, when the top rate was 90 percent, it applied to only 1 percent of AGI." -- that means somebody's income was taxed at 90% marginal rate.



In any case, you're still wrong.

The effective rate back then for 1%ers wasn't 60%, 50% or even 40%. *It was 30%*.


----------



## thereisnospoon

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.
> 
> Then you retort by saying that you had originally mean 1% of the top 1% of earners, yet have no data to back that up.
> 
> The only way you can make socialism look good is by lying. Which you've already done a few times in this thread, and other similar ones.
Click to expand...

This guy is a typical greedy lib. He wants your money and will petition the government to use the threat of sanctions( tax law) to get it.
These pricks are the ones who are responsible for the 50k plus page tax code. 
They want it to be complicated.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't.
Click to expand...


Denial is not a defense. 
Look, you are out if gas. 
You are a big government central planner. 
You believe that all wealth should be the property of government.
You believe that life should be 'fair'..
You believe in equality of outcome.


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.
> 
> Then you retort by saying that you had originally mean 1% of the top 1% of earners, yet have no data to back that up.
> 
> The only way you can make socialism look good is by lying. Which you've already done a few times in this thread, and other similar ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is a typical greedy lib. He wants your money and will petition the government to use the threat of sanctions( tax law) to get it.
> These pricks are the ones who are responsible for the 50k plus page tax code.
> They want it to be complicated.
Click to expand...


You can't expect him to want to have to work for a living can you?  Nah, he's entitled to use the governments guns to take from the rich so he doesn't have to work.


----------



## Foxfyre

You have Citizen A who stayed away from illegal substances and activities, who educated himself, who chose to get married before having children, who worked at whatever he could get for whatever wages he could get to develop a work ethic, learn marketable skills, to eventually master a trade, and who at age 40 was earning $500,000 a year.

You have Citizen B, the next door neighbor, who partied and squandered most of his youth, dropped out of school, had run ins with the law, got his girlfriend pregnant and was hit with child support, who refused to demean himself with menial work or would work just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance, but who had an uncle willing to give him some work so that at age 40 he was earning $50,000 a year.

So at a 10% flat rate, Citizen A pays $50,000 in taxes.
At a 10% flat rate, Citizen B pays $5,000 in taxes.

How do you rationalize that each is not paying his fair share?


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the economic world, unemployment is a direct result of economic cycles.
> What goes up, must come down and once it reaches bottom, goes back up once again.
> It is what it is.
> Government interference prolongs the negative.
> Where you go this "past sins" idea from is a mystery.
> Comfort has nothing to do with anything. Who the hell claims we have a right to 'comfort"..
> Shock to the system is just what is required.
> Federal policy is political. This administration has a goal of "we will do whatever it takes to not be the administration remembered for an economic downturn."....
> If you really believe the POTUS' policies are in place for our benefit, you are naive.
> The President is saving his own ass.
> How long do you think the federal government can tip toe around this issue by borrowing trillions of dollars of which there is no fiscal possibility of ever recovering?
> You people do not realize that in order for the federal government to borrow money, other countries must buy our debt. If the debt becomes too great which would signify a negative Return on investment, these countries will STOP buying debt. Once that happens, the jig is up and we are broke.
> BTW, Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure. Don't even mention that progressive socialist bullshit to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."
> 
> And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
> This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
> There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.
> 
> I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
> Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.
Click to expand...


First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich. 

This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence that "Keynesian economic theory has been proved a dismal failure."
> 
> And further evidence that wealthy people will build factories in the face of low demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
> This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
> There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.
> 
> I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
> Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.
> 
> This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.
Click to expand...

Right...That is along the same premise that without labor there is no commerce. 
Another Keynesian false hood.
Hey genius. It doesn't matter how badly people want something. If there is no one to make the product, it never gets to market.
What the hell do you think advertising is? It is an enticement.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty simple. The Keynesian theory makes claim to the 'zero sum game'. That is the notion that if one has more, then another must have less. Also, Keynes claims there is a finite 'pie', if you will of wealth. That we each take a 'share' of the pie'.
> This is disproved by the fact that wealth is created and does not exist in a vacuum.
> There is no magic pot of money from which we all draw. There is no magic anything.
> 
> I neither stated nor implied that anyone would look to open a business in a period of economic downturn. That flies in the face of business logic.
> Like it or not, the primary function of a business is to turn a profit for it's owners and investors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.
> 
> This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right...That is along the same premise that without labor there is no commerce.
> Another Keynesian false hood.
> Hey genius. It doesn't matter how badly people want something. If there is no one to make the product, it never gets to market.
> What the hell do you think advertising is? It is an enticement.
Click to expand...


Labor is the skilled human input to creating wealth. Without labor there is no wealth created and therefore no commerce. 

What the heck are you thinking? That the stork brings goods and services?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there is nothing in Keynesian economics that limits wealth. It merely recognizes that it is the consumers that drive the expansion. Not the suppliers. As you point out, suppliers react to demand, not vice versa. So, supply side economics is merely a political ploy to buy votes and support from the wealthy, by giving them tax breaks while selling to the middle class that they shouldn't be concerned, more wealth will be created by the richer rich.
> 
> This is the gospel according to Reagan, but instead of the promised wealth, what comes of supply side is huge debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Right...That is along the same premise that without labor there is no commerce.
> Another Keynesian false hood.
> Hey genius. It doesn't matter how badly people want something. If there is no one to make the product, it never gets to market.
> What the hell do you think advertising is? It is an enticement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labor is the skilled human input to creating wealth. Without labor there is no wealth created and therefore no commerce.
> 
> What the heck are you thinking? That the stork brings goods and services?
Click to expand...


This is true but not accurate. The fact that due to technology and modern equipment, products can be produced faster, more efficiently and with far less in labor cost.

Labor is a commodity.


----------



## mmmjvpssm

tooAlive said:


> mmmjvpssm said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?
> 
> A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.
Click to expand...


People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good


----------



## tooAlive

mmmjvpssm said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmmjvpssm said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?
> 
> A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good
Click to expand...


How is it regressive? It's flat. Everyone pays the same rate.

Regressive would mean that tax rates would go down as income went up. Pretty much the opposite of what we have now.

A flat tax is flat. It's neither progressive or regressive.


----------



## thereisnospoon

mmmjvpssm said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mmmjvpssm said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Would somebody please explain to me why progressive taxation is unfair but regressive taxation isn't *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?
> 
> A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good
Click to expand...

Whatever. 10% of $75k is more than 10% of $25k....
So everyone should pay the same percentage ...Flat tax. No deductions. 
The tax code should fit on a 8 1/2 X 11 piece of paper.


----------



## Foxfyre

thereisnospoon said:


> mmmjvpssm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive taxation is also unfair. Who says it isn't?
> 
> A flat tax for everyone isn't regressive; it's fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who advocate the fair tax have said regressive taxation is good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever. 10% of $75k is more than 10% of $25k....
> So everyone should pay the same percentage ...Flat tax. No deductions.
> The tax code should fit on a 8 1/2 X 11 piece of paper.
Click to expand...


In the case of salaries and wages, I agree.  With a true flat tax, there would be little need for a tax code other than to define what salaries and wages are and that would need to be spelled out.  The guy who gets paid in merchandise or chickens or whatever is still receiving value for labor and would need to claim that as income.

For the self employed and corporations there would still need to be a tax code to define what costs of doing business can be used to offset income as taxes would be paid on profits rather than income.

But all things being equal, whether wages or profits, a flat tax absolutely levels the playing field and is the least regressive and most fair means of acquiring the funds the government must have to do its constitutionally mandated functions.

What conservatives understand and most liberals do not seem to understand is that a person's labor, his experience, his expertise, his creative abilities, etc. etc. is something he can sell to the highest bidder.  But to the employer the wages and benefits and all other costs associated with them are simply one more cost of doing business no different than inputs, overhead, toilet paper, and printer's ink.  And in a free market system, the wages are the amount the employer must pay in order hire people with the skills to maximize his profits.

With a flat tax system and inability to use the tax code to assign winners and losers, government would have much less incentive to keep people dependent on government and much more incentive to establish policy that would encourage people to get to work and make money so they will be paying their fair share of taxes to the government.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not. And I dare you to point out which of them you think is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dare you to show that I have not posted links that disprove your comments and theories.
Click to expand...


Easy. For example, I said, in response to your post on the matter, that government spending will not crowd out private investment because the companies already sit on mountain of cash they do not want to spend.

You have never disputed this claim, much less offering any proof that it is not true.



> See?  It is so easy to play a thoroughly dishonest and manipulative game to derail the discussion.



That is what you are trying to do by claiming that everything I said is lies because someone said that FDR caused the Great Depression. That was a dishonest attempt to avoid disputing what I actually said.



> But for one, I completely destroyed your argument that FDR's policies were necessary



Stop lying, I never made such an argument, and I never commented on necessity or effectiveness of FDR policies.

So you have not "destroyed" anything. You have quoted from a highly dubious study criticizing a single FDR policy -- NIRA -- which was in effect for 2 years before it was deemed unconstitutional in 1935. Needless to say that Obama could not have enacted anything resembling NIRA. So how can you say that the government policy caused this depression, or, for that matter, the depression in 30s?




BTW, this is how FDR policies affected the economy:


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted proof that showed how the top 1% of earners in '66 to '70 payed a 30% effective tax rate, after you said they paid over 70%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a stupid liar! Show me where I said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, forgive me. You said 66% - not 70%. My bad.
Click to expand...


I never said that the top 1% paid 66% either. You are simply to stupid to achieve any reasonable level of reading comprehension.



ilia25 said:


> YES THEY DID!
> 
> A guy making a million in today's dollars would pay $664,000 in taxes in 1963. I'm pretty sure that is more than astronomical on your own scale.



See, if you weren't such a moron, you would understand the difference between the top 1% earners and those making million or more. Those are not the same group of people.



> In any case, you're still wrong.
> 
> The effective rate back then for 1%ers wasn't 60%, 50% or even 40%. *It was 30%*.



It is true that the top 1% paid 30% rate. But how that contradicts the claim that people making a million or more had paid at least 66% effective rate?


----------



## AmazonTania

noose4 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at any company Bain capital and companies like that have taken over, they fill them with debt, cut workers wages and benefits, give themselves big bonuses and then declare bankruptcy and put the company out of business, vulture capitalism has made many wealthy people even wealthier.
> 
> Hostess as an example:
> 
> Why Should Hostess Executives Get The Bonuses They're Demanding? - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that nice. You don't really understand how bankruptcy works, either...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's nice you get shown how executives take big money while sinking a company destroying what you said and you act like you actually have some knowledge, yes the different color nail polish discussion is more your intellectual speed.
Click to expand...


The courts rewarded Hostess executives those bonuses. Even then, during the bankruptcy process, executives are paid last. Not first.

As I said, you really don't understand how bankruptcy works, but still keep speaking on topics beyond your understand.


----------



## AmazonTania

ilia25 said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the idiots who thanked you for posting these blatant lies could believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?
> 
> Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States
> 
> Top 1%     Bottom: 99%
> 
> 1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
> 1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
> 1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
> 1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
> 1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
> 1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
> 1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
> 1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
> 1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
> 1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
> 1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
> 1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
> 1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
> 1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
> 1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
> 1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
> 1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
> 1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
> 1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
> 1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
> 2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
> 2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
> 2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
> 2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%
> 
> Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:
> 
> _Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)._
> 
> There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.
Click to expand...


It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed. 

People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more.  But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible. 

And, there is a fool born every minute.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.
> 
> And, there is a fool born every minute.



Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?

ALERT:


----------



## PMZ

AmazonTania said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?
> 
> Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States
> 
> Top 1%     Bottom: 99%
> 
> 1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
> 1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
> 1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
> 1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
> 1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
> 1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
> 1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
> 1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
> 1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
> 1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
> 1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
> 1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
> 1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
> 1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
> 1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
> 1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
> 1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
> 1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
> 1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
> 1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
> 2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
> 2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
> 2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
> 2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%
> 
> Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:
> 
> _Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)._
> 
> There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.
> 
> People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more.  But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.
Click to expand...


Income inequality always has been, and will be, claimed by the wealthy as an entitlement. 

Remember, "let them eat cake"?

In the mere 8 years of the Bush Administration the wealthy made huge strides in getting government out of the way of them having it all. 

They even have the most gullible now believing that wealth comes from wealth, not work. 

They dream of Versailles, and many have achieved it.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.
> 
> And, there is a fool born every minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?
> 
> ALERT:
Click to expand...


Why do you think the wealthy have you eating out of the government is too big trough?


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.
> 
> And, there is a fool born every minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?
> 
> ALERT:
Click to expand...


Certainly no conservatives on this board have ever suggested that.  That is a fiction the left puts out there in their effort to justify government over regulation, excessive control, and power grab.

But one thing PMZ is right about is that we claim income inequality as an unalienable right.

When I stay in school and educate myself, take whatever work I can get wherever I can get it at whatever wage I can get in order to acquire a work ethic, develop marketable skills, master a trade to make myself more valuable to an employer, when I expect to support myself and my family and do not look to others to do that for me, when I am willing to work long hours and make what sacrifices are necessary to achieve my goals. . . .

. . . .and then I prosper. . . .

I do not feel the least bit guilty if I earn three or four times more than the one who was unwilling to do any of those things and therefore subsists on low wages or the government dole.   Such income inequality is virtuous, honorable, justifiable, and must be defended at all costs if we wish to be a free people.


----------



## AmazonTania

PMZ said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:
> 
> _Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)._
> 
> There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.
> 
> People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more.  But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income inequality always has been, and will be, claimed by the wealthy as an entitlement.
Click to expand...


Clarify.  



> Remember, "let them eat cake"?



No.



> In the mere 8 years of the Bush Administration the wealthy made huge strides in getting government out of the way of them having it all.
> 
> They even have the most gullible now believing that wealth comes from wealth, not work.
> 
> They dream of Versailles, and many have achieved it.



Very few actually inherent wealth in America. Do many American's make money from money? Sure. Money is required to get any good idea off the ground.

As stated before, the wealthy gap as more or less been the same throughout history. So income inequality is only a problem depending upon it's causes. If we see an increase of inequality by people providing goods and services to others in the marketplace, this is not much of a problem. These people are creating wealth by creating value and therefore, making others better off. If something people are better at this than others, then this is mutually beneficial. 

If this gap is due to crony capitalism, where those at the top are getting richer due to political connections, then we truly do have a problem.

I'm not concerned about inequality if that inequality is benefiting the less well off among us. The true regarding inequality is that people start off poor and then gradually become richer overtime. The main thing to discuss when talking about inequality is to discuss mobility.


----------



## Foxfyre

AmazonTania said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.
> 
> People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more.  But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality always has been, and will be, claimed by the wealthy as an entitlement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, "let them eat cake"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the mere 8 years of the Bush Administration the wealthy made huge strides in getting government out of the way of them having it all.
> 
> They even have the most gullible now believing that wealth comes from wealth, not work.
> 
> They dream of Versailles, and many have achieved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very few actually inherent wealth in America. Do many American's make money from money? Sure. Money is required to get any good idea off the ground.
> 
> As stated before, the wealthy gap as more or less been the same throughout history. So income inequality is only a problem depending upon it's causes. If we see an increase of inequality by people providing goods and services to others in the marketplace, this is not much of a problem. These people are creating wealth by creating value and therefore, making others better off. If something people are better at this than others, then this is mutually beneficial.
> 
> If this gap is due to crony capitalism, where those at the top are getting richer due to political connections, then we truly do have a problem.
> 
> I'm not concerned about inequality if that inequality is benefiting the less well off among us. The true regarding inequality is that people start off poor and then gradually become richer overtime. The main thing to discuss when talking about inequality is to discuss mobility.
Click to expand...


But there is far less mobility unless some have already achieved economic success and are in a position to offer others opportunity to achieve it.  Everybody isn't cut out to run a business and some are happiest and prosper more if they provide their labor, creativity, expertise, experience in return for wages and benefits.  

In many fields, small business has a much tougher time making a profit unless there are bigger businesses that need the product or services.   Big corporations indirectly provide opportunities for untold thousands, perhaps millions, to make a living.   We do not look to the poor to provide us opportunity to prosper but we look to those who have already prospered.

The system breaks down, however, when some assume it is their right to prosper whether they have earned that prosperity or not.  And the system breaks down further when some think the wealthy should have all the responsibility for providing for everybody else without requiring the less wealthy to merit what they get.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Everyone should pay a fair share on income.


----------



## boedicca

There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business.   Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.


----------



## Foxfyre

boedicca said:


> There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business.   Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.



Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing.  American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time.  But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.

The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it.  Those who have capital parked overseas are not going to bring that money home when the huge threat of the 'rich paying their fair share' is likely to confiscate a huge percentage of it.  And folks aren't about to risk the capital they have when the President continues to beat the drum of the 'rich paying more' as well as the uncertainties in the tax code due to massive programs like Obamacare et al.

So small business chooses to stay small instead of expanding and risking those higher taxes.  And that results in fewer jobs and opportunity for others.  Big business does just fine by focusing all its less profitable operations here and focusing on making big profits overseas where the tax structure and business environment is more friendly.  That too makes for fewer jobs and less opportunity for all here at home.

You cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.


----------



## RKMBrown

Success has been declared evil in this country.  Screw it. Who needs to kill themselves so the government can take half their labor?  Screw it.  I'm done working my ass off for the slackers.  From here on I'll do only what I need to make a decent living for my family.  I'll shelter hide all the income I can.  Screw this killing myself for no reason bs.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives will always be able to claim, that unregulated capitalism is the only economic system required, and is perfect in every type of market, because it never has been, nor will be, experienced. Even the slowest countries know that in the absence of regulation, make more money regardless of the cost to others, degenerates into aristocracy and essentially slavery. Why? Money is power. Always. That's why the wealthy try to sell unregulated capitalism to the gullible.
> 
> And, there is a fool born every minute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?
> 
> ALERT:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the wealthy have you eating out of the government is too big trough?
Click to expand...


How about you just state your point rather than asking inane questions.  Stop hinting.


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business.   Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing.  American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time.  But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.
> 
> The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it.  Those who have capital parked overseas are not going to bring that money home when the huge threat of the 'rich paying their fair share' is likely to confiscate a huge percentage of it.  And folks aren't about to risk the capital they have when the President continues to beat the drum of the 'rich paying more' as well as the uncertainties in the tax code due to massive programs like Obamacare et al.
> 
> So small business chooses to stay small instead of expanding and risking those higher taxes.  And that results in fewer jobs and opportunity for others.  Big business does just fine by focusing all its less profitable operations here and focusing on making big profits overseas where the tax structure and business environment is more friendly.  That too makes for fewer jobs and less opportunity for all here at home.
> 
> You cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.
Click to expand...


That is only half the picture though.  The other half ilia has somewhat correct, business is not going to invest in the face of reduced demand.  What they have wrong though is the idea that the government can print of some cash and then create artificial demand without consequences.  Not only is that simply not going to work but it no longer fits into the economy where inflating the cost of goods through printing presses, higher taxes and forced higher wages chases that demand to other products produced in cheaper nations.  The world economy can no longer be looked at as though money in our system stays there.  It leaves and boosts the economy elsewhere.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone on this board claimed that capitalism needs to be wholly unregulated?
> 
> ALERT:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the wealthy have you eating out of the government is too big trough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you just state your point rather than asking inane questions.  Stop hinting.
Click to expand...


Mamooth/Siagon/PMZ may or may not be cut from the same cloth, but they all debate via non sequitur questions.  Thank you for not taking that bait because those who do help them drag the thread waaaaay off course.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

FA_Q2 said:


> .  The world economy can no longer be looked at as though money in our system stays there.  It leaves and boosts the economy elsewhere.


even it stayed here it would only create inflation, artificial demand, and distortions or bubbles; so now you see that the liberal's easy money debtor friendly inflation doesn't work anywhere!!


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business.   Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing.  American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time.  But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.
> 
> The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it.  Those who have capital parked overseas are not going to bring that money home when the huge threat of the 'rich paying their fair share' is likely to confiscate a huge percentage of it.  And folks aren't about to risk the capital they have when the President continues to beat the drum of the 'rich paying more' as well as the uncertainties in the tax code due to massive programs like Obamacare et al.
> 
> So small business chooses to stay small instead of expanding and risking those higher taxes.  And that results in fewer jobs and opportunity for others.  Big business does just fine by focusing all its less profitable operations here and focusing on making big profits overseas where the tax structure and business environment is more friendly.  That too makes for fewer jobs and less opportunity for all here at home.
> 
> You cannot punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is only half the picture though.  The other half ilia has somewhat correct, business is not going to invest in the face of reduced demand.  What they have wrong though is the idea that the government can print of some cash and then create artificial demand without consequences.  Not only is that simply not going to work but it no longer fits into the economy where inflating the cost of goods through printing presses, higher taxes and forced higher wages chases that demand to other products produced in cheaper nations.  The world economy can no longer be looked at as though money in our system stays there.  It leaves and boosts the economy elsewhere.
Click to expand...


The whole concept of Keynesian economics is government spending that provides a little jump start--not enough to break the bank--very short term and with the treasury repaid quickly.  But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.  Building a new court house results in somethng tangible and useful, but it also provides work for a contractor who in turn subcontracts work and buys supplies and materials from other businesses who in turn buy from others, etc.

But a stable sustainable economy works as it always has.  Business doing business buys products and services from other businesses as well as providing wages and other forms of income for labor who also then have money to use for products and services.  Some of the money is saved, some invested, some spent directly.  But in the magic of a free market system it works across a city, a state, a nation, and most of the free world.   Gradually, according to supply and demand, more people will be needed to supply labor who in turn need someplace to live, food, clothing, etc. that prompts more businesses to move in to meet the new demand.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Foxfyre said:


> But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.





dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.

Make sense??


----------



## PMZ

The concept of Keynesian economics is that when consumers lose confidence in business, they stop consuming and that leads to layoffs and shutdowns and more loss in confidence. The only stabilizing force available is the government who can borrow, support consumer spending and keep businesses afloat until consumer confidence returns. 

The Great Recession was the perfect storm of banking collapse from the crash of the housing boom, caused by too many high risk mortgages granted and then sold. Plus the collapse of the auto industry. Plus the results of millions of American jobs given away to cheap foreign labor so that executives could pocket what they should have spent on American productivity. 

What could possibly support consumer confidence in that melange of business failure? Only the government through extended unemployment benefits. Which, despite the Republican cries for austerity, which would have certainly brought on greater recession as in Europe, we're granted. 

In 2001 the CBO said that if Bush had continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt could be paid off by 2006. Instead we are now looking at $17,000,000,000,000 in debt as the consequences of Republican policies during the Bush Administration. 

What saved the country from a much greater impact? 

Keynesian economics. The investment by government into the economy.


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.
> 
> Make sense??
Click to expand...


The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.

Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts. 

The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt. 

Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an increasing trend for employees to stay put...and especially to not take the risk to start a business.   Who does this benefit...big government cronies who now have a buyers' market for labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Among a whole lot of nonsense Ilia has been spouting--I'm trying to ignore most of it and not take the bait to derail the thread worse than has already happened--he/she is right about one thing.  American business is sitting on trillions of dollars of capital at this time.  But not for the reasons he/she would have us believe.
Click to expand...


Basically you are saying that companies being reluctant to spend money on expanding production has absolutely nothing to do with the biggest drop in consumer demand since 30s? That it is a pure coincidence that drop in the business investment happened right after the drop in the consumer spending?

Honestly, do you really believe so?



> The 'fair share' issue is precisely why they are sitting on it.



Sure, simply electing a Democratic President is enough to scare the business and put the economy into a severe recession. Why, it happened all the time! Take Clinton -- everyone expected he would rise taxes, and sure thing he did!

Except why it that tax hike was followed by the unprecedented economic expansion?



> The whole concept of Keynesian economics is government spending that provides a little jump start



Right -- except you were saying that such policies prolong recessions. You might want to make sure that you are on the same page with your second personality.



> Business doing business buys products and services from other businesses as well as providing wages and other forms of income for labor who also then have money to use for products and services. Some of the money is saved, some invested, some spent directly. But in the magic of a free market system it works across a city, a state, a nation, and most of the free world. Gradually, according to supply and demand, more people will be needed to supply labor who in turn need someplace to live, food, clothing, etc. that prompts more businesses to move in to meet the new demand.



Great, you understand the virtuous cycle. But you can't you get that you can go down the same spiral as well -- down, not up. When a sudden drop in consumer demand leads to layoffs and further drop in consumer demand. And it happens with no help from the government, a failure purely on the part of free-market.


----------



## ilia25

AmazonTania said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, these 'idiots' you have referred are probably doing real research, while you are using... Wikipedia and Motherjones? What's wrong? Krugman's blog doesn't have data going back as far as 2002?
> 
> Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States
> 
> Top 1%     Bottom: 99%
> 
> 1922: 63.3%. . . .36.7%
> 1929: 55.8% . . . .44.2%
> 1933: 66.7%. . . . 33.3%
> 1939: 63.6%. . . . 36.4%
> 1945: 70.2%. . . . 29.8%
> 1949: 72.9%. . . . 27.1%
> 1953: 68.8%. . . . 31.2%
> 1962: 68.2%. . . . 31.8%
> 1965: 65.6%. . . . 34.4%
> 1969: 68.9%. . . . 31.1%
> 1972: 70.9%. . . . 29.1%
> 1976: 80.1%. . . . 19.9%
> 1979: 79.5%. . . . 20.5%
> 1981: 75.2%. . . . 24.8%
> 1983: 69.1%. . . . 30.9%
> 1986: 68.1%. . . . 31.9%
> 1989: 64.3% . . . .35.7%
> 1992: 62.8%. . . . 37.2%
> 1995: 61.5%. . . . 38.5%
> 1998: 61.9%. . . . 38.1%
> 2001: 66.6%. . . . 33.4%
> 2004: 65.7%. . . . 34.3%
> 2007: 65.4%. . . . 34.6%
> 2010: 64.6%. . . . 35.4%
> 
> Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you people fail to read your own sources:
> 
> _Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007)._
> 
> There is no way in the world the growing income inequality would not result in more unequal wealth distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how you fail at reading... How does that refute anything that I have said? What you have quoted is where all the new financial wealth was distributed. That still changes anything, in fact, very little. Income quintlies grow and shrink overtime, but the gap between the 99% and Top 1% has barely changed.
Click to expand...


For pete's sake, why don't you read your own numbers? Top 1% share doubled between 1976 and 1998. I that what you describe as "barely changed"?

And yes, it takes time for the income inequality to affect the distribution of wealth. But it will happen eventually and inevitably.



> People move up and down income brackets everyday. Statistical categories are doesn't matter very much. Who comprises those categories at that particular time matters more.  But you really don't understand how that works, which is why income inequality is generally misunderstood by most.



Sure, everyone in America starts working for a minimal wage and ends up in the top 1% a few decade later. Or maybe not.


----------



## buckeye45_73

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.


 

holy shit, I agree with you on something!


----------



## ilia25

FA_Q2 said:


> Not only is that simply not going to work but it no longer fits into the economy where inflating the cost of goods through printing presses, higher taxes and forced higher wages



Get this -- inflation happens only when people's wages start raising. And wages only start raising after the unemployment drops below its natural rate -- in other words, after the economy has recovered from depression.

So you can't say that stimulus does not work because it causes inflation. Because inflation means that stimulus was successful.


----------



## editec

FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.

More typically wages rise after prices inflate.


----------



## Foxfyre

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.
> 
> Make sense??
Click to expand...


But read my definition of Keynesian economics which is actually John Maynard Keynes theory in its simplest terms.  Keynes' concept has been bastardized and completed distorted in the modern American liberal's belief that government can spend us into prosperity.  Keynes' would never have suggested anything like that.  

Using my example of that courthouse to give a little jump start to the local economy, that was his concept.  Because they could count on getting paid, it would inspire confidence allowing the contractor to risk his capital to build it knowing he would get paid and that would regenerate economic activity in the private sector.   It would be a responsible use of government stimulus assuming that the community needed that courthouse.  And Keynes looked to necessary infrastructure for the short term government spending rather than massive social spending that has little chance to provide any significant return.  And his concept did not include entitlements.

The housing bubble was generated by government encouraging, in fact almost requiring, irresponsible spending and investment and refusal to deal with the warning signs when they first appeared.   Keynes would never have encouraged government to encourage irresponsible investment nor would he have approved the government taking on debt at levels that could not be quickly repaid to the treasury.

Keynes was not a fan of how FDR applied his theories and cautioned FDR not to endanger confidence through too much aggressive government.  And before he died in 1945, Keynes was pretty discouraged with a government-driven rather than private-sector driven economy.  He said something to the effect that economics had gone 'silly and sour."


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.
> 
> Make sense??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.
> 
> Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.
> 
> The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.
> 
> Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.
Click to expand...


PMZ you are a partisan hack.  The housing bubble was created by the Clinton administration and regulated by the democrats to benefit their voting block.  It was the democrat voting block that had no income to pay for their loans that caused the bubble to pop.  It was the democrat lawmakers who forced the banks to provide the loans with no backing and it was the democrats who's friends in finance benefited in the theft.  Bush?  Yeah he's a christian, warhawk, socialist always was and always will be.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Perhaps... but still, laying off millions of workers while offshoring their jobs and also while increasing executive pay by the exact amount saved by offshoring?



I understand that the Union trains you to chant simple slogans, but slogans are no substitute for thought.



> Yeah, it's not hard to understand why the folks would not appreciate the value of the Executives' windfall bonus check apparently earned by his act of moving their job to our communist enemies.



What the fuck are you yapping about? Do you even grasp what the subject is?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ilia25 said:


> You have problem with reading comprehension. This is not my attitude and a never said anything like this. The goal is to make the poor having more.



Yawn,,,



> Thatcher failed.* Yes, the poor saw their income rising. But they were rising slower* than the overall economy because *bigger share of newly created wealth went to the rich.*



You leftists are like petulant children.

"NO FAIR - HE GOT MORE - WAHHHHH"

_But stupid, you got more as well._

"NO FAIR - HE GOT MORE MORE THAN I GOT - WAHHHHH"

Obsmunists are some stupid motherfuckers.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Derideo_Te said:


> There are dust-bunnies that have a higher IQ than you do.



And yet, he still has a higher IQ than you...

Funny dat.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.
> 
> Make sense??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.
> 
> Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.
> 
> The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.
> 
> Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMZ you are a partisan hack.  The housing bubble was created by the Clinton administration and regulated by the democrats to benefit their voting block.  It was the democrat voting block that had no income to pay for their loans that caused the bubble to pop.  It was the democrat lawmakers who forced the banks to provide the loans with no backing and it was the democrats who's friends in finance benefited in the theft.  Bush?  Yeah he's a christian, warhawk, socialist always was and always will be.
Click to expand...


It actually started with the Carter Administration, was not resisted in the Reagan Administration, became more intentionally aggressive and started spiraling out of control in the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration does not have clean hands either.  

To his credit, President Bush was aware that the situation had become dangerous and I believe it was 17 different times he asked Congress to deal with it to head off a possible crash.  (I say possible because they did not foresee the devastation in store for us when the whole house of cards collapsed.)  But the Congress, most especially when it was back under control of the Democrats in January 2007, blew off the President's concerns.   And we had the spectacle of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd again and again reassuring everybody that Fannie and Freddie were not in any kind of trouble and everything was just fine.

Youtube Barney Frank on Fannie Mae - Bing Videos

The 'fair share' any of us would pay would be a hell of a lot less if we had a competent, responsive, and restrained government.
The 'fair share' we


----------



## Uncensored2008

Derideo_Te said:


> Republicans are notorious for withholding hand ups.



Obamunists are notorious for ordering "HANDS UP."


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The housing bubble had little to do with government. It's ultimate beginning was the invention and popularization of mortgage backed derivatives. An invention that relieved banks initiating mortgages from due diligence. It simply became too easy to make trillions by initiating highly risky mortgages on the basis of promising people easy money from overextending themselves, packaging the mortgages in derivatives which obscured the risk, and selling them to unsuspecting investors around the world.
> 
> Easy money + greed = booms which always collapse into busts.
> 
> The housing boom and bust + the Detroit auto busts + the holy wars + the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts on wealth + The cost of stabilizing the economy to shorten recovery time, took us from the promise of zero debt to the reality of $17,000,000,000,000 in debt.
> 
> Those facts define the reality of the demise of the Republican Party and their total reliance now on lies as the only pathway to redemption. But it has and will continue to fail. Not enough suckers in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ you are a partisan hack.  The housing bubble was created by the Clinton administration and regulated by the democrats to benefit their voting block.  It was the democrat voting block that had no income to pay for their loans that caused the bubble to pop.  It was the democrat lawmakers who forced the banks to provide the loans with no backing and it was the democrats who's friends in finance benefited in the theft.  Bush?  Yeah he's a christian, warhawk, socialist always was and always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually started with the Carter Administration, was not resisted in the Reagan Administration, became more intentionally aggressive and started spiraling out of control in the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration does not have clean hands either.
> 
> To his credit, President Bush was aware that the situation had become dangerous and I believe it was 17 different times he asked Congress to deal with it to head off a possible crash.  (I say possible because they did not foresee the devastation in store for us when the whole house of cards collapsed.)  But the Congress, most especially when it was back under control of the Democrats in January 2007, blew off the President's concerns.   And we had the spectacle of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd again and again reassuring everybody that Fannie and Freddie were not in any kind of trouble and everything was just fine.
> 
> Youtube Barney Frank on Fannie Mae - Bing Videos
> 
> The 'fair share' any of us would pay would be a hell of a lot less if we had a competent, responsive, and restrained government.
> The 'fair share' we
Click to expand...


I yield the floor..


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the idea is to infuse just enugh money into the economy to encourage economic activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, you have to put your thinking cap on and reach for the idea of "malinvestment or bubble investment" When government spends it misallocates money, people, and resources. The housing bubble is the perfect example writ large. When the government stops you have too many bridge builders or carpenters, a then a recession while the free market puts things back in their free market sustainable place.
> 
> Make sense??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But read my definition of Keynesian economics which is actually John Maynard Keynes theory in its simplest terms.  Keynes' concept has been bastardized and completed distorted in the modern American liberal's belief that government can spend us into prosperity.
Click to expand...


Can you name someone believing that "that government can spend us into prosperity"? I, for one, always maintained that the government should only try to stimulate an economy while it is in depression. Once the unemployment drops to its natural level -- and you can see that when you see rising inflation -- then there is no point in any further stimulus. 'Cause it would only lead to more inflation.


----------



## ilia25

editec said:


> FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.
> 
> More typically wages rise after prices inflate.



The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.
> 
> More typically wages rise after prices inflate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.
Click to expand...

Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.
> 
> More typically wages rise after prices inflate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
Click to expand...


And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.

In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread.  Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay.  Charge too much and people will not buy bread.  But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop.  But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.

Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort.  But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker.  And contributes to inflation not at all.  In fact the more demand there is, the higher the wages the employees are likely to earn, and inflation can actually be reduced or eliminated.

I paid more than $2,000 for my first computer - slow, inefficient, tiny hard drive, limited capabilites.
On Black Friday this past year I paid less than $300 for a computer with a terrabyte of hard drive space, lighting fast speed, and all the bells and whistles that allow me to do anything I know how to do on a computer.  I am guessing that as the costs of computers have been coming steadily down, the wages of those who design, program, and build them have been going substantially up.  And that hasn't contributed to inflation one whit.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.
> 
> In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread.  Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay.  Charge too much and people will not buy bread.  But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop.  But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.
> 
> Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort.  But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker.  And contributes to inflation not at all.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a good manager.  Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet.  Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay.  Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure.  ROFL  many cost factors.  Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> I paid more than $2,000 for my first computer - slow, inefficient, tiny hard drive, limited capabilites.
> On Black Friday this past year I paid less than $300 for a computer with a terrabyte of hard drive space, lighting fast speed, and all the bells and whistles that allow me to do anything I know how to do on a computer.  I am guessing that as the costs of computers have been coming steadily down, the wages of those who design, program, and build them have been going substantially up.  And that hasn't contributed to inflation one whit.



I paid about 1200 for my first PC setup... it was an IBM PCjr. Good times.

With the exception of Engineers working for the Government, the salary of most engineers have retreated significantly since the dot com bubble and subsequent recessions.  Mostly due to price presure from India, China, etc.  The offshoring and inshoring has killed the private sector pay rate.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.
> 
> In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread.  Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay.  Charge too much and people will not buy bread.  But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop.  But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.
> 
> Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort.  But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker.  And contributes to inflation not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like a good manager.  Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet.  Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay.  Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure.  ROFL  many cost factors.  Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...
Click to expand...


Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits.  And in so doing that, the business owner  often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product.  The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits.  Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices.  And that does not increase inflation.

The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee.  In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer.   But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer.  Which do you think will be paid better?   And how is that not fair?

When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system.  And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And labor creates inflation only when it is not offset by value, profits, and/or everything else stays the same.
> 
> In basic economics we learned the principle of pricing bread.  Wanting maximum profits, the baker prices the bread for the maximum amount that people are willing to pay.  Charge too much and people will not buy bread.  But if enough additional people will buy the bread when the price is dropped to increase the profits to the baker, the price will drop.  But at any price, people will only buy so much bread at any price and when that level of supply and demand has been reached, the price is fixed at that level.
> 
> Now then, a shrewed baker knows that the efficiency and effectiveness of his employers are a factor in people buying his bread instead of from some other baker, and those who are productive and efficient and effective in producing a superior product are likely to merit higher wages than those who just put in their time but no extra effort.  But because paying those higher wages increases his abiity to produce more of a good product and thereby increase his profits, that is money well spent by the baker.  And contributes to inflation not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a good manager.  Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet.  Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay.  Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure.  ROFL  many cost factors.  Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits.  And in so doing that, the business owner  often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product.  The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits.  Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices.  And that does not increase inflation.
> 
> The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee.  In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer.   But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer.  Which do you think will be paid better?   And how is that not fair?
> 
> When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system.  And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.
Click to expand...


Good points.  However in the real world there are also monopolies.  Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...

Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.

For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.

Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.

As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment. 

You see we don't live in a free market system.  Not any more.  Why?  Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a good manager.  Unfortunately good managers are far between, and even the good managers can be over-ridden by corporate finance who place head count as one big number in a spreadsheet.  Most bread makers pay all bakers the same rate of pay.  Of course with unions comes pay based on tenure.  ROFL  many cost factors.  Life just isn't as simple as an easy quip or catch phrase is it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits.  And in so doing that, the business owner  often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product.  The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits.  Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices.  And that does not increase inflation.
> 
> The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee.  In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer.   But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer.  Which do you think will be paid better?   And how is that not fair?
> 
> When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system.  And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good points.  However in the real world there are also monopolies.  Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...
> 
> Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.
> 
> For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.
> 
> Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.
> 
> As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.
> 
> You see we don't live in a free market system.  Not any more.  Why?  Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.
Click to expand...


But that isn't the point is it?  The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.

What you say here is true.  But it shouldn't be true.  We should demand that it no longer be true.

Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.

All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.

Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands.  And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense.  And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW inflation is seldom caused by rising wages.
> 
> More typically wages rise after prices inflate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
Click to expand...


The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.


----------



## Redfish

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.
Click to expand...


supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits.  And in so doing that, the business owner  often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product.  The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits.  Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices.  And that does not increase inflation.
> 
> The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee.  In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer.   But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer.  Which do you think will be paid better?   And how is that not fair?
> 
> When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system.  And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.  However in the real world there are also monopolies.  Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...
> 
> Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.
> 
> For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.
> 
> Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.
> 
> As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.
> 
> You see we don't live in a free market system.  Not any more.  Why?  Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that isn't the point is it?  The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.
> 
> What you say here is true.  But it shouldn't be true.  We should demand that it no longer be true.
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands.  And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense.  And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.
Click to expand...


Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans.  Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living.  Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch.  Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.

We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...  

Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of any good is the sum of wages paid to create it. That is why inflation is ALWAYS caused by rising wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.
Click to expand...


Depends on how much automation there is.   The cost of Mexican hand woven rugs are hugely labor intensive as the materials are generally donated.  The cost of labor for those done by feeding some kind of material into a machine that then produces the rug, much less so.

But nobody is worth more than the profit he or or she produces for his/her employer.   That means that he/she needs to generate income for the business equal to his/her wages and all othe costs to the employer - benefits, taxes, insurance, etc. - plus a reasonable profit for the employer.   The better he/she does that, the more valuable his/her labor becomes, and, if the employer is any kind of a business person, the more the worker will be paid.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.



You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
1) Pulling the economy out of depression
2) Providing social security and health insurance

Take health insurance. It only works if:
1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius

Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.

Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.

All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
> 1) Pulling the economy out of depression
> 2) Providing social security and health insurance
> 
> Take health insurance. It only works if:
> 1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
> 2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
> 3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius
> 
> Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.
> 
> Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.
> 
> All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.
Click to expand...


We've already been down that road and I have already provided several different sources to rebut your opinion on that.  Your continuing to repeat it over and over and over isn't going to make it any more true than it was when you first posted it.

We would all be much better off and we would each need to pay a much much smaller 'fair share' if the federal government did not do what the states, local communities, and the private sector can do better.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> The better he/she does that, the more valuable his/her labor becomes, and, if the employer is any kind of a business person, the more the worker will be paid.



Well, that is actually not true, business profits do not cause worker wages rising. Not directly, and certainly not by employer being "any kind of a business person".

But we were talking about the causes of inflation.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
> 1) Pulling the economy out of depression
> 2) Providing social security and health insurance
> 
> Take health insurance. It only works if:
> 1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
> 2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
> 3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius
> 
> Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.
> 
> Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.
> 
> All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've already been down that road and I have already provided several different sources to rebut your opinion on that.
Click to expand...


Maybe someday you will learn that sources do not provide rebuttals. Facts and logical argument based on those facts do. And you are reluctant to provide any.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
> 1) Pulling the economy out of depression
> 2) Providing social security and health insurance
> 
> Take health insurance. It only works if:
> 1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
> 2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
> 3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius
> 
> Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.
> 
> Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.
> 
> All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.
Click to expand...

WOW just WOW

Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts.  Wow.  Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement.  Wow, just wow!

Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left.  Ok fine.  I'll quit working today.  I refuse to work tomorrow.  I need money.  Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries.  I'll accept paypal.


----------



## PMZ

The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs. 

The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.  However in the real world there are also monopolies.  Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...
> 
> Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.
> 
> For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.
> 
> Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.
> 
> As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.
> 
> You see we don't live in a free market system.  Not any more.  Why?  Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that isn't the point is it?  The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.
> 
> What you say here is true.  But it shouldn't be true.  We should demand that it no longer be true.
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands.  And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense.  And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans.  Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living.  Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch.  Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.
> 
> We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...
> 
> Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.
Click to expand...


Yes you're right.  And if you're into conspiracy theories that make sense, check in on Political Chic's thread "A Different Perspective."  I think it is in politics.   And ignore all the leftwing caterwauling about whose is blackest and who is to blame yadda yadda and really focus on the concept she laid out there in the OP.  It is also pertinent for this thread.   No way any dedicated Leftist is gonna touch that and they're doing their damndest to deflect from it.

But I'm not ready to stick a fork in it just yet.  For everybody who thinks like Ilia there is still somebody who thinks like you.  I am not ready to give up the great experiment the Founders left to us just yet.  I have to believe that if reasonable people will just keep repeating reasonable things that are true, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to common sense and the amazing concepts of liberty, choice, options, and opportunities that a regulated free market allows.

I do believe we are the last generation with any chance to do that.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.
> 
> The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.



Said another way...  Truth is usually subjective and rarely objective.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
> 1) Pulling the economy out of depression
> 2) Providing social security and health insurance
> 
> Take health insurance. It only works if:
> 1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
> 2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
> 3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius
> 
> Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.
> 
> Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.
> 
> All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW just WOW
> 
> Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts.  Wow.  Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement.  Wow, just wow!
Click to expand...


Is that a poetry, or you are trying to put forth some argument?



> Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left.  Ok fine.  I'll quit working today.  I refuse to work tomorrow.  I need money.  Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries.  I'll accept paypal.



Nobody is advocating such policies. The goal is to make people working the best they can.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.
> 
> The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.



Have you ever been to a swap meet, or a yard sale?

Were you able to function, you know, since government wasn't there to make your choices for you?

I understand that spewing talking points from the hate sites is a close to thought as you get, but seriously - you spew idiocy that reveals your lack of education and your lack of critical thinking skill.

Have you EVER read any scholarly work by an economist? Yes, you read what ThinkProgress gushes about Krugman, but have you EVER, even once, read the works of a legitimate economist?

Didn't think so.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention other thing that government is doing better than people themselves:
> 1) Pulling the economy out of depression
> 2) Providing social security and health insurance
> 
> Take health insurance. It only works if:
> 1) Everyone pays premiums, not just sick and elderly
> 2) Everyone is accepted, including those with pre-existing conditions.
> 3) Poor are subsidized, so they can afford paying premius
> 
> Only government can ensure all three conditions above are met.
> 
> Same with social security. Most people are not as disciplined or far-sighted to save enough for retirement. So the government must ensure that they do.
> 
> All this is no different than requiring people drive with sit belts on.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW just WOW
> 
> Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts.  Wow.  Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement.  Wow, just wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a poetry, or you are trying to put forth some argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left.  Ok fine.  I'll quit working today.  I refuse to work tomorrow.  I need money.  Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries.  I'll accept paypal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is advocating such policies. The goal is to make people working the best they can.
Click to expand...


I work to collect a paycheck.  I donate or used to donate a portion of my money to charitable causes that help the truly needy and for hand ups.  Since the government has decided to pay for 40million Americans to not work.. there is no need for charity any more.  Our welfare system is not about helping people its about winning elections by buying votes with greenbacks.  Our system does not make people work.  Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that isn't the point is it?  The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.
> 
> What you say here is true.  But it shouldn't be true.  We should demand that it no longer be true.
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands.  And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense.  And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans.  Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living.  Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch.  Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.
> 
> We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...
> 
> Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you're right.  And if you're into conspiracy theories that make sense, check in on Political Chic's thread "A Different Perspective."  I think it is in politics.   And ignore all the leftwing caterwauling about whose is blackest and who is to blame yadda yadda and really focus on the concept she laid out there in the OP.  It is also pertinent for this thread.   No way any dedicated Leftist is gonna touch that and they're doing their damndest to deflect from it.
> 
> But I'm not ready to stick a fork in it just yet.  For everybody who thinks like Ilia there is still somebody who thinks like you.  I am not ready to give up the great experiment the Founders left to us just yet.  I have to believe that if reasonable people will just keep repeating reasonable things that are true, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to common sense and the amazing concepts of liberty, choice, options, and opportunities that a regulated free market allows.
> 
> I do believe we are the last generation with any chance to do that.
Click to expand...


I'm not done either... just ticked at the ease with which said authoritarian and socialist leaning forces have been able to fundamentally change everything about this country from the shinning example of freedom and hope that it showed under Reagan... to the bad night mare of the beginnings of soft tyranny Bush and now Obama.  I'm reminded of the Carter years.  It's embarrassing.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.



If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.



econ 101 class one day one for the liberal fool: scarcity helps sets price in a free market too. If gold and diamonds where priced at the cost of mining, tomorrow the supply would instantly be sold and those who wanted to buy it could not!
If the market sets the price those who want it can buy it.

If soviet liberals set the prices too low the supply is immediately sold out and you wait in line all day for more, if they set it too high the supply sits on shelves as few can afford it. Soon its not worth it for a business to participate and 100 million or so stave to death like in the USSR and Red China.

Now the little liberal knows his ABC's too


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.
> 
> Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.
Click to expand...


Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?  Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year?  Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?  

40Million Americans on welfare.  The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare.  These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?  

The solution is a bitter pill.  Take it away.  You want food, work for it.  You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.  

It's really not that complex.

What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare?  Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients.  It's really not that complex.

Read Rules for Radicals.  They are not even hiding what they are doing.  The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society.  Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.
> 
> Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.
Click to expand...


dear, when Clinton and Newt ended "welfare as we know it" by adding a work requirement 60% of the recipients instantly disappeared. Case closed!!!!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.


----------



## Cecilie1200

thereisnospoon said:


> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.



Well, there's your problem.  When they say "fair share", you think they mean "fair share of the burden", when what they ACTUALLY mean is "fair share of what they have and earn".  The answer to that, of course, is "however much it takes for them to be as poor as I am."


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.
> 
> Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?
Click to expand...


By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).

We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.

In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).



> The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.



Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.


----------



## ilia25

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> If gold and diamonds where priced at the cost of mining, tomorrow the supply would instantly be sold and those who wanted to buy it could not!



Gold and diamonds ARE priced at the cost of mining, you idiot.. They are so expensive because the cost of mining them is high.


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay, all who think gold and diamonds are priced at the cost of mining, raise their hands.

Not very many.  I think I only see one.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we can split hairs all we want and attack the analogy, or we can recognize that those who are successful in business maximize their profits.  And in so doing that, the business owner  often can pay more in wages while charging less for his services or product.  The most competent will find that exact right balance between supply and demand that allows for maximum profits.  Those who do that well will almost always pay their best people well and benefit society by providing goods and services at affordable and attractive prices.  And that does not increase inflation.
> 
> The trainee is not worth nearly as much in wages as the experienced dedicated employee.  In fact the trainee often is dead weight on a business until he learns how to do his job well enough to earn a profit for his employer.   But the guy who does only enough work to earn $1,000 in profits for his employer is not going to be worth as much as the guy who generates $5,000 for his employer.  Which do you think will be paid better?   And how is that not fair?
> 
> When government presumes to determine what is and is not a fair wage, however, it short circuits the whole free market system.  And generally, many more people find themselves with less opportunity to advance and earn more; we aren't able to buy goods and services at lower prices, and there is inflation that reduces the buying power of us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.  However in the real world there are also monopolies.  Monopolies on labor, monopolies on investments, monopolies on sales, monopolies on laws...
> 
> Government is supposed to break up these monopolies but typically the monopolies buy the politicians.. thus corruption effects the pure symbiotic relationship between risk, good work, and reward.
> 
> For example, Corporate executives monopolizing the price for corporate executives to the tune of deciding to pay themselves to become mega millionaires for very little labor.
> 
> Government employees giving themselves raises every year even in a recession and even though many of these employees provide no product, but rather are merely there to collect a salary.
> 
> As another example, selected particular corporations that own entire markets and are not broken up by the government based on preferred treatment.
> 
> You see we don't live in a free market system.  Not any more.  Why?  Because the government, in general, has decided to cash in on our market rather than sustain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that isn't the point is it?  The point is what is a fair share for citizens to pay to support the government.
> 
> What you say here is true.  But it shouldn't be true.  We should demand that it no longer be true.
> 
> Government cannot choose for us how to live our lives as well as most of us would choose to live them.   Government cannot set a 'fair wage' anywhere nearly as efficiently as the free market can.  Government cannot spend our money anywhere nearly as effectively or efficiently as we would spend it.  Most of the most serious economic problems we have now are mostly because government doesn't see or agree with that.
> 
> All freedom loving Americans should want the Federal government busted back to its original constitutional intent which was to secure our rights which would necessitate just enough laws and regulation to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, or economic violence to each other, and then leave us alone to live our lives as we choose to live them.
> 
> Do that, then all the government will need is a tiny percentage of the funds that it now demands.  And we would have public servants again instead of career politicians with motives to become rich and powerful at our expense.  And each citizen should pay their fair share to support such a government.
Click to expand...


The majority of citizens want what they voted for. The Supreme Court judged what they wanted to be Constitutional. A minority (of conservatives) wants to impose what has been imposed on them by their media choices on that majority. 

The biggest gift from the founders was our ability to evolve into a democracy from the plutocracy which was the only choice open to them those many years ago. 

The tyranny of conservatism was given a fair chance and failed spectacularly. They are now suffering their just rewards. That's how democracy works. 

Voters learn.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how much automation there is.   The cost of Mexican hand woven rugs are hugely labor intensive as the materials are generally donated.  The cost of labor for those done by feeding some kind of material into a machine that then produces the rug, much less so.
> 
> But nobody is worth more than the profit he or or she produces for his/her employer.   That means that he/she needs to generate income for the business equal to his/her wages and all othe costs to the employer - benefits, taxes, insurance, etc. - plus a reasonable profit for the employer.   The better he/she does that, the more valuable his/her labor becomes, and, if the employer is any kind of a business person, the more the worker will be paid.
Click to expand...


"But nobody is worth more than the profit he or or she produces for his/her employer." No employer is worth more than the interest on the capital that they invested in providing the means. It's the workers that create the wealth. That's what work does. If the workers produce a superior value product they should be rewarded for their success. 

Any legitimate business owner, and there aren't very many, knows that the quality of the workers using his means are what creates growth, which is the only measure of successful business. Everyone's success would be seriously hampered by not allowing the workers the financial benefit of their success. There are lots of means now sitting idle due to incompetent business people who didn't understand that, and we're unable to learn it.


----------



## Cuyo

Why nothing between 39 and 70?

I suspect that's where most of us libruls would actually pin the top bracket.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.



I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead. 

So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results. 

But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of conservatism is built on top of the myth of the free market. The myth of the free market is based on the myth of the fully informed consumer. The myth of the fully informed consumer is based on the myth that advertising informs.
> 
> The best example of this, interestingly enough, are conservatives who believe that they are freely participating in the market place of political ideas by "learning" about their options from Rush and Rupert et al and their megalomaniacal media empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever been to a swap meet, or a yard sale?
> 
> Were you able to function, you know, since government wasn't there to make your choices for you?
> 
> I understand that spewing talking points from the hate sites is a close to thought as you get, but seriously - you spew idiocy that reveals your lack of education and your lack of critical thinking skill.
> 
> Have you EVER read any scholarly work by an economist? Yes, you read what ThinkProgress gushes about Krugman, but have you EVER, even once, read the works of a legitimate economist?
> 
> Didn't think so.
Click to expand...


John Maynard Keynes.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW just WOW
> 
> Slavery is no different than a law to use seat belts.  Wow.  Just a shade of grey between a law meant to protect people and a law meant to force Peter to pay for Paul's retirement.  Wow, just wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a poetry, or you are trying to put forth some argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just have to shake my head at the lunacy from the left.  Ok fine.  I'll quit working today.  I refuse to work tomorrow.  I need money.  Send me your paycheck so I can buy my groceries.  I'll accept paypal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is advocating such policies. The goal is to make people working the best they can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work to collect a paycheck.  I donate or used to donate a portion of my money to charitable causes that help the truly needy and for hand ups.  Since the government has decided to pay for 40million Americans to not work.. there is no need for charity any more.  Our welfare system is not about helping people its about winning elections by buying votes with greenbacks.  Our system does not make people work.  Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.
Click to expand...


It sounds like you know many people who choose poverty over work. Yet, capitalism says that the aversion to poverty is what motivates success. So I assume that you don't believe in capitalism. What do you believe in?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that would be great for the freedom loving Americans.  Unfortunately, there are a great many Americans who don't currently want a chance to work for a living.  Freedom... not for those folks, they want a tyrannical government who will take from the rich to pay them to sit on their couch.  Nah, they want their cut of the American Dream and they believe they are entitled to it.
> 
> We allowed majority vote for the senate throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed income tax, throwing out that balance against tyranny, we allowed the 14th amendment to include words that forever watered down statehood throwing out that balance against tyranny, we elected Barrack who claimed he would change every single thing about this country...
> 
> Put a fork in it... we're done for. Heck we don't even have a voting system that can allow for a conservative to win an election in a conservative primary, not when the majority of progressives can vote for the republican socialist who is homophobic and a hundred years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you're right.  And if you're into conspiracy theories that make sense, check in on Political Chic's thread "A Different Perspective."  I think it is in politics.   And ignore all the leftwing caterwauling about whose is blackest and who is to blame yadda yadda and really focus on the concept she laid out there in the OP.  It is also pertinent for this thread.   No way any dedicated Leftist is gonna touch that and they're doing their damndest to deflect from it.
> 
> But I'm not ready to stick a fork in it just yet.  For everybody who thinks like Ilia there is still somebody who thinks like you.  I am not ready to give up the great experiment the Founders left to us just yet.  I have to believe that if reasonable people will just keep repeating reasonable things that are true, we can begin to swing the pendulum back to common sense and the amazing concepts of liberty, choice, options, and opportunities that a regulated free market allows.
> 
> I do believe we are the last generation with any chance to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not done either... just ticked at the ease with which said authoritarian and socialist leaning forces have been able to fundamentally change everything about this country from the shinning example of freedom and hope that it showed under Reagan... to the bad night mare of the beginnings of soft tyranny Bush and now Obama.  I'm reminded of the Carter years.  It's embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like you believe there are many better choices in the world today than the US. Can you give us a list?


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> econ 101 class one day one for the liberal fool: scarcity helps sets price in a free market too. If gold and diamonds where priced at the cost of mining, tomorrow the supply would instantly be sold and those who wanted to buy it could not!
> If the market sets the price those who want it can buy it.
> 
> If soviet liberals set the prices too low the supply is immediately sold out and you wait in line all day for more, if they set it too high the supply sits on shelves as few can afford it. Soon its not worth it for a business to participate and 100 million or so stave to death like in the USSR and Red China.
> 
> Now the little liberal knows his ABC's too
Click to expand...


Only perfect markets work as you describe. They require perfectly informed consumers. How about a list of markets in the US that you believe are perfect.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the contrary our system forces people to not work.  If they work they loose their welfare.  This is nutz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.
> 
> Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?  Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year?  Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?
> 
> 40Million Americans on welfare.  The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare.  These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?
> 
> The solution is a bitter pill.  Take it away.  You want food, work for it.  You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.
> 
> It's really not that complex.
> 
> What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare?  Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients.  It's really not that complex.
> 
> Read Rules for Radicals.  They are not even hiding what they are doing.  The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society.  Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.
Click to expand...


I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too. 

Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Cecilie1200 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there's your problem.  When they say "fair share", you think they mean "fair share of the burden", when what they ACTUALLY mean is "fair share of what they have and earn".  The answer to that, of course, is "however much it takes for them to be as poor as I am."
Click to expand...


She states the truth!!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.
> 
> Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).
> 
> We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.
> 
> In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.
> 
> The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.
Click to expand...


People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
The wages paid by most businesses are appropriate. They must be. If not, any business that pays lower than market rate would find itself with high employee turnover.
Who is "we"? And what is that "something" we must do sooner or later?
And please, do not mention of government perks to give people magic raises or tax increases to fund same. You've already pointed out that you think government should be the great provider. Try another tactic.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Redfish said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is one type of limited resource that affects the cost of goods.  Other resources, such as land, minerals, water, intellectual property also affect the cost of goods.
> Additionally, market dynamics affect the price, such as the law and set aside locations for making purchases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else.
Click to expand...


I have made the point that labor is a commodity on many occasions. 
The libs vent "people are not a commodity"....Never said they were. But you know liberals. Never let a cause or a reason to complain go to waste.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> John Maynard Keynes.



Bullshit.

You've never read Keynes and you have no grasp of what he promoted.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).
> 
> We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.
> 
> In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.
> 
> The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
> The wages paid by most businesses are appropriate. They must be. If not, any business that pays lower than market rate would find itself with high employee turnover.
> Who is "we"? And what is that "something" we must do sooner or later?
> And please, do not mention of government perks to give people magic raises or tax increases to fund same. You've already pointed out that you think government should be the great provider. Try another tactic.
Click to expand...


Of course your thinking only applies to times of full employment. There's a reason why businesses are in no hurry to return there.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Maynard Keynes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You've never read Keynes and you have no grasp of what he promoted.
Click to expand...


I love you people who feel entitled to whatever truth benefits you. So do the media icons. You are the easiest to mislead. Car dealers must look forward to your visits.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of almost everything you have mentioned ultimately can be traced of worker wages. Minerals, for example, cost as much as you have to pay someone for extracting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have made the point that labor is a commodity on many occasions.
> The libs vent "people are not a commodity"....Never said they were. But you know liberals. Never let a cause or a reason to complain go to waste.
Click to expand...


If, in your business, labor is a commodity, you have no competition.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> I have made the point that labor is a commodity on many occasions.
> The libs vent "people are not a commodity"....Never said they were. But you know liberals. Never let a cause or a reason to complain go to waste.



Leftists lack the intellect to learn even simple concepts - which is why they are leftists.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I love you people who feel entitled to whatever truth benefits you. So do the media icons. You are the easiest to mislead. Car dealers must look forward to your visits.



There are certain tells. T_Polecat runs around claiming that the Bible orders Christians to kill. This is clear evidence that he has never read the Bible and relies on hate sites to fuel his bigotry.

Likewise, statements you make in your posts demonstrate well that you've never perused "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." You accrue to Keynes that which is diametrically opposed to what he actually wrote.

Keynes was not Marx, and that you view him as such is a clear indicator that you get your information from MSNBC, ThinkProgress, et al. and not from actual knowledge.


----------



## RKMBrown

There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government.  1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail.  2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love you people who feel entitled to whatever truth benefits you. So do the media icons. You are the easiest to mislead. Car dealers must look forward to your visits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are certain tells. T_Polecat runs around claiming that the Bible orders Christians to kill. This is clear evidence that he has never read the Bible and relies on hate sites to fuel his bigotry.
> 
> Likewise, statements you make in your posts demonstrate well that you've never perused "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." You accrue to Keynes that which is diametrically opposed to what he actually wrote.
> 
> Keynes was not Marx, and that you view him as such is a clear indicator that you get your information from MSNBC, ThinkProgress, et al. and not from actual knowledge.
Click to expand...


Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do. 

See the credibility problem there?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government.  1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail.  2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.



Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government.  1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail.  2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.



Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of government. Obamacare is a perfect example of a new trust forming, where government ensure exclusive access to the market for well connected looters such as Blue Cross, AIG, and Kaiser. Competitors are coerced by agents of the government to either be part of the trust with price fixing or face violence from the government. No competition for the market is allowed, competitors are imprisoned or fined by the rulers of the state on behalf of the crony corporations that have merged into the state.

This is always the case with a monopoly or trust, since the maintenance of a monopoly ultimately rests on the use of violence. Violence is the exclusive domain of the state, 

Standard Disclaimer: The holder of the piece of toast with the virgin Mary burned into the crust does have a monopoly of sorts, since the product is unique. This is known as a natural monopoly. But such monopolies are resource based rather than market based.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.
> 
> See the credibility problem there?



Which statement or idea came from Limbaugh?

Hmmm?

Ah, that is just one of the "mewling points" you have from DailyKOS - you threw it to see if it would stick.

Carry on.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government.  1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail.  2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.
Click to expand...


You mean Amerika don't you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government.  1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail.  2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean Amerika don't you?
Click to expand...


No I mean the country that you love to hate.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.
> 
> See the credibility problem there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which statement or idea came from Limbaugh?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> Ah, that is just one of the "mewling points" you have from DailyKOS - you threw it to see if it would stick.
> 
> Carry on.
Click to expand...


I fully plan to carry on with or without your permission. That's what independent thinkers do. You would not understand that at all. 

Keep your trunk around the elephant tail in front of you. That's your whole job. Focus. Don't ever let go. Ever!


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least two fundamental problems with our current system of government.  1) We have a government who's job is no longer to break up the monopolies, but rather to sustain them even to the point of bailing out the monopolies that fail.  2) We have a Government who's primary job has switched from one of defending the people against aggressors to one of redistributing the wealth of the people at gun point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of government. Obamacare is a perfect example of a new trust forming, where government ensure exclusive access to the market for well connected looters such as Blue Cross, AIG, and Kaiser. Competitors are coerced by agents of the government to either be part of the trust with price fixing or face violence from the government. No competition for the market is allowed, competitors are imprisoned or fined by the rulers of the state on behalf of the crony corporations that have merged into the state.
> 
> This is always the case with a monopoly or trust, since the maintenance of a monopoly ultimately rests on the use of violence. Violence is the exclusive domain of the state,
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: The holder of the piece of toast with the virgin Mary burned into the crust does have a monopoly of sorts, since the product is unique. This is known as a natural monopoly. But such monopolies are resource based rather than market based.
Click to expand...


Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of business and government. 

Remember that capitalism is functional only when competition tames make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is nothing less efficient than a non-competive capitalist market.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Where's the poll entry for, "We should pay to government in proportion to what we receive from government" ?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of business and government.



Business is irrelevant. There are dozens of competing businesses who will instantly move against a monopoly if they have the opportunity. 

Take Standard Oil. It wasn't that only Rockefeller had the insight to drill for oil, and thus established a monopoly, it's that Rockefeller had the backing of federal troops who murdered his competitors to ensure exclusivity to the market.

Without Standard Oil, another looter could take the place in a monopoly. Without the state providing violence to eliminate competition, no monopoly could exist. The business is irrelevant and interchangeable in a monopoly - it is the implied and actual violence of the state that is a unique element required to maintain a monopoly.

In a free market, a monopoly cannot exist.



> Remember that capitalism is functional only when competition tames make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is nothing less efficient than a non-competive capitalist market.



This is like saying that there is nothing less satisfying than non-wet water.

Free markets are competitive. Competition is subverted through coercion - which means involvement or approval of the state.


----------



## PMZ

Little-Acorn said:


> Where's the poll entry for, "We should pay to government in proportion to what we receive from government" ?



Or, we should receive for our work, value in proportion to that which we create.

In both cases the obstacle is in determining that.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of business and government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business is irrelevant. There are dozens of competing businesses who will instantly move against a monopoly if they have the opportunity.
> 
> Take Standard Oil. It wasn't that only Rockefeller had the insight to drill for oil, and thus established a monopoly, it's that Rockefeller had the backing of federal troops who murdered his competitors to ensure exclusivity to the market.
> 
> Without Standard Oil, another looter could take the place in a monopoly. Without the state providing violence to eliminate competition, no monopoly could exist. The business is irrelevant and interchangeable in a monopoly - it is the implied and actual violence of the state that is a unique element required to maintain a monopoly.
> 
> In a free market, a monopoly cannot exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that capitalism is functional only when competition tames make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is nothing less efficient than a non-competive capitalist market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is like saying that there is nothing less satisfying than non-wet water.
> 
> Free markets are competitive. Competition is subverted through coercion - which means involvement or approval of the state.
Click to expand...


Describe for us what competition would look like in the military market.

Competitive armies like the warlords of Afghanistan?

Soldiers, payed a bounty for enemy deaths, less friendly fire deaths, caused?

Soldiers rewarded for not raping their comrade? 

Also, "Competition is subverted through coercion" and advertising.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
Click to expand...


It's like saying that in USSR people were poor because they lacked skills to become members of Politburo.

It's a simple concept: the way the free-market economy distributes incomes is changing over time. 40 years ago the income was distributed more equally because many people with high-school diploma could get a middle-class paying job in manufacturing. Not anymore -- those jobs are lost to automation. Those who had left manufacturing have to work low-paying jobs in service sector.

And it is going to get worse. As computers get smarter, the free market sends an ever bigger share of new wealth to the top 1%. We will end up with a few thousands super-rich families surrounded by millions stuck with less real incomes than their parents were making. Unless we the people do something about it.


----------



## ilia25

Uncensored2008 said:


> Business is irrelevant. There are dozens of competing businesses who will instantly move against a monopoly if they have the opportunity.



And the monopoly would not give them the opportunity. A monopoly could afford to sell its product below the cost for a while in order to drive the smaller competitors out of business. A monopoly might also have a real competitive advantage over smaller competitors because of the economies of scale.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Describe for us what competition would look like in the military market.
> 
> Competitive armies like the warlords of Afghanistan?
> 
> Soldiers, payed a bounty for enemy deaths, less friendly fire deaths, caused?
> 
> Soldiers rewarded for not raping their comrade?
> 
> Also, "Competition is subverted through coercion" and advertising.



Straw man, huh?

I accept your surrender.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Amerika don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I mean the country that you love to hate.
Click to expand...

I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.



Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
Click to expand...


He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.


----------



## RKMBrown

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
Click to expand...


Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.  40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

RKMBrown said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.  40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.
Click to expand...


yes Clinton and Newt eliminated "welfare as we know it" by simply changing it to workfare. 40% of recipients decided they didn't need it badly enough to work for it.

Yet this lesson is lost on today's liberals. They simply lack the IQ to understand it.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you feel that way. But since you do, moving to an inhabited island might be your only choice. Americans won't accept that while they all work hard to create new wealth, most of it goes to the top 1%.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way. But since you do, moving to an inhabited island might be your only choice. Americans won't accept that while they all work hard to create new wealth, most of it goes to the top 1%.
Click to expand...


dear, if they don't want Gates and Jobs to have so much wealth they would not buy their products!! You want them to buy from Gates and Jobs and then steal the money back??

Why then can't Jobs and Gates sell you the product  and then steal it back so they have more for charity??


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).
> 
> We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.
> 
> In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.
> 
> The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
> The wages paid by most businesses are appropriate. They must be. If not, any business that pays lower than market rate would find itself with high employee turnover.
> Who is "we"? And what is that "something" we must do sooner or later?
> And please, do not mention of government perks to give people magic raises or tax increases to fund same. You've already pointed out that you think government should be the great provider. Try another tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course your thinking only applies to times of full employment. There's a reason why businesses are in no hurry to return there.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Obamacare.
Full time employees are a bad business model..In some industries. That's a fact of life in the business world.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.
> 
> So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.
> 
> But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.
Click to expand...

The part you conveniently leave out is there already IS plenty of government regulation.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.
> 
> So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.
> 
> But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.
Click to expand...

So what's your fair share number?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.
> 
> Instead, the right  want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?  Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year?  Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?
> 
> 40Million Americans on welfare.  The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare.  These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?
> 
> The solution is a bitter pill.  Take it away.  You want food, work for it.  You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.
> 
> It's really not that complex.
> 
> What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare?  Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients.  It's really not that complex.
> 
> Read Rules for Radicals.  They are not even hiding what they are doing.  The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society.  Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.
> 
> Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.
> 
> See the credibility problem there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which statement or idea came from Limbaugh?
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> Ah, that is just one of the "mewling points" you have from DailyKOS - you threw it to see if it would stick.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully plan to carry on with or without your permission. That's what independent thinkers do. You would not understand that at all.
> 
> Keep your trunk around the elephant tail in front of you. That's your whole job. Focus. Don't ever let go. Ever!
Click to expand...

Independent thought? From you? HA!! You are a lemming to the cause of liberalism.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like saying that in USSR people were poor because they lacked skills to become members of Politburo.
> 
> It's a simple concept: the way the free-market economy distributes incomes is changing over time. 40 years ago the income was distributed more equally because many people with high-school diploma could get a middle-class paying job in manufacturing. Not anymore -- those jobs are lost to automation. Those who had left manufacturing have to work low-paying jobs in service sector.
> 
> And it is going to get worse. As computers get smarter, the free market sends an ever bigger share of new wealth to the top 1%. We will end up with a few thousands super-rich families surrounded by millions stuck with less real incomes than their parents were making. Unless we the people do something about it.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!! Those people had no freedoms. Their destiny was determined by the central planers from birth. 
The greatness of this country is that we have the right to freely pursue our goals to the best of our ability. No one determines where we go but ourselves.
There is no such thing as income distribution. 
The fact that manufacturing no longer has the manpower requirements is just the normal progression of modernization. 
The crucial point is that had the manufacturing business model stayed as it was, most companies would have gone out of business. A business must keep with the times in order to succeed. 
I asked you earlier in this thread "who is we?" and what is that "something" we must do about it?
You've evaded answering those questions.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
Click to expand...


You just admitted you believe in taxation for redistribution. Which is the same thing as using taxation as a means to punish. 
Nice.


----------



## Gadawg73

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?  Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year?  Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?
> 
> 40Million Americans on welfare.  The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare.  These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?
> 
> The solution is a bitter pill.  Take it away.  You want food, work for it.  You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.
> 
> It's really not that complex.
> 
> What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare?  Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients.  It's really not that complex.
> 
> Read Rules for Radicals.  They are not even hiding what they are doing.  The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society.  Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.
> 
> Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.
Click to expand...


Millions of jobs have gone overseas.
And they should have as those jobs a 5th grader that has an adult body can perform them.
Gone are the days when a semi illiterate high school grad can assure himself with a manufacturing job that pays a middle class income with benefits.
Millions of jobs went overseas. They are long gone and that is okay as the next wave is the information age and there are plenty of job vacancies in IT, HVAC, auto repair, computer running and operating systems in all forms of machinery and the list goes on.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Gadawg73 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.
> 
> Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Millions of jobs have gone overseas.
> And they should have as those jobs a 5th grader that has an adult body can perform them.
> Gone are the days when a semi illiterate high school grad can assure himself with a manufacturing job that pays a middle class income with benefits.
> Millions of jobs went overseas. They are long gone and that is okay as the next wave is the information age and there are plenty of job vacancies in IT, HVAC, auto repair, computer running and operating systems in all forms of machinery and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

Assuming the number in the millions has some truth to it( someone will have to prove it to convince me), these are jobs that would have been next t impossible to fill and that most of them would be taken by unskilled people or illegal immigrants.


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we simply can't afford conservatism. It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off. 

If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we simply can't afford conservatism. It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off.
> 
> If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.
Click to expand...




Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Describe for us what competition would look like in the military market.
> 
> Competitive armies like the warlords of Afghanistan?
> 
> Soldiers, payed a bounty for enemy deaths, less friendly fire deaths, caused?
> 
> Soldiers rewarded for not raping their comrade?
> 
> Also, "Competition is subverted through coercion" and advertising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man, huh?
> 
> I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...


One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Amerika don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean the country that you love to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
Click to expand...


Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states. 

In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.  40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.
Click to expand...


Another person who knows people who choose poverty. I've never met a one.

I guess that business shouldn't have given away all of those jobs so that executives could pocket big bonuses. 

Think how good things were under Clinton when there was a job for everyone.


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.  40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes Clinton and Newt eliminated "welfare as we know it" by simply changing it to workfare. 40% of recipients decided they didn't need it badly enough to work for it.
> 
> Yet this lesson is lost on today's liberals. They simply lack the IQ to understand it.
Click to expand...


Clearly a sign of high IQ is sitting in the Lazy Boy getting told what to think by Rush and Rupert and their friends.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.
> 
> So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.
> 
> But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's your fair share number?
Click to expand...


Boy, you are slow. How many times do I have to answer?

Everyone's fair share is what it takes to maintain a successful country. It's a free market thing. Anyone who doesn't like their share is free to move out. The way you guys talk there must be at least a hundred other countries in the world superior to ours.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.
> 
> So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.
> 
> But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part you conveniently leave out is there already IS plenty of government regulation.
Click to expand...


Crooks keep thinking of new ways to screw the public. The public keeps thinking of things that they won't stand for anymore.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare?  Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year?  Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?
> 
> 40Million Americans on welfare.  The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare.  These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?
> 
> The solution is a bitter pill.  Take it away.  You want food, work for it.  You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.
> 
> It's really not that complex.
> 
> What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare?  Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients.  It's really not that complex.
> 
> Read Rules for Radicals.  They are not even hiding what they are doing.  The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society.  Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.
> 
> Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.
Click to expand...


That's why I never claimed it. Many of our jobs were given to cheap foreign labor recruited to here.


----------



## PMZ

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way. But since you do, moving to an inhabited island might be your only choice. Americans won't accept that while they all work hard to create new wealth, most of it goes to the top 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, if they don't want Gates and Jobs to have so much wealth they would not buy their products!! You want them to buy from Gates and Jobs and then steal the money back??
> 
> Why then can't Jobs and Gates sell you the product  and then steal it back so they have more for charity??
Click to expand...


That's nearly the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. The only reason that Jobs and Gates are wealthy is because gamblers betting on stock prices against each other made them so. The small contribution that the two of them made to their companies was mostly from being in the right place at the right time. Not a whole lot different than lottery winners.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just admitted you believe in taxation for redistribution. Which is the same thing as using taxation as a means to punish.
> Nice.
Click to expand...


Don't you believe in capitalism for wealth redistribution? Didn't you believe in the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts for the wealthy? The whole Bush administration was one endless river of wealth, redirected from the creators of wealth, workers, to those who don't have to work, the already wealthy.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.
> 
> Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Millions of jobs have gone overseas.
> And they should have as those jobs a 5th grader that has an adult body can perform them.
> Gone are the days when a semi illiterate high school grad can assure himself with a manufacturing job that pays a middle class income with benefits.
> Millions of jobs went overseas. They are long gone and that is okay as the next wave is the information age and there are plenty of job vacancies in IT, HVAC, auto repair, computer running and operating systems in all forms of machinery and the list goes on.
Click to expand...


America's success has traditionally come from companies investing in productivity so that skilled workers could live comfortable lives by out producing labor that was merely cheap. That ended, not because something better came along, but because the stock gamblers on Wall St rewarded executives lavishly for cutting payroll. Those bright business leaders didn't give a second thought to the undeniable fact that every worker cut was also a customer. 

The Great Recession was caused by nothing more than the selling of America by the wealthy, for the wealthy.


----------



## PMZ

Clearly Lazy Boy conservatives have so little respect for Americans that they believe that there are 40,000,000 people here who could work, but choose poverty instead. That business has a job for every one who wants one, but those jobs are unfilled because living in poverty is so attractive. 

If I thought that about my country, I'd have to leave it. I have too much pride to stay in a country like that. 

But is anybody leaving? Practically none. Why is that? Why do the beneficiaries of America's success believe that they are the exceptions? 

Good question!


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we simply can't afford conservatism. It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off.
> 
> If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.
Click to expand...


The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Huge difference.
As for your disparaging and untrue remarks regarding conservatism, well....


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of jobs have gone overseas.
> And they should have as those jobs a 5th grader that has an adult body can perform them.
> Gone are the days when a semi illiterate high school grad can assure himself with a manufacturing job that pays a middle class income with benefits.
> Millions of jobs went overseas. They are long gone and that is okay as the next wave is the information age and there are plenty of job vacancies in IT, HVAC, auto repair, computer running and operating systems in all forms of machinery and the list goes on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America's success has traditionally come from companies investing in productivity so that skilled workers could live comfortable lives by out producing labor that was merely cheap. That ended, not because something better came along, but because the stock gamblers on Wall St rewarded executives lavishly for cutting payroll. Those bright business leaders didn't give a second thought to the undeniable fact that every worker cut was also a customer.
> 
> The Great Recession was caused by nothing more than the selling of America by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Jesus...Where is that ....oh wait. Here it is


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we simply can't afford conservatism. It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off.
> 
> If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Huge difference.
Click to expand...


Representative Republic is a form of democracy. That's why the right will ultimately lose -- because you can only fool people to vote against their own interest only for so long.

You know that and that's why you are so afraid of democracy.


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like saying that in USSR people were poor because they lacked skills to become members of Politburo.
> 
> It's a simple concept: the way the free-market economy distributes incomes is changing over time. 40 years ago the income was distributed more equally because many people with high-school diploma could get a middle-class paying job in manufacturing. Not anymore -- those jobs are lost to automation. Those who had left manufacturing have to work low-paying jobs in service sector.
> 
> And it is going to get worse. As computers get smarter, the free market sends an ever bigger share of new wealth to the top 1%. We will end up with a few thousands super-rich families surrounded by millions stuck with less real incomes than their parents were making. Unless we the people do something about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT?!! Those people had no freedoms. Their destiny was determined by the central planers from birth.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what are you talking about. The USSR was many thing, but aristocracy it was not. Soviet elite often came from very humble beginnings, owing their career success to their personal skills. Gorbachev, for example, was born into a farmer family, his grandfathers at one point were arrested on false charges and some of his close relatives died in a famine.



> There is no such thing as income distribution.



Every right-wing nut is crazy in its own way.



> A business must keep with the times in order to succeed.



And that leads to greater income inequality.



> I asked you earlier in this thread "who is we?" and what is that "something" we must do about it?
> You've evaded answering those questions.



You just can't read. "We" is as in "we the people", and we have to do something about rising income inequality. And we will.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted you believe in taxation for redistribution. Which is the same thing as using taxation as a means to punish.
> Nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you believe in capitalism for wealth redistribution? Didn't you believe in the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts for the wealthy? The whole Bush administration was one endless river of wealth, redirected from the creators of wealth, workers, to those who don't have to work, the already wealthy.
Click to expand...


The Bush tax cuts provided 100%+ tax cuts to the poor, 30-50% tax cuts to the middle class, 15% to the upper middle class, and 5-10% tax cuts to the rich.  

I'm gonna guess you're one of "those" libs that are math challenged.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.  These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.  40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another person who knows people who choose poverty. I've never met a one.
> 
> I guess that business shouldn't have given away all of those jobs so that executives could pocket big bonuses.
> 
> Think how good things were under Clinton when there was a job for everyone.
Click to expand...


America created the dot com boom, then bust. Not Clinton.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean the country that you love to hate.
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
Click to expand...


We have no state income tax.  With the exception of a few cities, we eschew most of the socialist ideas for constitutional conservative ideas.  Unfortunately we still get the occasional democrat who realizes this is a republican state so they switch hats and pretend to be republican to get elected. I can drink a soda of any size here.  I can even have a large pizza pie if I want.  Hell I can cc a pistol and store one in the glove box of my car.  Heck I can even pee out the back porch and take a shoot at deer, turkey, and other game right off my back porch.


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of jobs have gone overseas.
> And they should have as those jobs a 5th grader that has an adult body can perform them.
> Gone are the days when a semi illiterate high school grad can assure himself with a manufacturing job that pays a middle class income with benefits.
> Millions of jobs went overseas. They are long gone and that is okay as the next wave is the information age and there are plenty of job vacancies in IT, HVAC, auto repair, computer running and operating systems in all forms of machinery and the list goes on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Assuming the number in the millions has some truth to it( someone will have to prove it to convince me), these are jobs that would have been next t impossible to fill and that most of them would be taken by unskilled people or illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...


One example:  IBM used to have 350k employees 300k in the USA.  Now they have 435k employees with 95k in the USA.  That's 205k employees from just one company.  Extrapolate that to the fortune 500 and you will start to get an idea of why our income tax revenues are down with respect to the number of employable Americans.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> The part you conveniently leave out is there already IS plenty of government regulation.



The fact that you decided what color of socks you would wear this morning is proof positive to the Obamunists that there is not nearly enough government regulation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.



The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.

You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.



You've never read the Constitution. You don't even grasp what it is you seek to erradicate.



> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?



I live in the Peoples Republic of California. I took a vacation in Arizona last month. It was really nice visiting a free state. Very different - a different feel to it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
Click to expand...

I think PMZ is one of those guys that got beat to hell by his conservative parents... that or he was a catholic altar boy.  KWIM?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Boy, you are slow. How many times do I have to answer?
> 
> Everyone's fair share is what it takes to maintain a successful country. It's a free market thing. Anyone who doesn't like their share is free to move out. The way you guys talk there must be at least a hundred other countries in the world superior to ours.



So, what you're saying is "From each according to their ability?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Crooks keep thinking of new ways to screw the public.



This isn't about Obama.



> The public keeps thinking of things that they won't stand for anymore.



The public reelected the crook.


----------



## tjvh

"Fair share" should mean the same Tax rate for everyone, nothing more.


----------



## RKMBrown

tjvh said:


> "Fair share" should mean the same Tax rate for everyone, nothing more.



Fair share of taxation is a subjective quality for which no two people are likely to ever agree.  No doubt exactly why the left like to use it as a hammer, it is something that can never be achieved.  Thus an endless cycle of crying about it's not fair.

The same tax rate for everyone also has no meaning. Do you mean same income tax rate on personal income?  How would that be "fair" when the rich and welfare benefactors have no personal income to be taxed?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted you believe in taxation for redistribution. Which is the same thing as using taxation as a means to punish.
> Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you believe in capitalism for wealth redistribution? Didn't you believe in the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts for the wealthy? The whole Bush administration was one endless river of wealth, redirected from the creators of wealth, workers, to those who don't have to work, the already wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bush tax cuts provided 100%+ tax cuts to the poor, 30-50% tax cuts to the middle class, 15% to the upper middle class, and 5-10% tax cuts to the rich.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're one of "those" libs that are math challenged.
Click to expand...


Here's the math that you neglected to report.

The "cuts" to the poor and middle class were one check in 2001, and another in 2003. The cuts to the wealthy continued for 12 years. 

But, of course you knew that.  Must have forgotten to report it.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of jobs have gone overseas.
> And they should have as those jobs a 5th grader that has an adult body can perform them.
> Gone are the days when a semi illiterate high school grad can assure himself with a manufacturing job that pays a middle class income with benefits.
> Millions of jobs went overseas. They are long gone and that is okay as the next wave is the information age and there are plenty of job vacancies in IT, HVAC, auto repair, computer running and operating systems in all forms of machinery and the list goes on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America's success has traditionally come from companies investing in productivity so that skilled workers could live comfortable lives by out producing labor that was merely cheap. That ended, not because something better came along, but because the stock gamblers on Wall St rewarded executives lavishly for cutting payroll. Those bright business leaders didn't give a second thought to the undeniable fact that every worker cut was also a customer.
> 
> The Great Recession was caused by nothing more than the selling of America by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus...Where is that ....oh wait. Here it is
Click to expand...


The most compelling defense of conservatism that I've seen.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
Click to expand...


Some day, maybe, you'll realize that you cannot defend what the media told you was true, and they can't either. It's lies built on lies. 

Your shortcoming is not in your inability to defend what they told you, but in your inability to critically evaluate it, and reject what's knowably untrue. 

An epic failure in American education.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you believe in capitalism for wealth redistribution? Didn't you believe in the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts for the wealthy? The whole Bush administration was one endless river of wealth, redirected from the creators of wealth, workers, to those who don't have to work, the already wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush tax cuts provided 100%+ tax cuts to the poor, 30-50% tax cuts to the middle class, 15% to the upper middle class, and 5-10% tax cuts to the rich.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're one of "those" libs that are math challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the math that you neglected to report.
> 
> The "cuts" to the poor and middle class were one check in 2001, and another in 2003. The cuts to the wealthy continued for 12 years.
> 
> But, of course you knew that.  Must have forgotten to report it.
Click to expand...


You are a liar.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in TX we are mostly free here.  I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no state income tax.  With the exception of a few cities, we eschew most of the socialist ideas for constitutional conservative ideas.  Unfortunately we still get the occasional democrat who realizes this is a republican state so they switch hats and pretend to be republican to get elected. I can drink a soda of any size here.  I can even have a large pizza pie if I want.  Hell I can cc a pistol and store one in the glove box of my car.  Heck I can even pee out the back porch and take a shoot at deer, turkey, and other game right off my back porch.
Click to expand...


Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some day, maybe, you'll realize that you cannot defend what the media told you was true, and they can't either. It's lies built on lies.
> 
> Your shortcoming is not in your inability to defend what they told you, but in your inability to critically evaluate it, and reject what's knowably untrue.
> 
> An epic failure in American education.
Click to expand...


"Reject what is know-ably untrue".. ROFL do you mean he refuses to accept the truth?  What truth? Who gave you the emperors scepter, that you feel gives you the pulpit for all truth?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush tax cuts provided 100%+ tax cuts to the poor, 30-50% tax cuts to the middle class, 15% to the upper middle class, and 5-10% tax cuts to the rich.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're one of "those" libs that are math challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the math that you neglected to report.
> 
> The "cuts" to the poor and middle class were one check in 2001, and another in 2003. The cuts to the wealthy continued for 12 years.
> 
> But, of course you knew that.  Must have forgotten to report it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liar.
Click to expand...


What was it that Republicans tried so hard to not allow democrats let expire in 2010?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no state income tax.  With the exception of a few cities, we eschew most of the socialist ideas for constitutional conservative ideas.  Unfortunately we still get the occasional democrat who realizes this is a republican state so they switch hats and pretend to be republican to get elected. I can drink a soda of any size here.  I can even have a large pizza pie if I want.  Hell I can cc a pistol and store one in the glove box of my car.  Heck I can even pee out the back porch and take a shoot at deer, turkey, and other game right off my back porch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
Click to expand...


ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some day, maybe, you'll realize that you cannot defend what the media told you was true, and they can't either. It's lies built on lies.
> 
> Your shortcoming is not in your inability to defend what they told you, but in your inability to critically evaluate it, and reject what's knowably untrue.
> 
> An epic failure in American education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Reject what is know-ably untrue".. ROFL do you mean he refuses to accept the truth?  What truth? Who gave you the emperors scepter, that you feel gives you the pulpit for all truth?
Click to expand...


Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no state income tax.  With the exception of a few cities, we eschew most of the socialist ideas for constitutional conservative ideas.  Unfortunately we still get the occasional democrat who realizes this is a republican state so they switch hats and pretend to be republican to get elected. I can drink a soda of any size here.  I can even have a large pizza pie if I want.  Hell I can cc a pistol and store one in the glove box of my car.  Heck I can even pee out the back porch and take a shoot at deer, turkey, and other game right off my back porch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
Click to expand...


Well, we have to work and contribute.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the math that you neglected to report.
> 
> The "cuts" to the poor and middle class were one check in 2001, and another in 2003. The cuts to the wealthy continued for 12 years.
> 
> But, of course you knew that.  Must have forgotten to report it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was it that Republicans tried so hard to not allow democrats let expire in 2010?
Click to expand...

No that's just another one of your lies.  The pubs wanted all of the cuts to remain.  The dems only wanted the cuts that affect their voting public to remain.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some day, maybe, you'll realize that you cannot defend what the media told you was true, and they can't either. It's lies built on lies.
> 
> Your shortcoming is not in your inability to defend what they told you, but in your inability to critically evaluate it, and reject what's knowably untrue.
> 
> An epic failure in American education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Reject what is know-ably untrue".. ROFL do you mean he refuses to accept the truth?  What truth? Who gave you the emperors scepter, that you feel gives you the pulpit for all truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.
Click to expand...


Liar.  You don't speak for me.  I never listen to Rush. I have no idea who Rupert is. I don't own a lazy boy, nor do I believe there is a method for perching in one.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, we have to work and contribute.
Click to expand...

Not in this country, not thanks to the likes of you.  No one has to work.  Why work when the government the democrats set up will just write you checks?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have no state income tax.  With the exception of a few cities, we eschew most of the socialist ideas for constitutional conservative ideas.  Unfortunately we still get the occasional democrat who realizes this is a republican state so they switch hats and pretend to be republican to get elected. I can drink a soda of any size here.  I can even have a large pizza pie if I want.  Hell I can cc a pistol and store one in the glove box of my car.  Heck I can even pee out the back porch and take a shoot at deer, turkey, and other game right off my back porch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
Click to expand...


Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on. 

Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.

In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated. 

So, you'll have to think of other epithets. 

How 'bout "poopy head"?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have to work and contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in this country, not thanks to the likes of you.  No one has to work.  Why work when the government the democrats set up will just write you checks?
Click to expand...


Another incoming. The vast majority of us are middle class and we are proud to create wealth with our skills. The only people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The poor are generally unable to work due to the inability of businesses to grow.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
Click to expand...


Communism is dead? Tell that to the communist countries that remain around the world.

Who said well regulated capitalism would lead to the societal collapse?  Where do you get these lies?

>> I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is.

LIAR!!!!  I don't have a socialist bone in my body. 

>>> markets where competition isn't practical

ROFL, your just a joke a minute. In what market is competition impractical? 

>>> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism.

ROFL How many times are you not going to refuse to use double negatives in your sentence structure?

>>> It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.

Yes, nimrod, capitalism is pervasive and it can be regulated.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we have to work and contribute.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in this country, not thanks to the likes of you.  No one has to work.  Why work when the government the democrats set up will just write you checks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another incoming. The vast majority of us are middle class and we are proud to create wealth with our skills. The only people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The poor are generally unable to work due to the inability of businesses to grow.
Click to expand...


Good for you if you are working.  Why would you employ a system that forces people to not work?  Are you concerned they will take your job?  What do you fear?  

There is no such thing as a person who is unable to work.  There is no such thing as a person who requires a business to grow to get work.  You want to work?  It's really easy.  Just start working.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read the Constitution. You don't even grasp what it is you seek to erradicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the Peoples Republic of California. I took a vacation in Arizona last month. It was really nice visiting a free state. Very different - a different feel to it.
Click to expand...


Try Somalia. There is no more free country in the world. Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read the Constitution. You don't even grasp what it is you seek to erradicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the Peoples Republic of California. I took a vacation in Arizona last month. It was really nice visiting a free state. Very different - a different feel to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Somalia. There is no more free country in the world. Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.
Click to expand...


Ah here we go... Typical argument from the typical authoritarian:  We only have two choices complete anarchy or absolute authority over every aspect of life.  The argument that there can be no freedom without anarchy is a vile lie made up by communists, socialists, and fascists. Which are you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think PMZ is one of those guys that got beat to hell by his conservative parents... that or he was a catholic altar boy.  KWIM?
Click to expand...


Wrong on all counts. My parents were passionate Republicans. My immigrant grandparents passionate Democrats. I'm Protestant. I'm a Republican. 

If my parents were still around I'm sure that they would agree that the GOP left us, not vice versa. My grandparents would probably say "told you so".


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I think PMZ is one of those guys that got beat to hell by his conservative parents... that or he was a catholic altar boy.  KWIM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts. My parents were passionate Republicans. My immigrant grandparents passionate Democrats. I'm Protestant. I'm a Republican.
> 
> If my parents were still around I'm sure that they would agree that the GOP left us, not vice versa. My grandparents would probably say "told you so".
Click to expand...

What does "compassionate republican mean?"  Socialist?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read the Constitution. You don't even grasp what it is you seek to erradicate.
> 
> 
> 
> I live in the Peoples Republic of California. I took a vacation in Arizona last month. It was really nice visiting a free state. Very different - a different feel to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try Somalia. There is no more free country in the world. Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah here we go... Typical argument from the typical authoritarian:  We only have two choices complete anarchy or absolute authority over every aspect of life.  The argument that there can be no freedom without anarchy is a vile lie made up by communists, socialists, and fascists. Which are you?
Click to expand...


I'm 70. I live as freely now as I ever have. It's because I live responsibly. None of the laws that you whine about affect me in the least. 

You've been made by your entertainment choice, government phobic, not because it's sensible but because you've been enrolled in a cult owned by the mega wealthy in search of more wealth from less taxes. That simple. 

Americans know that we are free because of our Constitution and our democracy. Government of, by, for the people. Not cultism by the wealthy. 

Fortunately for us, more of us think for ourselves rather than join your cult. Democracy is why the investment that the wealthy made in training you was not a good one. It fell short, and is getting shorter. 

We remain free despite you.


----------



## tooAlive

PMZ said:


> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.



Guess you haven't heard of countries like Cuba or North Korea. 

Incoming: They still exist. And they're communist.



> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.



Speak for yourself.

I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think PMZ is one of those guys that got beat to hell by his conservative parents... that or he was a catholic altar boy.  KWIM?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts. My parents were passionate Republicans. My immigrant grandparents passionate Democrats. I'm Protestant. I'm a Republican.
> 
> If my parents were still around I'm sure that they would agree that the GOP left us, not vice versa. My grandparents would probably say "told you so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does "compassionate republican mean?"  Socialist?
Click to expand...


I know what compassionate means, believe that I am, and am a Republican. 

I'm on the outs with the party though. I don't know if that's the fate of all compassionate Republicans or not.


----------



## PMZ

tooAlive said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't heard of countries like Cuba or North Korea.
> 
> Incoming: They still exist. And they're communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.
Click to expand...


You need to look up the meaning of "socialism" and "capitalism". They are both globally pervasive.

There are no "free markets" and haven't been for quite some time. 

"Flat taxes" would make us a third world banana republic almost instantly. 

I don't know anybody who's against either private property or public property.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try Somalia. There is no more free country in the world. Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah here we go... Typical argument from the typical authoritarian:  We only have two choices complete anarchy or absolute authority over every aspect of life.  The argument that there can be no freedom without anarchy is a vile lie made up by communists, socialists, and fascists. Which are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 70. I live as freely now as I ever have. It's because I live responsibly. None of the laws that you whine about affect me in the least.
> 
> You've been made by your entertainment choice, government phobic, not because it's sensible but because you've been enrolled in a cult owned by the mega wealthy in search of more wealth from less taxes. That simple.
> 
> Americans know that we are free because of our Constitution and our democracy. Government of, by, for the people. Not cultism by the wealthy.
> 
> Fortunately for us, more of us think for ourselves rather than join your cult. Democracy is why the investment that the wealthy made in training you was not a good one. It fell short, and is getting shorter.
> 
> We remain free despite you.
Click to expand...


What the hell are you smoking?  You keep pretending like you "know" me.  You have no friggin clue who the hell I am.  I am the absolute opposite of everything you say I am.  I am a constitutional conservative along the ilk of the founders of this nation. 

That you believe none of the laws that affect the workers of this nation effect you, makes you out to be the worst kind of American.  A retired bigot who sits on his throne of retirement with the self ascribed power to take my income away from my family to pay for your retirement.  

Cultism of the wealthy?  Screw you.  I'm not wealthy. Screw you.  You want my money so you can sit on your retired ass?  Screw you.  You want to make a slave of me and my children so you don't have to keep working? Screw you.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts. My parents were passionate Republicans. My immigrant grandparents passionate Democrats. I'm Protestant. I'm a Republican.
> 
> If my parents were still around I'm sure that they would agree that the GOP left us, not vice versa. My grandparents would probably say "told you so".
> 
> 
> 
> What does "compassionate republican mean?"  Socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what compassionate means, believe that I am, and am a Republican.
> 
> I'm on the outs with the party though. I don't know if that's the fate of all compassionate Republicans or not.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the same bullshit that starky pushes. 

I have not seen you push one single idea that can even be remotely attributed to the right side of the political spectrum.  Why not let us know where you are republican.


----------



## tooAlive

PMZ said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't heard of countries like Cuba or North Korea.
> 
> Incoming: They still exist. And they're communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to look up the meaning of "socialism" and "capitalism". They are both globally pervasive.
> 
> There are no "free markets" and haven't been for quite some time.
> 
> "Flat taxes" would make us a third world banana republic almost instantly.
> 
> I don't know anybody who's against either private property or public property.
Click to expand...


I know exactly what socialism is.

It's the neo-liberals like yourself that have given it a new meaning.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Communism is dead? Tell that to the communist countries that remain around the world.
> 
> Who said well regulated capitalism would lead to the societal collapse?  Where do you get these lies?
> 
> >> I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is.
> 
> LIAR!!!!  I don't have a socialist bone in my body.
> 
> >>> markets where competition isn't practical
> 
> ROFL, your just a joke a minute. In what market is competition impractical?
> 
> >>> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism.
> 
> ROFL How many times are you not going to refuse to use double negatives in your sentence structure?
> 
> >>> It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> Yes, nimrod, capitalism is pervasive and it can be regulated.
Click to expand...


Clear that you have limited education. 

Marx and Engles, both respected economists, theorized that capitalism could not be effectively regulated, would inevitably result in wealth distribution unacceptable to society, and would result in a revolution not unlike our former one, but against our government instead of King George. Further they theorized that after the revolution the majority would react to their experience by going to the opposite extreme of capitalism. 

It turns out that so far we, and other countries, have successfully regulated capitalism, and, at least up until now, avoided extreme wealth distribution. Good for us. No revolution. 

Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.

If you knew what socialism is, you wouldn't be phobic about it.


----------



## PMZ

tooAlive said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't heard of countries like Cuba or North Korea.
> 
> Incoming: They still exist. And they're communist.
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to look up the meaning of "socialism" and "capitalism". They are both globally pervasive.
> 
> There are no "free markets" and haven't been for quite some time.
> 
> "Flat taxes" would make us a third world banana republic almost instantly.
> 
> I don't know anybody who's against either private property or public property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know exactly what socialism is.
> 
> It's the neo-liberals like yourself that have given it a new meaning.
Click to expand...


What socialistic market presently supported in the US would you change to privately owned means, and why?
.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.



You know, I've never heard Rupert Murdoch speak.

Does George Soros program you directly? Of course not, he uses ThinkProgress and Alternet to program you and the other termites.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Try Somalia.



Why, a theocracy ruled under Sharia is the ideal you seek.



> There is no more free country in the world.




Than Somalia?

ROFL

What a fucking retard.

Ummmm fuckwad? Somalia is an Islamic Dictatorship where a half-dozen waring Mullahs seek supreme power and murder the opposition en masse.

Where do you get your idiocy? Some fucknut hate site like MoveOn or DemocraticUnderground?

Ummmm Shitferbrains, next time your rulers stick that turkey baster up your ass to give you your "talking points," you might want to vet the information.....

Good god but you Obamunists are a stupid lot.



> Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.



What a maroon....


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I know what compassionate means, believe that I am, and am a Republican.
> 
> I'm on the outs with the party though. I don't know if that's the fate of all compassionate Republicans or not.



You're stupid as a fucking doorknob, an authoritarian, a socialist, and now claim to be a "Republican."

That you, Jake?

Yeah, it is....


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts. My parents were passionate Republicans. My immigrant grandparents passionate Democrats. I'm Protestant. I'm a Republican.
> 
> If my parents were still around I'm sure that they would agree that the GOP left us, not vice versa. My grandparents would probably say "told you so".
> 
> 
> 
> What does "compassionate republican mean?"  Socialist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what compassionate means, believe that I am, and am a Republican.
> 
> I'm on the outs with the party though. I don't know if that's the fate of all compassionate Republicans or not.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the same bullshit that starky pushes. 

I have not seen you push one single idea that can even be remotely attributed to the right side of the political spectrum.  Why not let us know where you are republican.  Sounds like the same bullshit that starky pushes. 

I have not seen you push one single idea that can even be remotely attributed to the right side of the political spectrum.  Why not let us know where you are republican.

Then again you said this:


PMZ said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we *simply can't afford conservatism.* It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off.
> 
> If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.
Click to expand...

So, sure, you are a republican and I guess that I am a communist as we are not bothering with actual meanings to the words we use.

We cant afford conservatism is bullshit.  We cant afford the new spend our way to prosperity liberalism and the corporate cronyism anymore.  We actually need a little conservatism as we have been devoid of that for a long time.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way. But since you do, moving to an inhabited island might be your only choice. Americans won't accept that while they all work hard to create new wealth, most of it goes to the top 1%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, if they don't want Gates and Jobs to have so much wealth they would not buy their products!! You want them to buy from Gates and Jobs and then steal the money back??
> 
> Why then can't Jobs and Gates sell you the product  and then steal it back so they have more for charity??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nearly the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. The only reason that Jobs and Gates are wealthy is because gamblers betting on stock prices against each other made them so. The small contribution that the two of them made to their companies was mostly from being in the right place at the right time. Not a whole lot different than lottery winners.
Click to expand...


Apparently you have no idea what they did or how they built up their companies.  This is more of the bullshit you did not build that.  Unfortunately for you they DID build that.


----------



## tooAlive

PMZ said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to look up the meaning of "socialism" and "capitalism". They are both globally pervasive.
> 
> There are no "free markets" and haven't been for quite some time.
> 
> "Flat taxes" would make us a third world banana republic almost instantly.
> 
> I don't know anybody who's against either private property or public property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly what socialism is.
> 
> It's the neo-liberals like yourself that have given it a new meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What socialistic market presently supported in the US would you change to privately owned means, and why?
> .
Click to expand...


It's start by getting rid of the horrendous tax code we have now.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is dead? Tell that to the communist countries that remain around the world.
> 
> Who said well regulated capitalism would lead to the societal collapse?  Where do you get these lies?
> 
> >> I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is.
> 
> LIAR!!!!  I don't have a socialist bone in my body.
> 
> >>> markets where competition isn't practical
> 
> ROFL, your just a joke a minute. In what market is competition impractical?
> 
> >>> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism.
> 
> ROFL How many times are you not going to refuse to use double negatives in your sentence structure?
> 
> >>> It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> Yes, nimrod, capitalism is pervasive and it can be regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clear that you have limited education.
> 
> Marx and Engles, both respected economists, theorized that capitalism could not be effectively regulated, would inevitably result in wealth distribution unacceptable to society, and would result in a revolution not unlike our former one, but against our government instead of King George. Further they theorized that after the revolution the majority would react to their experience by going to the opposite extreme of capitalism.
> 
> It turns out that so far we, and other countries, have successfully regulated capitalism, and, at least up until now, avoided extreme wealth distribution. Good for us. No revolution.
> 
> Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.
> 
> If you knew what socialism is, you wouldn't be phobic about it.
Click to expand...


>> Clear that you have limited education. 
Everyone has a limited education.  In my experience the people who resort to claiming that others of a conversation only disagree with their pov because they have a limited education, are typically shining examples of what engineers like to call dim light bulbs. Yes, I'm an engineer. 

>> "Marx and Engles, both respected economists" 

OMG someone get me a barf bag, I'm gonna puke. 

>> Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.
You mean like the contractors that are working for corporations that get paid by our DOD?  Basically competition for contract employees works by first submitting a request for bid for the job(s).  Capitalist thinking employees and corporations having employees then submit their offer to do the job(s).  The government employees, who are getting paid by the citizens of this nation, then select the bids that appear to be the best bang for the buck.  Any other questions?

>>> Phobic about socialism? 
I do intend to fight socialism to my last breath.  If that makes me anti-socialist or phobic in your view with regard to all socialist designs, then so be it.  Why are you phobic to freedom?  Are you afraid no one would pay you a wage if you loose these vestiges of socialism?


----------



## Dick Tuck

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



The poll makes no sense.  Fair share is that those who benefit most, pay more, with what is considered disposable income.  How much?  How much does government need to function?  And damn straight, someone with a $1,000,000 dollar GAI should pay higher percentage than someone getting by on minimum wage.


----------



## Gadawg73

The very folks that do not want government watching over us and reading our e-mails want to give the power to government on what is a "fair share", how much they are allowed to plunder from citizens and what makes one qualify as "in need".
The growth of government has a direct correlation to the growth and the creation of a society of the poor, uneducated, children born out of wedlock with no father in the home moocher class.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've never heard Rupert Murdoch speak.
> 
> Does George Soros program you directly? Of course not, he uses ThinkProgress and Alternet to program you and the other termites.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true Koch sucker.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Gadawg73 said:


> The very folks that do not want government watching over us and reading our e-mails want to give the power to government on what is a "fair share", how much they are allowed to plunder from citizens and what makes one qualify as "in need".
> The growth of government has a direct correlation to the growth and the creation of a society of the poor, uneducated, children born out of wedlock with no father in the home moocher class.



Meanwhile the very wealthy milk the tax payer for credits.  You sound like you want an uneducated society.  Is that your Ayn Rand wet dream?  Only the wealthy should have education?  Only the wealthy should have health care?  Only the wealthy should buy congress and tell them how to enact laws that sweetens their pot?

The real moocher class is those who own this country.  The stupid lemmings who support them are too stupid to see them selling us down the river.


----------



## RKMBrown

Dick Tuck said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very folks that do not want government watching over us and reading our e-mails want to give the power to government on what is a "fair share", how much they are allowed to plunder from citizens and what makes one qualify as "in need".
> The growth of government has a direct correlation to the growth and the creation of a society of the poor, uneducated, children born out of wedlock with no father in the home moocher class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the very wealthy milk the tax payer for credits.  You sound like you want an uneducated society.  Is that your Ayn Rand wet dream?  Only the wealthy should have education?  Only the wealthy should have health care?  Only the wealthy should buy congress and tell them how to enact laws that sweetens their pot?
> 
> The real moocher class is those who own this country.  The stupid lemmings who support them are too stupid to see them selling us down the river.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of moochers to go around in every segment of our society.


----------



## FA_Q2

Dick Tuck said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very folks that do not want government watching over us and reading our e-mails want to give the power to government on what is a "fair share", how much they are allowed to plunder from citizens and what makes one qualify as "in need".
> The growth of government has a direct correlation to the growth and the creation of a society of the poor, uneducated, children born out of wedlock with no father in the home moocher class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the very wealthy milk the tax payer for credits.  You sound like you want an uneducated society.  Is that your Ayn Rand wet dream?  Only the wealthy should have education?  Only the wealthy should have health care?  Only the wealthy should buy congress and tell them how to enact laws that sweetens their pot?
> 
> The real moocher class is those who own this country.  The stupid lemmings who support them are too stupid to see them selling us down the river.
Click to expand...


And all that is made possible by the asinine progressive tax system.  

Make one exception and more follow, period.  Our current system proves that reality.


----------



## thereisnospoon

ilia25 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we simply can't afford conservatism. It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off.
> 
> If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic. Huge difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Representative Republic is a form of democracy. That's why the right will ultimately lose -- because you can only fool people to vote against their own interest only for so long.
> 
> You know that and that's why you are so afraid of democracy.
Click to expand...

LOL....Sarcastic...
A "form of democracy" does not a democracy make.
HUGE difference. 
Read and learn. An absolute democracy, which you people believe the US to be, is when at ALL times 50% plus one rules and there is no redress. 
"That's why the right will ultimately lose -- because you can only fool people to vote against their own interest only for so long."..
I have no clue what the above means. If it means anything more than an attempt to project.
If anyone is voting against their self interest it those who are business owners, wealthy people, parents, home owners, etc because Obama's policies are making it much tougher to be one of those people. 

Let us know if and when you or a loved one becomes a crime victim and the system protects the rights of the criminal and ignores yours...


----------



## Uncensored2008

FA_Q2 said:


> That's nearly the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. The only reason that Jobs and Gates are wealthy is because gamblers betting on stock prices against each other made them so. The small contribution that the two of them made to their companies was mostly from being in the right place at the right time. Not a whole lot different than lottery winners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have no idea what they did or how they built up their companies.  This is more of the bullshit you did not build that.  Unfortunately for you they DID build that.
Click to expand...


I put his line up in the "Stupidest liberal line" thread.

Idiocy like that deserves to be immortalized.

THIS is what we're up against.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you believe in capitalism for wealth redistribution? Didn't you believe in the Bush wealth redistribution tax cuts for the wealthy? The whole Bush administration was one endless river of wealth, redirected from the creators of wealth, workers, to those who don't have to work, the already wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush tax cuts provided 100%+ tax cuts to the poor, 30-50% tax cuts to the middle class, 15% to the upper middle class, and 5-10% tax cuts to the rich.
> 
> I'm gonna guess you're one of "those" libs that are math challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the math that you neglected to report.
> 
> The "cuts" to the poor and middle class were one check in 2001, and another in 2003. The cuts to the wealthy continued for 12 years.
> 
> But, of course you knew that.  Must have forgotten to report it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. EVERY tax bracket percentage was lowered until Obama broke his promise( no one who makes less than $250,000 will have their taxes raised) and increased EVERYONE'S taxes.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons that I have so little respect for conservatives is that I've never met one who could defend what you all are required to believe. I guess you won't be the one to break that streak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some day, maybe, you'll realize that you cannot defend what the media told you was true, and they can't either. It's lies built on lies.
> 
> Your shortcoming is not in your inability to defend what they told you, but in your inability to critically evaluate it, and reject what's knowably untrue.
> 
> An epic failure in American education.
Click to expand...


You project yourself as though you have it all figured out.
That makes you an arrogant pompous ass.


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some day, maybe, you'll realize that you cannot defend what the media told you was true, and they can't either. It's lies built on lies.
> 
> Your shortcoming is not in your inability to defend what they told you, but in your inability to critically evaluate it, and reject what's knowably untrue.
> 
> An epic failure in American education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You project yourself as though you have it all figured out.
> That makes you an arrogant pompous ass.
Click to expand...


I think he's just defending his welfare supply line.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have no state income tax.  With the exception of a few cities, we eschew most of the socialist ideas for constitutional conservative ideas.  Unfortunately we still get the occasional democrat who realizes this is a republican state so they switch hats and pretend to be republican to get elected. I can drink a soda of any size here.  I can even have a large pizza pie if I want.  Hell I can cc a pistol and store one in the glove box of my car.  Heck I can even pee out the back porch and take a shoot at deer, turkey, and other game right off my back porch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
Click to expand...

It is you who are in the minority. 
The politically correct fearful of words, absolute security over freedom type. One who feels guilty over any kind of success they might have. 
The hypocritical douche bag that drives an SUV with a Greenpeace sticker on the rear bumper. 
The wealthy lib that will fly a private jet built to seat 10 people, by himself to travel to a conference on climate change.


----------



## kaz

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



A fair share for the rich is "more."  I like your question, I ask liberals this too.  At what point would you say the rich are paying too much and advocate a tax cut for them?  It's funny, try it.  They don't get the question.


----------



## thereisnospoon

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Reject what is know-ably untrue".. ROFL do you mean he refuses to accept the truth?  What truth? Who gave you the emperors scepter, that you feel gives you the pulpit for all truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't speak for me.  I never listen to Rush. I have no idea who Rupert is. I don't own a lazy boy, nor do I believe there is a method for perching in one.
Click to expand...


PM(S) makes a lot of assumptions.
It allows him to deal with his fears.
Liberals are fearful people. Liberalism is based on irrational fears.


----------



## kaz

thereisnospoon said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  You don't speak for me.  I never listen to Rush. I have no idea who Rupert is. I don't own a lazy boy, nor do I believe there is a method for perching in one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PM(S) makes a lot of assumptions.
> It allows him to deal with his fears.
> Liberals are fearful people. Liberalism is based on irrational fears.
Click to expand...


Ah, thanks for clearing it up.  I thought liberalism was based on overt stupidity.  But your answer makes sense too.


----------



## Dick Tuck

FA_Q2 said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very folks that do not want government watching over us and reading our e-mails want to give the power to government on what is a "fair share", how much they are allowed to plunder from citizens and what makes one qualify as "in need".
> The growth of government has a direct correlation to the growth and the creation of a society of the poor, uneducated, children born out of wedlock with no father in the home moocher class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the very wealthy milk the tax payer for credits.  You sound like you want an uneducated society.  Is that your Ayn Rand wet dream?  Only the wealthy should have education?  Only the wealthy should have health care?  Only the wealthy should buy congress and tell them how to enact laws that sweetens their pot?
> 
> The real moocher class is those who own this country.  The stupid lemmings who support them are too stupid to see them selling us down the river.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all that is made possible by the asinine progressive tax system.
> 
> Make one exception and more follow, period.  Our current system proves that reality.
Click to expand...


Total bullshit.  We were more controlled before progressive tax, and with less government oversight.  It's quite a bit harder to hire personal armies to keep your workers in their place today.

How can you pull nonsense like this out of your ass, and expect it to fly.  I fault your lack of education.  Thanks to progressives, you had a good opportunity, but chose to be a dimwit.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly some people are made to be widely separated from their neighbors, for everyone's sake. Most of us live among neighbors so there's still open places to put people like you. But, the world is running out of space. That's why having to accomodate people like you is getting less and less tolerable to the civilized majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
Click to expand...

I suppose the basis for you stating "we are all socialists" is based on the tired mantra of "police ,fire protection and highways are forms of socialism"
Sell that bullshit to someone else.


----------



## DiamondDave

Dick Tuck said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the very wealthy milk the tax payer for credits.  You sound like you want an uneducated society.  Is that your Ayn Rand wet dream?  Only the wealthy should have education?  Only the wealthy should have health care?  Only the wealthy should buy congress and tell them how to enact laws that sweetens their pot?
> 
> The real moocher class is those who own this country.  The stupid lemmings who support them are too stupid to see them selling us down the river.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that is made possible by the asinine progressive tax system.
> 
> Make one exception and more follow, period.  Our current system proves that reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total bullshit.  We were more controlled before progressive tax, and with less government oversight.  It's quite a bit harder to hire personal armies to keep your workers in their place today.
> 
> How can you pull nonsense like this out of your ass, and expect it to fly.  I fault your lack of education.  Thanks to progressives, you had a good opportunity, but chose to be a dimwit.
Click to expand...


Trolling troll is still trolly


----------



## kaz

Dick Tuck said:


> I fault your lack of education.  Thanks to progressives, you had a good opportunity, but chose to be a dimwit.



Progressive education produces nothing but dimwits.  Between us, you got a progressive education, don't you?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free is defined by our Constitution and is the same in all states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read the Constitution. You don't even grasp what it is you seek to erradicate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way are you more free in Texas than people in all states are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in the Peoples Republic of California. I took a vacation in Arizona last month. It was really nice visiting a free state. Very different - a different feel to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try Somalia. There is no more free country in the world. Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.
Click to expand...

Your arrogance has transmuted to desperation.


----------



## kaz

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose the basis for you stating "we are all socialists" is based on the tired mantra of "police ,fire protection and highways are forms of socialism"
> Sell that bullshit to someone else.
Click to expand...


Do you seriously believe that opposition to your socialist objectives is based on police, fire and roads?  Seriously?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you haven't heard of countries like Cuba or North Korea.
> 
> Incoming: They still exist. And they're communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.
> 
> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to look up the meaning of "socialism" and "capitalism". They are both globally pervasive.
> 
> There are no "free markets" and haven't been for quite some time.
> 
> "Flat taxes" would make us a third world banana republic almost instantly.
> 
> I don't know anybody who's against either private property or public property.
Click to expand...


"Flat taxes" would make us a third world banana republic almost instantly. ..
Oh? How so? Please explain and elaborate. 
This ought to be good.
Oh, before you start searching google or the lib blogosphere for the answer, don't...
Anything save a fact filled response with examples will be rejected.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we aren't really required to believe what your hate sites claim we do.
> 
> You erect a straw man and fight against it, then declare that you are victorious. If not for logical fallacy, you would never even approach logic.
> 
> 
> 
> I think PMZ is one of those guys that got beat to hell by his conservative parents... that or he was a catholic altar boy.  KWIM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts. My parents were passionate Republicans. My immigrant grandparents passionate Democrats. I'm Protestant. I'm a Republican.
> 
> If my parents were still around I'm sure that they would agree that the GOP left us, not vice versa. My grandparents would probably say "told you so".
Click to expand...

Democrat and republican are political parties. 
Stop with the jersey.
You are a dyed in the wool lib/socialist.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try Somalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, a theocracy ruled under Sharia is the ideal you seek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more free country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Than Somalia?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> What a fucking retard.
> 
> Ummmm fuckwad? Somalia is an Islamic Dictatorship where a half-dozen waring Mullahs seek supreme power and murder the opposition en masse.
> 
> Where do you get your idiocy? Some fucknut hate site like MoveOn or DemocraticUnderground?
> 
> Ummmm Shitferbrains, next time your rulers stick that turkey baster up your ass to give you your "talking points," you might want to vet the information.....
> 
> Good god but you Obamunists are a stupid lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a maroon....
Click to expand...

PM(S) is a bitter old fart who thinks he somehow got cheated out of something.
He comes on here to simply be contrary.
He's a chain puller. Fuck 'em.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hmmm, PMZ joined May of 2013...

When did JakeMatters get permabanned?


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hmmm, PMZ joined May of 2013...
> 
> When did JakeMatters get permabanned?



Naw, Jake was still posting less than a week ago.  

Without specifying who--we are not allowed to speak of the banned--I suspect several here are intentional plants, volunteer or paid, to intentionally deflect from certain topics, derail threads, disrupt as much as possible.  In the past year I have had discussions with some who were doing that and wondered if I would be interested?

Makes sense though doesn't it?  The internet is the one area that partisan groups, political parties, and the government has not been able to control.  And we seem to be a key driving force of what is deemed newsworthy when the mainstream media won't touch it.

For instance the scientists who are now looking at a possible global cooling trend are not finding a ready market for publication of their research because such a notion is so politically incorrect and so counterproductive to government ambitions to continue their power and control grab.   But enough are being heard/published to get my attention and I want more information.

Wouldn't it make sense for the paid or appointed thread derailers to not want such a concept to gain any traction on this or other message boards?


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, PMZ joined May of 2013...
> 
> When did JakeMatters get permabanned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Jake was still posting less than a week ago.
> 
> Without specifying who--we are not allowed to speak of the banned--I suspect several here are intentional plants, volunteer or paid, to intentionally deflect from certain topics, derail threads, disrupt as much as possible.  In the past year I have had discussions with some who were doing that and wondered if I would be interested?
> 
> Makes sense though doesn't it?  The internet is the one area that partisan groups, political parties, and the government has not been able to control.  And we seem to be a key driving force of what is deemed newsworthy when the mainstream media won't touch it.
> 
> For instance the scientists who are now looking at a possible global cooling trend are not finding a ready market for publication of their research because such a notion is so politically incorrect and so counterproductive to government ambitions to continue their power and control grab.   But enough are being heard/published to get my attention and I want more information.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense for the paid or appointed thread derailers to not want such a concept to gain any traction on this or other message boards?
Click to expand...


Naw.  You cannot hit a large enough audience for that to be effective.  You can spend entire days here with very little effect on a statistical level.  Not only that but politics in this nation is VERY regional.  IOW, the location of the target audience is more important than even the message.  GOP candidates are not interested in what people in CA think and one of the main limiting factors on a message board like this is that locations are completely random.  We even have several international posters.  There is nothing to be gained on small boards like this.  Where they are going to spend the cash is on things like twitter and other networking where they can target locations and reach larger groups of people.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, PMZ joined May of 2013...
> 
> When did JakeMatters get permabanned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Jake was still posting less than a week ago.
> 
> Without specifying who--we are not allowed to speak of the banned--I suspect several here are intentional plants, volunteer or paid, to intentionally deflect from certain topics, derail threads, disrupt as much as possible.  In the past year I have had discussions with some who were doing that and wondered if I would be interested?
> 
> Makes sense though doesn't it?  The internet is the one area that partisan groups, political parties, and the government has not been able to control.  And we seem to be a key driving force of what is deemed newsworthy when the mainstream media won't touch it.
> 
> For instance the scientists who are now looking at a possible global cooling trend are not finding a ready market for publication of their research because such a notion is so politically incorrect and so counterproductive to government ambitions to continue their power and control grab.   But enough are being heard/published to get my attention and I want more information.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense for the paid or appointed thread derailers to not want such a concept to gain any traction on this or other message boards?
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I come from a board that was trafficked only by hobbyist wood workers...  we had plenty of folk like PMS around.  I doubt the parties have that many folks in their employ.  There are plenty of folk who merely route for their side to be a good member of their choosen team.  The ole it's us vs them at a ball game syndrome.  We fight for our team irregardless, it's a genetic defense mechanism.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Education. Research. Critical thinking skills. Time and effort. All of that stuff that you thought that you could rely on Rush and Rupert for, while you perched in the Lazy Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've never heard Rupert Murdoch speak.
> 
> Does George Soros program you directly? Of course not, he uses ThinkProgress and Alternet to program you and the other termites.
Click to expand...


Rupert Murdoch owns you.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try Somalia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, a theocracy ruled under Sharia is the ideal you seek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no more free country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Than Somalia?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> What a fucking retard.
> 
> Ummmm fuckwad? Somalia is an Islamic Dictatorship where a half-dozen waring Mullahs seek supreme power and murder the opposition en masse.
> 
> Where do you get your idiocy? Some fucknut hate site like MoveOn or DemocraticUnderground?
> 
> Ummmm Shitferbrains, next time your rulers stick that turkey baster up your ass to give you your "talking points," you might want to vet the information.....
> 
> Good god but you Obamunists are a stupid lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free of government. Take all your guns though, because others are free to do whatever they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a maroon....
Click to expand...


Clearly Somalia is another topic that you are nearly totally ignorant about. We'll have to start keeping a list. 

You really do think that truth is whatever you want it to be. That you're entitled to that. 

Here's what that attititude gets you. Permanent ignorance. No way out.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does "compassionate republican mean?"  Socialist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what compassionate means, believe that I am, and am a Republican.
> 
> I'm on the outs with the party though. I don't know if that's the fate of all compassionate Republicans or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the same bullshit that starky pushes.
> 
> I have not seen you push one single idea that can even be remotely attributed to the right side of the political spectrum.  Why not let us know where you are republican.  Sounds like the same bullshit that starky pushes.
> 
> I have not seen you push one single idea that can even be remotely attributed to the right side of the political spectrum.  Why not let us know where you are republican.
> 
> Then again you said this:
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem. We are a democracy and everyone who's been paying attention knows that we *simply can't afford conservatism.* It will be generations before we get the last onslaught paid off.
> 
> If he's waiting for the electorate to vote conservatism back in, he's got one long wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, sure, you are a republican and I guess that I am a communist as we are not bothering with actual meanings to the words we use.
> 
> We cant afford conservatism is bullshit.  We cant afford the new spend our way to prosperity liberalism and the corporate cronyism anymore.  We actually need a little conservatism as we have been devoid of that for a long time.
Click to expand...


The CBO told Bush in 2001 that if he continued Clinton's economic policies the US would be debt free by 2006. Instead, he declared two holy wars. He cut taxes to the wealthy. He and Greenspan fed the housing boom with stuck near zero interest rates. He fiddled while Wall St invented and peddled mortgage backed derivatives. He cheered when mortgage initiators made billions peddling mortgages to any warm body, promising them easy riches from only rising home prices. Then they hid the risk and peddled the mortgages to others. He thought that it was great when business laid off millions of American workers in favor of cheap foreign labor recruited here or jobs sent there. When all of that greed and government inattention created the Great Recession, he was already packing up. 

He will be regarded by history as the worst American President ever. Recovering from his blunders accounts for all of our current $17,000,000,000,000 debt. That's what he turned the possibility of a debt free country into. 

He trashed the Republican Party. They have only one possibility for redemption. Lie at every opportunity. Jerk the chains of all of their syncophants addicted to Rush and Rupert and get them to accept the lies and spread them. 

One problem. One of the few people good enough to lead our recovery back quicker than any of the other nations impacted by the Great Recession. Which is most nations. 

And address our number one obstacle to global competitivity, our dismal health care non system. 

And make progress on the largest project mankind has ever been forced to take on. Sustainable energy. 

The GOP made a choice. They could have ditched the conservative Dixiecrats that dragged them into political irrelevance, apologized for the damage done, and gone back to work as public servants. Instead they've lied at every opportunity, virtually shut down Congress, and done everything possible to drag the country down to their level.

We simply are not that stupid. At least the majority of us aren't. And in a democracy, that's what counts. 

There is no bigger threat to our freedom than the Republican plutocracy. But we've stopped it. And will continue to.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism is dead? Tell that to the communist countries that remain around the world.
> 
> Who said well regulated capitalism would lead to the societal collapse?  Where do you get these lies?
> 
> >> I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is.
> 
> LIAR!!!!  I don't have a socialist bone in my body.
> 
> >>> markets where competition isn't practical
> 
> ROFL, your just a joke a minute. In what market is competition impractical?
> 
> >>> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism.
> 
> ROFL How many times are you not going to refuse to use double negatives in your sentence structure?
> 
> >>> It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> Yes, nimrod, capitalism is pervasive and it can be regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clear that you have limited education.
> 
> Marx and Engles, both respected economists, theorized that capitalism could not be effectively regulated, would inevitably result in wealth distribution unacceptable to society, and would result in a revolution not unlike our former one, but against our government instead of King George. Further they theorized that after the revolution the majority would react to their experience by going to the opposite extreme of capitalism.
> 
> It turns out that so far we, and other countries, have successfully regulated capitalism, and, at least up until now, avoided extreme wealth distribution. Good for us. No revolution.
> 
> Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.
> 
> If you knew what socialism is, you wouldn't be phobic about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Clear that you have limited education.
> Everyone has a limited education.  In my experience the people who resort to claiming that others of a conversation only disagree with their pov because they have a limited education, are typically shining examples of what engineers like to call dim light bulbs. Yes, I'm an engineer.
> 
> >> "Marx and Engles, both respected economists"
> 
> OMG someone get me a barf bag, I'm gonna puke.
> 
> >> Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.
> You mean like the contractors that are working for corporations that get paid by our DOD?  Basically competition for contract employees works by first submitting a request for bid for the job(s).  Capitalist thinking employees and corporations having employees then submit their offer to do the job(s).  The government employees, who are getting paid by the citizens of this nation, then select the bids that appear to be the best bang for the buck.  Any other questions?
> 
> >>> Phobic about socialism?
> I do intend to fight socialism to my last breath.  If that makes me anti-socialist or phobic in your view with regard to all socialist designs, then so be it.  Why are you phobic to freedom?  Are you afraid no one would pay you a wage if you loose these vestiges of socialism?
Click to expand...


"I do intend to fight socialism to my last breath"

Let's count the things that you will have to change to privately owned competitive means.

The military.

Medicare and Medicaid.

Social Security.

The VA.

NASA.

The FBI

The CIA.

The NSA

Homeland Security.

The CDC.

The FAA including all us airspace traffic control.

NOAA.

The Coast Guard. 

The NTSB.

The IRS

The FCC.

The FDA.

The National Park Service.

The Federal Court System. 

The Interstate Highway System. 

Only a partial list but you better start moving if you are going to turn all of those into multiple competitive privately owned, make more money regardless of the cost to others, capitalism.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL clearly you have never flown over or driven around the country.  The vast majority of America is bereft of human occupation.  Some folks prefer to live in small rooms stacked on end with others.. it's a free country.  I don't want your accommodation.  More particularly I spit on your vile socialist / communist comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose the basis for you stating "we are all socialists" is based on the tired mantra of "police ,fire protection and highways are forms of socialism"
> Sell that bullshit to someone else.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are unable to learn it.


----------



## JoeB131

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



THe problem with a Sales Tax is people will find ways to avoid it, and it will discourage the kind of economic activity that creates jobs.


----------



## PMZ

Days like this make posting worthwhile. Those trying to drag America from democracy to plutocracy, and thereby destroy government of, for, and by we, the people clearly have no rational explanation behind their recitals of Rush and Rupert's made for media dogma. They've fallen for it and are amazed that not everybody has.

What are they left with? Only playground insults and childish gossip mongering. 

They are lost forever by their closed minds but their behavior in the face of questions tells those with open minds all that they need to know. 

These are the people unable to defend what they want shoved down American throats. 

Their souls have been purchased lock stock and barrel by those that pay Rush and Rupert billions for their scalps. 

Sad in America but undeniably true. Minds bought and sold. 

We are not for sale. We are the freest people to ever walk the earth because of our votes. Cult minds can be bought, but free independent thinkers will prevail. Our founding fathers knew that and framed the Constitution that gives us the power of government. They knew that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but truth ultimately prevails. 

And it has again.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incoming. Communism is dead. It turned out that well regulated capitalism doesn't lead to the societal collapse that Communism is based on.
> 
> Also. I'm a socialist, you're a socialist, everybody is. There is not a country in the world that doesn't employ socialism in markets where competition isn't practical.
> 
> In fact, I doubt if the same isn't true of capitalism. It's pervasive in market's where competition can be maintained. And it can be regulated.
> 
> So, you'll have to think of other epithets.
> 
> How 'bout "poopy head"?
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the basis for you stating "we are all socialists" is based on the tired mantra of "police ,fire protection and highways are forms of socialism"
> Sell that bullshit to someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are unable to learn it.
Click to expand...


That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe problem with a Sales Tax is people will find ways to avoid it, and it will discourage the kind of economic activity that creates jobs.
Click to expand...


Taxation has nothing to do with creating jobs in the private sector. Well actually, that is incorrect. 
If the federal government would lower the corp income tax to a level that would put the US on a level playing field with the rest of the industrialized world, businesses would locate here and THAT would create more jobs.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clear that you have limited education.
> 
> Marx and Engles, both respected economists, theorized that capitalism could not be effectively regulated, would inevitably result in wealth distribution unacceptable to society, and would result in a revolution not unlike our former one, but against our government instead of King George. Further they theorized that after the revolution the majority would react to their experience by going to the opposite extreme of capitalism.
> 
> It turns out that so far we, and other countries, have successfully regulated capitalism, and, at least up until now, avoided extreme wealth distribution. Good for us. No revolution.
> 
> Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.
> 
> If you knew what socialism is, you wouldn't be phobic about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> Clear that you have limited education.
> Everyone has a limited education.  In my experience the people who resort to claiming that others of a conversation only disagree with their pov because they have a limited education, are typically shining examples of what engineers like to call dim light bulbs. Yes, I'm an engineer.
> 
> >> "Marx and Engles, both respected economists"
> 
> OMG someone get me a barf bag, I'm gonna puke.
> 
> >> Show us how to employ competition among multiple privately owned militaries.
> You mean like the contractors that are working for corporations that get paid by our DOD?  Basically competition for contract employees works by first submitting a request for bid for the job(s).  Capitalist thinking employees and corporations having employees then submit their offer to do the job(s).  The government employees, who are getting paid by the citizens of this nation, then select the bids that appear to be the best bang for the buck.  Any other questions?
> 
> >>> Phobic about socialism?
> I do intend to fight socialism to my last breath.  If that makes me anti-socialist or phobic in your view with regard to all socialist designs, then so be it.  Why are you phobic to freedom?  Are you afraid no one would pay you a wage if you loose these vestiges of socialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I do intend to fight socialism to my last breath"
> 
> Let's count the things that you will have to change to privately owned competitive means.
> 
> The military.
> 
> Medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> Social Security.
> 
> The VA.
> 
> NASA.
> 
> The FBI
> 
> The CIA.
> 
> The NSA
> 
> Homeland Security.
> 
> The CDC.
> 
> The FAA including all us airspace traffic control.
> 
> NOAA.
> 
> The Coast Guard.
> 
> The NTSB.
> 
> The IRS
> 
> The FCC.
> 
> The FDA.
> 
> The National Park Service.
> 
> The Federal Court System.
> 
> The Interstate Highway System.
> 
> Only a partial list but you better start moving if you are going to turn all of those into multiple competitive privately owned, make more money regardless of the cost to others, capitalism.
Click to expand...


Most of these things should never have been functions of government.
NASA was killed by Obama. We now have no government space program. It will eventually and not far off, will be run by private industry. 
Dept of Homeland security. A huge waste of money. The FBI should handle this along with the armed forces. We should take one third of our ground troops from their posts around the world and put them on our borders ,airports and seaports. Get rid of the TSA and all the other people in that dept. 
The CDCP can be run better by the private sector at half the cost and produce twice as much. There would be no political stonewalling regarding emergencies and such
The National Weather Service could easily be privatized Oh, you forgot that billion dollar per year loser AMTRAK....That should be defunded and sold off to private enterprise. 
The Coast Guard...Essential function of government. Part of our national defense. NIce try though.
The FDA as is the Dept of Energy and the EPA are subject to the whims of the executive branch. These departments are political to their very core. Dump them. 
The National Park system is unnecessary. The States can do this job just as well. And probably at a much lower cost. 
Federal Courts. Another essential function of government. Nice try again. Oh, also mandated in the US Constitution. Real nice try. 
The FCC is not needed. We don't have state tv or radio. The federal government has no business monopolizing and doling out spectrum as though it were picking winners and losers. Again, another dept that is run by political concerns.
The Interstate System. This is a concept. The multilane, limited access highways are all run by the states through which they are routed. The states simply apply for federal funding or grants every time a pot hole needs to be fixed.  
As a matter of fact, many states are turning to new ideas on how to fund road construction and maintenance. The one most talked about is placing tolls on the roads and then selling the roads to private interests with certain conditions attached.


----------



## TemplarKormac

What BB suggested sounds eerily similar to the FAIR TAX.


----------



## JoeB131

thereisnospoon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe problem with a Sales Tax is people will find ways to avoid it, and it will discourage the kind of economic activity that creates jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxation has nothing to do with creating jobs in the private sector. Well actually, that is incorrect.
> If the federal government would lower the corp income tax to a level that would put the US on a level playing field with the rest of the industrialized world, businesses would locate here and THAT would create more jobs.
Click to expand...


Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, as are our income taxes on the very wealthy.  

We tried the Supply Side Bullshit several times.  It failed.


----------



## ilia25

tooAlive said:


> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.



Nobody here is against the market based economy or private property. And you'd be surprised to learn that with flat taxes most of tax revenue would still come from the very rich (I'm guessing the top 5%).


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Rupert Murdoch owns you.



Is that what George Soros trained you to say, Jake?


----------



## ilia25

thereisnospoon said:


> An absolute democracy, which you people believe the US to be, is when at ALL times 50% plus one rules and there is no redress.



Us people believe that the US is a representative democracy. Which is still a democracy in a sense that majority of voters will eventually get what they want from the government. Including taxing the rich more.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, PMZ joined May of 2013...
> 
> When did JakeMatters get permabanned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Jake was still posting less than a week ago.
> 
> Without specifying who--we are not allowed to speak of the banned--I suspect several here are intentional plants, volunteer or paid, to intentionally deflect from certain topics, derail threads, disrupt as much as possible.  In the past year I have had discussions with some who were doing that and wondered if I would be interested?
Click to expand...


Feeble (or ignorant) minds tend to invent conspiracy theories to explain things beyond their ability to understand.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Clearly Somalia is another topic that you are nearly totally ignorant about.



Clearly the fact that you are a fucking retard is the key fact here. 

You have zero knowledge and spew the idiocy you have shoved up your ass by the hate sites.

{The text is somewhat an exact duplicate of Ethiopias 1994 draft paper and was in the making for eight years. The similarities are very striking apart from the fact that Somalia has declared Sharia Law as its main source of legislation in the new constitution.}

Somalia adopts Ethiopia?s federal constitution with Sharia Law*|*Somalilandpress.com | Somali News Online from Somaliland ? Somalia and Horn of Africa

You stupid, stupid fucktard - Jake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Somali_Civil_War



> We'll have to start keeping a list.
> 
> You really do think that truth is whatever you want it to be. That you're entitled to that.
> 
> Here's what that attititude gets you. Permanent ignorance. No way out.



Who is "we," Jake? You fucking retard.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Somalia is another topic that you are nearly totally ignorant about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the fact that you are a fucking retard is the key fact here.
> 
> You have zero knowledge and spew the idiocy you have shoved up your ass by the hate sites.
> 
> {The text is somewhat an exact duplicate of Ethiopias 1994 draft paper and was in the making for eight years. The similarities are very striking apart from the fact that Somalia has declared Sharia Law as its main source of legislation in the new constitution.}
> 
> Somalia adopts Ethiopia?s federal constitution with Sharia Law*|*Somalilandpress.com | Somali News Online from Somaliland ? Somalia and Horn of Africa
> 
> You stupid, stupid fucktard - Jake.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Somali_Civil_War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to start keeping a list.
> 
> You really do think that truth is whatever you want it to be. That you're entitled to that.
> 
> Here's what that attititude gets you. Permanent ignorance. No way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "we," Jake? You fucking retard.
Click to expand...


 Rage, it's not just for breakfast.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
> Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.



That's our Jakematters; uneducated, ignorant, stupid as a fucking slab of concrete - and proud of it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, as are our income taxes on the very wealthy.
> 
> We tried the Supply Side Bullshit several times.  It failed.



Actually, you're a fucking retard; Comrade JoeB Stalin;






Highest in the world - fucktard.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Rage, it's not just for breakfast.





Jake brings out the best in me! 

He has always had a schtick of posting completely stupid falsehoods - just absurd idiocy - then screaming about how he is right.

It's a special kind of retardation.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rage, it's not just for breakfast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake brings out the best in me!
> 
> He has always had a schtick of posting completely stupid falsehoods - just absurd idiocy - then screaming about how he is right.
> 
> It's a special kind of retardation.
Click to expand...


>>> Jake brings out the best in me!

Isn't the point of a Troll to enrage as many folks as possible with the least amount of effort?  FYI:  Most trolls keep score and brag about their success in PMs and other social sites. Are you really trying to run up his score?


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world



The highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is "fairly low."  Only to you comrade.  We're just lucky you let us keep anything at all...


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> >>> Jake brings out the best in me!
> 
> Isn't the point of a Troll to enrage as many folks as possible with the least amount of effort?  FYI:  Most trolls keep score and brag about their success in PMs and other social sites. Are you really trying to run up his score?



Nah, I'm just trying to humiliate him - which I think I did pretty well.


----------



## DiamondDave

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe problem with a Sales Tax is people will find ways to avoid it, and it will discourage the kind of economic activity that creates jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxation has nothing to do with creating jobs in the private sector. Well actually, that is incorrect.
> If the federal government would lower the corp income tax to a level that would put the US on a level playing field with the rest of the industrialized world, businesses would locate here and THAT would create more jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, as are our income taxes on the very wealthy.
> 
> We tried the Supply Side Bullshit several times.  It failed.
Click to expand...


100% flat out false


----------



## Uncensored2008

DiamondDave said:


> 100% flat out false



Bolsheviks lie.


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the basis for you stating "we are all socialists" is based on the tired mantra of "police ,fire protection and highways are forms of socialism"
> Sell that bullshit to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are unable to learn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
> Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.
Click to expand...


No matter what you'd like to be true, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody, compared to capitalism where they are owned by fewer people, down to one.

If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, PMZ joined May of 2013...
> 
> When did JakeMatters get permabanned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Jake was still posting less than a week ago.
> 
> Without specifying who--we are not allowed to speak of the banned--I suspect several here are intentional plants, volunteer or paid, to intentionally deflect from certain topics, derail threads, disrupt as much as possible.  In the past year I have had discussions with some who were doing that and wondered if I would be interested?
> 
> Makes sense though doesn't it?  The internet is the one area that partisan groups, political parties, and the government has not been able to control.  And we seem to be a key driving force of what is deemed newsworthy when the mainstream media won't touch it.
> 
> For instance the scientists who are now looking at a possible global cooling trend are not finding a ready market for publication of their research because such a notion is so politically incorrect and so counterproductive to government ambitions to continue their power and control grab.   But enough are being heard/published to get my attention and I want more information.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense for the paid or appointed thread derailers to not want such a concept to gain any traction on this or other message boards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I come from a board that was trafficked only by hobbyist wood workers...  we had plenty of folk like PMS around.  I doubt the parties have that many folks in their employ.  There are plenty of folk who merely route for their side to be a good member of their choosen team.  The ole it's us vs them at a ball game syndrome.  We fight for our team irregardless, it's a genetic defense mechanism.
Click to expand...


This, from a member of the conservative media cult. Unbelievable.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, Jake was still posting less than a week ago.
> 
> Without specifying who--we are not allowed to speak of the banned--I suspect several here are intentional plants, volunteer or paid, to intentionally deflect from certain topics, derail threads, disrupt as much as possible.  In the past year I have had discussions with some who were doing that and wondered if I would be interested?
> 
> Makes sense though doesn't it?  The internet is the one area that partisan groups, political parties, and the government has not been able to control.  And we seem to be a key driving force of what is deemed newsworthy when the mainstream media won't touch it.
> 
> For instance the scientists who are now looking at a possible global cooling trend are not finding a ready market for publication of their research because such a notion is so politically incorrect and so counterproductive to government ambitions to continue their power and control grab.   But enough are being heard/published to get my attention and I want more information.
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense for the paid or appointed thread derailers to not want such a concept to gain any traction on this or other message boards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I come from a board that was trafficked only by hobbyist wood workers...  we had plenty of folk like PMS around.  I doubt the parties have that many folks in their employ.  There are plenty of folk who merely route for their side to be a good member of their choosen team.  The ole it's us vs them at a ball game syndrome.  We fight for our team irregardless, it's a genetic defense mechanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, from a member of the conservative media cult. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...


Huh?  Are you off your meds again?


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe problem with a Sales Tax is people will find ways to avoid it, and it will discourage the kind of economic activity that creates jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxation has nothing to do with creating jobs in the private sector. Well actually, that is incorrect.
> If the federal government would lower the corp income tax to a level that would put the US on a level playing field with the rest of the industrialized world, businesses would locate here and THAT would create more jobs.
Click to expand...


We're already there. It's the states that are above average. And the Republican debt.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are unable to learn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
> Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter what you'd like to be true, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody, compared to capitalism where they are owned by fewer people, down to one.
> 
> If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.
Click to expand...


"Socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody?"  

"Capitalism is where they are owned by fewer people, down to one?"

What the freaking hell are you talking about?  No one can be this dumb, no one.


----------



## DiamondDave

This guy is on a TDM level of stupidity


----------



## PMZ

ilia25 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is against the market based economy or private property. And you'd be surprised to learn that with flat taxes most of tax revenue would still come from the very rich (I'm guessing the top 5%).
Click to expand...


All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why? They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I come from a board that was trafficked only by hobbyist wood workers...  we had plenty of folk like PMS around.  I doubt the parties have that many folks in their employ.  There are plenty of folk who merely route for their side to be a good member of their choosen team.  The ole it's us vs them at a ball game syndrome.  We fight for our team irregardless, it's a genetic defense mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a member of the conservative media cult. Unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you off your meds again?
Click to expand...


A typical conservative media cult denial. Proof that the cult appeals to mostly developmental 3ird graders.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?



Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.



PMZ said:


> They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.



That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we?  Did you see the stats above?  They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.

I have a question for you.  So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes.  What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is.   According to the IRS.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate for free markets, flat taxes and private property. All of which are polar opposites of socialist ideologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is against the market based economy or private property. And you'd be surprised to learn that with flat taxes most of tax revenue would still come from the very rich (I'm guessing the top 5%).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why? They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
Click to expand...

So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> This guy is on a TDM level of stupidity



"A pure Democracy is NOT Democracy."

Yeabut, is up still up? Down still down?

The conservative media cult has a great deal of trouble with English as they believe themselves entitled to their own definitions. 

Newspeak.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why? They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.
Click to expand...


You think you're insulting him, but that's actually his objective.  I've walked into that trap myself before...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This, from a member of the conservative media cult. Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you off your meds again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A typical conservative media cult denial. Proof that the cult appeals to mostly developmental 3ird graders.
Click to expand...


Look, whether or not I've ever listened to conservative media has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people defend their chosen group.

That you think my comment has ANYTHING to do with conservative media is so completely out of left field so as to be worthy of a comment from the computer program eliza.  You are not even being semi-coherent in your responses.  Can you not understand basic English?  Is English not your first language?  If not then ok that might explain why your comments are sooooo whacky.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is against the market based economy or private property. And you'd be surprised to learn that with flat taxes most of tax revenue would still come from the very rich (I'm guessing the top 5%).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why? They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.
Click to expand...


I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.



Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.

- I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
- My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
- The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.

But I don't work!  LOL!


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% flat out false
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bolsheviks lie.
Click to expand...


Now here's a current national threat. The Bolsheviks. Right up there with the monster in the closet.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why? They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you're insulting him, but that's actually his objective.  I've walked into that trap myself before...
Click to expand...


Yeah I figured... amazing that society has devolved to allow these lower life forms to propagate and even thrive.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.
> 
> - I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
> - My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
> - The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.
> 
> But I don't work!  LOL!
Click to expand...


You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.

I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you're insulting him, but that's actually his objective.  I've walked into that trap myself before...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I figured... amazing that society has devolved to allow these lower life forms to propagate and even thrive.
Click to expand...


The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.
> 
> - I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
> - My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
> - The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.
> 
> But I don't work!  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
Click to expand...


If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why? They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.
Click to expand...


So then by your own admission, you benefit from less income tax at the expense of other humans paying for your share of the services you receive.  And you are good with that.  Further, you are so good with that you want the ratio to be extended until you see the pain in your bosses face as he has to get in a soup line with your parents in order to bring food home for his family.  Still further you'd just love it if the owners of the company that gives you a paycheck were to be thrown into the street and their property distributed to you.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you're insulting him, but that's actually his objective.  I've walked into that trap myself before...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I figured... amazing that society has devolved to allow these lower life forms to propagate and even thrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.
Click to expand...


The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is on a TDM level of stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A pure Democracy is NOT Democracy."
> 
> Yeabut, is up still up? Down still down?
> 
> The conservative media cult has a great deal of trouble with English as they believe themselves entitled to their own definitions.
> 
> Newspeak.
Click to expand...


Idiot

The quote from my signature is NOT MINE.. it is from another left wing idiot who is strikingly similar in posting style to you


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.
> 
> - I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
> - My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
> - The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.
> 
> But I don't work!  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
Click to expand...


So you never worked for anyone, no one ever worked for you, and you never sold anything.  That would make you a farmer and/or rancher who raised his own food and never bought or sold a thing.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.
> 
> - I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
> - My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
> - The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.
> 
> But I don't work!  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
Click to expand...


That's more bullshit than I can stand. People like you depend on people 
like me for jobs. Innovators. People who invent the stuff that you make. The fact that you own the means of production, if so, means that you are the landlord. the creators of whatever wealth your company sells support you, not vice versa. I'm surprised that you can even find people to create your wealth given you're slave master attitude.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.
> 
> - I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
> - My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
> - The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.
> 
> But I don't work!  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you never worked for anyone, no one ever worked for you, and you never sold anything.  That would make you a farmer and/or rancher who raised his own food and never bought or sold a thing.
Click to expand...


I work with people. I sell the wealth that I create for money to buy what I want and need. Are you keeping up so far?


----------



## Foxfyre

Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.

He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote.  These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever.  The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives.  Or that's the way it used to work.

Infrastructure is NOT socialism.  It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services.  It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves.  Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow. 

A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism.  It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.

A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.

Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services.  It assigns what it deems to be a fair share for each person to pay to support that. 

Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed.   Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.

Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government.  A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.

The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able.  A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.

So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I figured... amazing that society has devolved to allow these lower life forms to propagate and even thrive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.
Click to expand...


The English word for a cult member claiming to be free is "stupid".


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> "Socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody?"
> 
> "Capitalism is where they are owned by fewer people, down to one?"
> 
> What the freaking hell are you talking about?  No one can be this dumb, no one.



Jake can - Jake is a special kind of stupid.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never worked for anyone, no one ever worked for you, and you never sold anything.  That would make you a farmer and/or rancher who raised his own food and never bought or sold a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work with people. I sell the wealth that I create for money to buy what I want and need. Are you keeping up so far?
Click to expand...


How do you create wealth?  Is that hard?  Why do you limit your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?  Why do you think people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?  

If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never worked for anyone, no one ever worked for you, and you never sold anything.  That would make you a farmer and/or rancher who raised his own food and never bought or sold a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work with people. *I sell the wealth that I create for money to buy what I want and need.* Are you keeping up so far?
Click to expand...


Seriously.. do you even understand English???


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Now here's a current national threat. The Bolsheviks. Right up there with the monster in the closet.



Bolshevik in the White House.

Most corrupt administration in history.

Selling guns to Mexican drug lords.

Using the IRS to attack political enemies.

Spying on the press.

Tapping the phones of a third of Americans.

Coincidence? 

Not even you can be this dumb, Jake.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.
> 
> He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote.  These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever.  The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives.  Or that's the way it used to work.
> 
> Infrastructure is NOT socialism.  It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services.  It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves.  Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow.
> 
> A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism.  It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.
> 
> A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.
> 
> Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services.  It assigns a fair share for each person to pay to support that.
> 
> Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed.   Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.
> 
> Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government.  A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.
> 
> The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able.  A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.
> 
> So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?



Moving from a free democratic republic with a capitalist economy (Americanism?) toward socialism with shades of totalitarianism thrown in.


----------



## Foxfyre

But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM.  And the determination to make the rich unrich.  And that's pretty important.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM.  And the determination to make the rich unrich.  And that's pretty important.



I call that socialist... even the socialists are not stupid enough to want to throw all of their private property to the government's care.  They just want the government to take someone else's property other than their own and give them special dispensation from the extreme pain that the rich deserve.


----------



## Staidhup

This issue would not exist if government regulation and meddling in the private sector hadn't driven manufacturing off shore.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's more bullshit than I can stand. People like you depend on people
> like me for jobs. Innovators. People who invent the stuff that you make. The fact that you own the means of production, if so, means that you are the landlord. the creators of whatever wealth your company sells support you, not vice versa. I'm surprised that you can even find people to create your wealth given you're slave master attitude.
Click to expand...


People like you are a dime a dozen, people like me are rare.  If you leave, I have a line of resumes to replace you.  If I leave,  company goes away.  That makes ME dependent on YOU???  You're delusional.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English word for a cult member claiming to be free is "stupid".
Click to expand...


Now I do like a good insult fest.  However, that a libertarian who tells the entire world to fuck off because I'm an individual makes me a "cult" member is so clueless I can't even be insulted by it.  Apparently your lack of education is connected to your failure to be able to hold a job.


----------



## JoeB131

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is "fairly low."  Only to you comrade.  We're just lucky you let us keep anything at all...
Click to expand...


You're lucky we don't have regular show trials for corporate douchebags... but that's just me, man.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world, as are our income taxes on the very wealthy.
> 
> We tried the Supply Side Bullshit several times.  It failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're a fucking retard; Comrade JoeB Stalin;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highest in the world - fucktard.
Click to expand...


Joey thinks profit is evil. There is no hope for him


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are unable to learn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
> Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter what you'd like to be true, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody, compared to capitalism where they are owned by fewer people, down to one.
> 
> If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.
Click to expand...

I do not have an agenda. That is the exclusive province of liberals.
I have not attempted to change anything.
YOU are the one who claimed the items in your list were examples of socialism.
Incorrect.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I figured... amazing that society has devolved to allow these lower life forms to propagate and even thrive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.
Click to expand...


Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is YOUR interpretation. It's wrong, but it is yours.
> Claiming these essential functions of government are socialism allows you to hide in your little cocoon of complacency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter what you'd like to be true, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody, compared to capitalism where they are owned by fewer people, down to one.
> 
> If that's not the correct word that describes whatever you are bitching about, find the right one. You are not going to change our language to suit your agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are owned by everybody?"
> 
> "Capitalism is where they are owned by fewer people, down to one?"
> 
> What the freaking hell are you talking about?  No one can be this dumb, no one.
Click to expand...


Where I come from we have these special books called dictionaries. We use them as a reference that defines what specific words mean. It's handy because then we know what we mean when we talk to each other. 

I hope that your planet has a similar thing someday.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we?  Did you see the stats above?  They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.
> 
> I have a question for you.  So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes.  What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is.   According to the IRS.
Click to expand...


In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Are you off your meds again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A typical conservative media cult denial. Proof that the cult appeals to mostly developmental 3ird graders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, whether or not I've ever listened to conservative media has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not people defend their chosen group.
> 
> That you think my comment has ANYTHING to do with conservative media is so completely out of left field so as to be worthy of a comment from the computer program eliza.  You are not even being semi-coherent in your responses.  Can you not understand basic English?  Is English not your first language?  If not then ok that might explain why your comments are sooooo whacky.
Click to expand...


My comments are sooooooo whacky to you because they are true. If you took the time to find the truth rather than to listen/watch Republican advertising you'd know that.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff.  You haven't had a real job have you?  So let me tell you my experience.
> 
> - I'm the company owner, my car is in the lot more than anyone.
> - My managers and senior staff are here not as much but late and sometimes on the weekend.
> - The hourly's are out the door two minutes after their shifts end.
> 
> But I don't work!  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
Click to expand...


Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you should get everything for free and the stupid working class should pay for you to sit on your fat ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am the middle class. The people who don't have to work are the wealthy. The people who can't work because conservatism gave all of their jobs away are the poor. The people sitting on their fat asses are the media cult conservatives getting their daily dose of what to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then by your own admission, you benefit from less income tax at the expense of other humans paying for your share of the services you receive.  And you are good with that.  Further, you are so good with that you want the ratio to be extended until you see the pain in your bosses face as he has to get in a soup line with your parents in order to bring food home for his family.  Still further you'd just love it if the owners of the company that gives you a paycheck were to be thrown into the street and their property distributed to you.
Click to expand...


Which specific statement of mine are you disagreeing with?


----------



## ScienceRocks

I think everyone should pay 25% across the board of their income. Is that a good idea?


----------



## ScienceRocks

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we?  Did you see the stats above?  They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.
> 
> I have a question for you.  So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes.  What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is.   According to the IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.
Click to expand...


They have most of the intelligence when it comes to making the money. The goal "should" be aimed at educating the lower class, so they become capable of making more. 

Right?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.
> 
> He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote.  These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever.  The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives.  Or that's the way it used to work.
> 
> Infrastructure is NOT socialism.  It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services.  It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves.  Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow.
> 
> A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism.  It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.
> 
> A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.
> 
> Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services.  It assigns what it deems to be a fair share for each person to pay to support that.
> 
> Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed.   Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.
> 
> Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government.  A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.
> 
> The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able.  A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.
> 
> So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?



You are clearly one of the thicker heads here. 

Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Not political systems. With socialism the means of production, factories, machinery, computers, etc are owned by all of the people who are citizens of a country. With capitalism, those means are owned by some of the people, in the extreme, a single person. 

Nobody owns labor, because that's slavery.

Our government system is a Constitutional, democratic, republic. 

Constitutional = the contract whereby the citizens consent to be governed is written. 

Democratic = decisions are made by polling the responsible parties. A plurality decides. 

Republic = no monarch. 

Did you even attend 5th grade?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.
Click to expand...


And the materials those employees are using to "create the wealth" . . . are they just pulling those out of their asses when they visit the employee lavatory?  Or did the employer you seem convinced does nothing purchase those materials with HIS money?  The tools and machinery the employees use . . . where did THOSE come from?  The building they work in, and the utilities they use, who provides those?  The trucks they drive to deliver the goods, where did THEY come from?  The record-keeping necessary to keep the business running and legal, who does that?

The employer creates jobs by providing all the things necessary to create a venue in which the employees can then exchange their labor for money.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you never worked for anyone, no one ever worked for you, and you never sold anything.  That would make you a farmer and/or rancher who raised his own food and never bought or sold a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work with people. I sell the wealth that I create for money to buy what I want and need. Are you keeping up so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you create wealth?  Is that hard?  Why do you limit your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?  Why do you think people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
Click to expand...


Creating wealth is making something of value for customers who therefore are willing to exchange our tokens of worth, money, for it.

Henry Ford, for instance, had one notion that created huge value. Paying the builders of automobiles enough so that they could afford automobiles. I have no idea how many hours it took him to think of that idea. 

Some people get wealthy through the lottery which creates zero wealth. Or the stock market. Or, like Bernie Madoff, just by stealing it. 

I created wealth through product and process innovations. 

Some people create wealth by welding, or assembling, or farming. 

Our wealth is the sum total of what we create, goods and services. In the perfect world we all would keep the wealth that we create. But in the perfect world, many would earn nothing, because they have no wealth producing skills. Society's best option in those cases is to educate everyone to have wealth creation skills, because the wealth that we have to divy up among everyone is all of the wealth that we, all together, create. 

Pretty basic stuff here.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.
> 
> He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote.  These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever.  The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives.  Or that's the way it used to work.
> 
> Infrastructure is NOT socialism.  It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services.  It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves.  Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow.
> 
> A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism.  It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.
> 
> A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.
> 
> Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services.  It assigns a fair share for each person to pay to support that.
> 
> Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed.   Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.
> 
> Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government.  A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.
> 
> The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able.  A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.
> 
> So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from a free democratic republic with a capitalist economy (Americanism?) toward socialism with shades of totalitarianism thrown in.
Click to expand...


You have already proven that you have no idea of the meaning of the words that you were told to use. 

We have democracy. Government of, for, and by, we the people. Of, for, and by.

You advocate that we replace that with plutocracy. Government of, for, and by "special" people. Special by wealth, or cult, or position. In order to make those people more free.

I believe that we should all be free.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM.  And the determination to make the rich unrich.  And that's pretty important.



Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?


----------



## Darkwind

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the alternative tax systems that I've seen have the same goal. Tax the poor and middle class more and the wealthy less. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are all sponsored and advertised by the wealthy in their relentless push to replace democracy with plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we?  Did you see the stats above?  They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.
> 
> I have a question for you.  So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes.  What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is.   According to the IRS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.
Click to expand...

You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value?  We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM.  And the determination to make the rich unrich.  And that's pretty important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call that socialist... even the socialists are not stupid enough to want to throw all of their private property to the government's care.  They just want the government to take someone else's property other than their own and give them special dispensation from the extreme pain that the rich deserve.
Click to expand...


Private property is property owned by single owners. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything posted here. But it is a convenient red herring. And I certainly don't blame you for trying that at this point in time. You seem to have run out of meaningful arguments.


----------



## Darkwind

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM.  And the determination to make the rich unrich.  And that's pretty important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?
Click to expand...

Strange notion.  What redistribution would that be?   Earning more is not redistribution.  You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?


----------



## PMZ

Darkwind said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.
> 
> 
> 
> That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we?  Did you see the stats above?  They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.
> 
> I have a question for you.  So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes.  What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is.   According to the IRS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value?  We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.
Click to expand...


You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.


----------



## Darkwind

PMZ said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value?  We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.
Click to expand...

Now look at the topic  of this thread.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.  Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth.  You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.


----------



## PMZ

Darkwind said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you left out the Marxist income redistribution thing, RKM.  And the determination to make the rich unrich.  And that's pretty important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strange notion.  What redistribution would that be?   Earning more is not redistribution.  You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?
Click to expand...


Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create. 

The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people. 

The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.


----------



## Darkwind

PMZ said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis the capitalist income redistribution thing different?
> 
> 
> 
> Strange notion.  What redistribution would that be?   Earning more is not redistribution.  You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create.
> 
> The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people.
> 
> The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.
Click to expand...

You are twisting capitalism with investment.  

Wealth is the accumulation of some kind of effort.  We usually term it as earnings.  Creation is something entirely different, unless you wish to discuss business as a function of the creative process.  At that point, you also will have to include into the equation the Return for the creation.  Capitalism is NOT wealth redistribution, but an economic model in which the individual provides a good or service (This is called a value) in return for something else of value.  Back in the day, people would come and trade an extra pig or sheep for enough grain to last them through the winter.  This is capitalism at its most base form.  Note that both parties received something of value.  The farmer received meat, the shepherd received grain.

Today, people value other things.  But we can continue along the food theme.  A person takes risk to open a grocery store in a neighborhood that has none, is a capitalist.  His risk is in the loans he takes, the uncertain future he places his family in, and the chance that he may fail and be in serious debt or become destitute.  If he succeeds, he gains first a good living, then a great living, then he becomes wealthy.  

In your rush to redistribute wealth via an entity that is thousands of times worse than a company, you would increase and increase and increase the burden on this business person who has taken all the risk and worked to build something from nothing.  His or her plans may be to ensure that their children and their children never have to live hand to mouth ever again.  In addition to all that, this person provides a paycheck to people who may not otherwise have a means to support themselves.

There is NO REDISTRIBUTION in this.  Every company follows the same model.  It may not be an individual, but it could be investors.  

The point being, their vision, work, and effort is what brings prosperity to any nation.  Prosperity is like the tide.  It raises all boats.  That is why you do not see people in America living in huts and drinking water buffalo piss to survive.

Now, the question posed to you is this.

What is their fair share?  What dollar amount do they have to be penalized MORE than the rest of us, to be considered fair?


----------



## PMZ

Darkwind said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that 34.7% of the wealth is an ownership value and not an earnings value?  We are taxed on earnings, not net worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now look at the topic  of this thread.
> 
> The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.  Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth.  You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.
Click to expand...


Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change. 

The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff. 

In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?


----------



## Darkwind

PMZ said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the topic  of this thread.
> 
> The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.  Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth.  You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.
> 
> The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.
> 
> In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of whether or not he would miss it.  If it is wrong to do so, whether or not it harms the victim, it is still wrong to do so.

I hear people say all the time that they aren't hurt by that much tax so we must tax them more.  That black Doctor (I can't remember his name) said it best at the breakfast with Obama.

"Why do you have to hurt him at all?"

So, get back to the topic. Economic security is not at issue here.  Wealth confiscation by the greed of government is.

What constitutes a fair share?  At what point does taking of wealth stop?


----------



## Darkwind

I'll check tomorrow.  Its late and I need to hit it.


----------



## Obamanation

PMZ said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that wealth is the best measure of economic security which has nothing to do with taxation.
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the topic  of this thread.
> 
> The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.  Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth.  You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.
> 
> The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.
> 
> In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?
Click to expand...


So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?

Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...

Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".


----------



## PMZ

Darkwind said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange notion.  What redistribution would that be?   Earning more is not redistribution.  You also realize that wealth is not finite, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create.
> 
> The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people.
> 
> The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are twisting capitalism with investment.
> 
> Wealth is the accumulation of some kind of effort.  We usually term it as earnings.  Creation is something entirely different, unless you wish to discuss business as a function of the creative process.  At that point, you also will have to include into the equation the Return for the creation.  Capitalism is NOT wealth redistribution, but an economic model in which the individual provides a good or service (This is called a value) in return for something else of value.  Back in the day, people would come and trade an extra pig or sheep for enough grain to last them through the winter.  This is capitalism at its most base form.  Note that both parties received something of value.  The farmer received meat, the shepherd received grain.
> 
> Today, people value other things.  But we can continue along the food theme.  A person takes risk to open a grocery store in a neighborhood that has none, is a capitalist.  His risk is in the loans he takes, the uncertain future he places his family in, and the chance that he may fail and be in serious debt or become destitute.  If he succeeds, he gains first a good living, then a great living, then he becomes wealthy.
> 
> In your rush to redistribute wealth via an entity that is thousands of times worse than a company, you would increase and increase and increase the burden on this business person who has taken all the risk and worked to build something from nothing.  His or her plans may be to ensure that their children and their children never have to live hand to mouth ever again.  In addition to all that, this person provides a paycheck to people who may not otherwise have a means to support themselves.
> 
> There is NO REDISTRIBUTION in this.  Every company follows the same model.  It may not be an individual, but it could be investors.
> 
> The point being, their vision, work, and effort is what brings prosperity to any nation.  Prosperity is like the tide.  It raises all boats.  That is why you do not see people in America living in huts and drinking water buffalo piss to survive.
> 
> Now, the question posed to you is this.
> 
> What is their fair share?  What dollar amount do they have to be penalized MORE than the rest of us, to be considered fair?
Click to expand...


Money can come from inheritance, gambling, stealing, marriage, any number of things totally unrelated to wealth creation.

Work is the application of human skills to wealth creation. Saying that the ownership of the means creates wealth ignores the obvious. No factory produces a thing without skilled labor. Whoever owns that factory is no more than a landlord. He rents his facilities to people who make useful things by the use of it. The owner is entitled to fair rent. 

If a factory owner feels that there is no advantage to business in the US, why would he build a factory here? If he does build a factory here, he should be charged for the advantages of being here. 

The equation that we are dealing with is that the higher one goes in a modern corporation, the less he/she is rewarded for value added, and the more he/she is rewarded for being close to the rewarders. Wealth is power. Always. 

We try to get around the dangers of capitalism, in order to get the rewards of capitalism, by regulating it, but imperfectly. We compensate for imperfect regulation by redistributing value created back to those who create it by progressive taxation. That's as "fair" as we can get. 

If we ever get to the point where it's generally perceived as unfair, wealthy people will leave. Free market. At the moment, that's not happening. That signals that we've priced the country right. That doesn't mean that people don't whine, it means that they don't act.


----------



## PMZ

Obamanation said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the topic  of this thread.
> 
> The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.  Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth.  You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.
> 
> The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.
> 
> In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?
> 
> Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...
> 
> Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".
Click to expand...


You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth. 

Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.


----------



## PMZ

Darkwind said:


> I'll check tomorrow.  Its late and I need to hit it.



I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.


----------



## Obamanation

PMZ said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.
> 
> The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.
> 
> In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?
> 
> Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...
> 
> Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.
> 
> Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.
Click to expand...


right... what alternative are you proposing?


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll check tomorrow.  Its late and I need to hit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.
Click to expand...


You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.


----------



## PMZ

Darkwind said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at the topic  of this thread.
> 
> The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes.  Taxes are based upon earning, not net wealth.  You are trying to conflate the two issues into one to support your untenable position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true in the least. Income is not a reliable measure of economic security. Wealth is. Taking even $1 from a starving man is not the same impact as taking $1M from, say Warren Buffet. He'd never even miss it. It's not even an inconvenience for him. It's chump change.
> 
> The concept of capitalism, which is good, has been killed by extremism. The idea that the more wealth that one creates should be rewarded by more wealth to use has been subjugated by our inability to measure wealth created. And by criminals like Bernie Madoff.
> 
> In addition, we are extreme in not taxing income from wealth. We tax it at one half or so of income from work. Who does that make sense to? Work is what creates wealth. Wealth merely entitles one in our society to more of the wealth created by others. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not a matter of whether or not he would miss it.  If it is wrong to do so, whether or not it harms the victim, it is still wrong to do so.
> 
> I hear people say all the time that they aren't hurt by that much tax so we must tax them more.  That black Doctor (I can't remember his name) said it best at the breakfast with Obama.
> 
> "Why do you have to hurt him at all?"
> 
> So, get back to the topic. Economic security is not at issue here.  Wealth confiscation by the greed of government is.
> 
> What constitutes a fair share?  At what point does taking of wealth stop?
Click to expand...


Right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder. 

If you object to the taxes on wealth and income, you are in full control. Become poor. If you think that poor is advantageous, become one. It's easy. 

Capitalism is based on the assumption that you won't choose poor. It applies to everyone, not just you. 

You want more than you have now. The lament of lottery investors everywhere. If you are a capitalist, you'll work for it. If you are not, you are a whiner.


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll check tomorrow.  Its late and I need to hit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.
Click to expand...


What????


----------



## PMZ

Obamanation said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I should be taxed on my income and then be taxed again on my investments?
> 
> Sure puts the hurt to the middle class...
> 
> Sure makes it hard to join the ranks of the "rich".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.
> 
> Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right... what alternative are you proposing?
Click to expand...


Capital gains should be taxed at the same or a greater rate than income from work.


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no arms and have exactly the same rights as you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What????
Click to expand...


You heard me.

How do you speak of rights, when you are willing to bring those who prosper to their knees? What good is the right to prosper when you make it difficult to? Why is prosperity in the highest degree such a bad thing? Why is it bad when someone has the upper hand? You want to squeeze altruism from a man, just as you would water from a turnip. The man who owns the store who employs the the employees got there from the same hard work that he accused of not doing. He isn't "nothing more than a landlord" he worked for his living just as you did, and you begrudge him the right to prosper? So what if he prospers more than you? Nobody should be made prosper the same, but at their own pace. This type of economic communalism is disturbing. If you are poor, strive to be rich, if you are rich, strive to help the poor. 

You hypocrite.


----------



## Obamanation

PMZ said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are taxed on your income from work and your income from wealth. About half on income from wealth.
> 
> Why? Because those who make most of their income from wealth have more political influence than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right... what alternative are you proposing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capital gains should be taxed at the same or a greater rate than income from work.
Click to expand...


It's sounds like we agree. Just lower income tax to a flat 10% and put the gov't on a SERIOUS diet! Then we will have it licked, right??


----------



## kaz

JoeB131 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, our corporate taxes are pretty low compared to the rest of the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is "fairly low."  Only to you comrade.  We're just lucky you let us keep anything at all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lucky we don't have regular show trials for corporate douchebags... but that's just me, man.
Click to expand...


We should start with the "show trials" for the real criminals in this country, politicians.  Your blinders that you believe the liars is absolutely required for your blind, ovine love of the Democratic party.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that living the cult life makes you a higher life form reveals all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.
Click to expand...


The people who wrote the Constitution did not think freedom came from the Constitution.  You've made clear you have no interest in understanding what the Constitution is.

What's funny in a multiply ironic way is your use of the phrase "republican plutocracy."

Besides that you don't know what republican means

- the founders were republican
- the constitution is republican
- the founders were overwhelmingly the wealthy
- the founders set up a system to protect liberty for all <<<--- hint to the first point in the post
- it's actually democrats and liberalism who are destroying that.

What a post you wrote, outstanding!


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live your life as you choose. The poor don't. The fact that you have no friends or family is and has been your choice.
> 
> I worked from 12 to retirement. I know what it is to create wealth. I didn't have to depend on others to do that for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.
Click to expand...


I already addressed this.  If anyone on my staff leaves, I can get a raft of resumes to replace them.  The hardest to replace are my managers and senior staff by the way, the ones closes to being me.  The rest are just an inconvenience to hire and train a replacement.  If I leave, the jobs go away.  People who do what I do, particularly with our belligerent government trying to trip us every step of the way, are few and far between.

So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government.  Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people.  If we go broke lose my pile.  

But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.

And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter.  Got it.


----------



## kaz

Matthew said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay zero.
> 
> 
> 
> That may be our objective, but we're not getting very far with it are we?  Did you see the stats above?  They come from the IRS by the way, and by taxpayers, that means that people who earn too little to file aren't counted, which means as a percentage of AMERICANS it's even more skewed than that.
> 
> I have a question for you.  So let's take the IRS stat that the top 1% of all earners pay 40% of all taxes.  What would you guess the percent of all income they earn is.   According to the IRS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have most of the intelligence when it comes to making the money. The goal "should" be aimed at educating the lower class, so they become capable of making more.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


The problem is that most of the education is coming from government, who is completely not educating them to be self sufficient.


----------



## kaz

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the materials those employees are using to "create the wealth" . . . are they just pulling those out of their asses when they visit the employee lavatory?  Or did the employer you seem convinced does nothing purchase those materials with HIS money?  The tools and machinery the employees use . . . where did THOSE come from?  The building they work in, and the utilities they use, who provides those?  The trucks they drive to deliver the goods, where did THEY come from?  The record-keeping necessary to keep the business running and legal, who does that?
> 
> The employer creates jobs by providing all the things necessary to create a venue in which the employees can then exchange their labor for money.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  And employees have to be managed and trained, processes have to be created for them.  And if you don't do that, they'll run the company into the ground.  I'm not saying that good employees don't help, they do.  But even the good ones need the environment provided for them.  They may run processes well and even improve them.  But put 10 together in a room and tell them to create a company and they won't even start doing that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Those who deplore wealth inequity too often also ignore the reasons for it.  It is not due to the wealthy taking more than their 'fair share'.  It IS related to the incentives and encouragement and freedom afforded to the poor to become unpoor.



> . . . .Property is a legal concept, whereas wealth is an economic concept. The two are often confused, but they should be kept quite clearly distinct. The one refers to a set of rights, the other to how people value such rights. The same legal claim to property may yield great wealth today and none tomorrow. Market exchanges change the values of property claims continuously, as Ludwig Lachmann explained clearly in his important essay on &#8220;The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth.&#8221;[4] . . . .
> 
> 
> . . . .What is responsible for wealth inequality is a very complicated topic. It seems that, in market-based economies, education drives much of the inequality. Thus, to get rid of the inequality, we could stop people from acquiring knowledge. It&#8217;s clear that&#8217;s not the kind of direction Hassoun would want to go. (At least, I hope not.) She&#8217;s concerned about people suffering in poverty.
> 
> Bryan Caplan posed scenarios according to which people in the United States might be responsible for the plight of the poor of Haiti. Hassoun affirmed in her response, &#8220;I think that the current distribution of property rights globally is very unjust because it leaves people unable to meet their basic needs.&#8221; I think that she missed the point. Caplan focused on how people in wealthy countries could act to improve the lot of people in poor countries, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he says. But it&#8217;s really only a part of the problem. The people of Haiti are poor because they have been governed for generations by a succession of kleptocrats and psychopaths.
> 
> In the course of their histories, of course, most countries have suffered from such rulers. Those that have succeeded in limiting their power and thus liberating creative activity have increased their wealth and prosperity. I encourage people interested in this issue to consider the treatment of the causes of prosperity in Deirdre McCloskey&#8217;s remarkable book Bourgeois Dignity, which considers all the accounts I&#8217;d ever heard of (and some I hadn&#8217;t) and measures them against the enormous wealth explosion of the past two centuries. Economic freedom and respect for entrepreneurship are the only explanations that emerge as capable of explaining what she calls &#8220;the great fact.&#8221;
> Some Thoughts on Inequality of Wealth and the Moral Claims We May Make on Each Other | Cato Unbound



Income inequality in the USA goes up and down over the decades but is really not any more pronounced now than it was when the country was founded.  The Founders themselves were no doubt in the 1% category.  And yet they created a system that allowed everybody a shot at becoming wealthy.

Freedom does not seem to affect wealth equality.  But freedom has a huge affect on the  ability of the poor to be less poor.  From the same link as above.:


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could still have your arms, and your legs, or your rights; but you would still lack sincerity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me.
> 
> How do you speak of rights, when you are willing to bring those who prosper to their knees? What good is the right to prosper when you make it difficult to? Why is prosperity in the highest degree such a bad thing? Why is it bad when someone has the upper hand? You want to squeeze altruism from a man, just as you would water from a turnip. The man who owns the store who employs the the employees got there from the same hard work that he accused of not doing. He isn't "nothing more than a landlord" he worked for his living just as you did, and you begrudge him the right to prosper? So what if he prospers more than you? Nobody should be made prosper the same, but at their own pace. This type of economic communalism is disturbing. If you are poor, strive to be rich, if you are rich, strive to help the poor.
> 
> You hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You are merely repeating conservative media cult dogma. Mouthing the lyrics that took over your mind. Extremism. 

The US has practiced both capitalist and socialist economics from the beginning. Both worked fine in their place. We accepted the danger of capitalism by our confidence that it's risks could be regulated, the biggest one being that the fact that there are no free markets anymore would lead to extreme wealth distribution towards the wealthy. We did that because we knew from experience that the product of extreme wealth distribution always will be unstable third world banana republics with the wealthy taking all of the political power as well as all of the wealth. 

We are there now. By any measure of wealth inequality. How did we get here? Because the wealthy bought our way here. They paid for your mind and your vote by giving you a cartoon simple black and white picture of a complex world which you published above. They also gave you $17,000,000,000,000 in debt that they generated trying for all of the marbles. 

The middle class is our economy both for supply and demand. Every time a CEO gets a $50,000,000 paycheck for the wealth created by workers doing their jobs despite his "leadership" the country gets more broken. That $50,000,000 is money that doesn't buy the groceries and cars and houses and school taxes that it would if it was used to pay middle class wealth creators, it goes to buy power. 

Business is broken but the wealthy buy airtime to tell you that government is broken. Why? Because the power of democratic government of, by, and for the people is the one thing standing between the wealthy and all of the marbles.

Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them and if things don't continue to turn around we'll have nothing to pass on. At least, 80% of us won't. The other 20% will pass on enough money to buy the wealth created by others for a few generations. Then lights out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thereisnospoon said:


> I do not have an agenda. That is the exclusive province of liberals.



I have an agenda - I freely admit it.

Here is my agenda;

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.



You've never read the Constitution, Jake. You have no clue what is in it.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them



A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government.  Gotcha.


----------



## PMZ

Obamanation said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> 
> right... what alternative are you proposing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains should be taxed at the same or a greater rate than income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sounds like we agree. Just lower income tax to a flat 10% and put the gov't on a SERIOUS diet! Then we will have it licked, right??
Click to expand...


You mean put the government on a serious diet like Europe did so that we could share their success in recovery from the Great Recession? Fortunately most of us aren't that stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Wealth that we have is the sum total of what we create.
> 
> *The basis of capitalism is wealth redistribution. The theory is that that is what motivates people. *
> 
> The problem that led us away from capitalism is that we no longer reward people in proportion to the wealth that they create. We reward people in proportion to the wealth that they have.



If only you had made it to 4th grade, Jake....

You don't grasp what the words mean.

Capitalism is simply the free market where individuals or cooperatives can trade. You can trade goods, you can trade knowledge, or you can trade labor. What these are worth is what another is willing to pay you for them - no more, no less.

Capitalism is the basis of freedom - and men cannot be free without it. It is the proposition that you have the right to trade to others what they value in exchange for what you value.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is "fairly low."  Only to you comrade.  We're just lucky you let us keep anything at all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lucky we don't have regular show trials for corporate douchebags... but that's just me, man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should start with the "show trials" for the real criminals in this country, politicians.  Your blinders that you believe the liars is absolutely required for your blind, ovine love of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...


Is this when you tell us that government killed millions of American jobs by recruiting cheap foreign workers here or sending jobs there? Our are you going to repeat the fable that Barney Franks built the housing boom and bust and collapse of Wall Street. How about the one about all of Bush's blunders lost their influence on Jan 19, 2001?  Maybe Bernie Madoff was a secret government plant in the business world.

If people like you can run a successful business must be anybody can do it.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains should be taxed at the same or a greater rate than income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's sounds like we agree. Just lower income tax to a flat 10% and put the gov't on a SERIOUS diet! Then we will have it licked, right??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean put the government on a serious diet like Europe did so that we could share their success in recovery from the Great Recession? Fortunately most of us aren't that stupid.
Click to expand...


Europe's "serious diet" was the equivalent of putting less butter on their potato chips.  That socialist countries didn't rebound is an argument for nothing.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who wrote the Constitution did not think freedom came from the Constitution.  You've made clear you have no interest in understanding what the Constitution is.
> 
> What's funny in a multiply ironic way is your use of the phrase "republican plutocracy."
> 
> Besides that you don't know what republican means
> 
> - the founders were republican
> - the constitution is republican
> - the founders were overwhelmingly the wealthy
> - the founders set up a system to protect liberty for all <<<--- hint to the first point in the post
> - it's actually democrats and liberalism who are destroying that.
> 
> What a post you wrote, outstanding!
Click to expand...


The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe. The Federalists won. The Constitution prevents regulation in certain specific areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. They didn't promise anyone anarchy. The founders were very specific about how government would maintain alligiance to the Constitution. Your name wasn't mentioned. 

So we have what they founded. You would prefer something else. Power to the people like you, the hell with everyone else.

Sorry King George. Your kind was evicted.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I (and people like me) don't choose to live my life this way, then people who want to work won't have jobs and parasites like you won't have a host.  So I'd pay attention to where your bread is buttered...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed this.  If anyone on my staff leaves, I can get a raft of resumes to replace them.  The hardest to replace are my managers and senior staff by the way, the ones closes to being me.  The rest are just an inconvenience to hire and train a replacement.  If I leave, the jobs go away.  People who do what I do, particularly with our belligerent government trying to trip us every step of the way, are few and far between.
> 
> So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government.  Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people.  If we go broke lose my pile.
> 
> But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.
> 
> And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter.  Got it.
Click to expand...


Isn't slavery grand? No wonder business is holding back America's economic recovery. The poorer the economy, the cheaper slaves are. And with modern slavery, you don't have to even pay the people creating your wealth enough for food.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2007, the top 1% had 34.7% of the wealth, I'm sure that it's more today, the best measure of economic security, Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,  and paid 36.73% of the income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have most of the intelligence when it comes to making the money. The goal "should" be aimed at educating the lower class, so they become capable of making more.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that most of the education is coming from government, who is completely not educating them to be self sufficient.
Click to expand...


In Europe education is a partnership between business and government. We could do it that way here too except who wants educated slaves? In fact, you, I imagine, are still a little put out about educated women too. 

Barefoot, dumb, and pregnant. America's future under Republicans.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the materials those employees are using to "create the wealth" . . . are they just pulling those out of their asses when they visit the employee lavatory?  Or did the employer you seem convinced does nothing purchase those materials with HIS money?  The tools and machinery the employees use . . . where did THOSE come from?  The building they work in, and the utilities they use, who provides those?  The trucks they drive to deliver the goods, where did THEY come from?  The record-keeping necessary to keep the business running and legal, who does that?
> 
> The employer creates jobs by providing all the things necessary to create a venue in which the employees can then exchange their labor for money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And employees have to be managed and trained, processes have to be created for them.  And if you don't do that, they'll run the company into the ground.  I'm not saying that good employees don't help, they do.  But even the good ones need the environment provided for them.  They may run processes well and even improve them.  But put 10 together in a room and tell them to create a company and they won't even start doing that.
Click to expand...


One of the most compelling arguments for aristocracy that I've seen. You Wouldhave done well at Versailles or in the court of King Charles. Oh, they all got booted didn't they. 

I just wish that I was a competitor of yours. The first that I'd do is hire away all of the people supporting you and watch you fall on your face.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government.  Gotcha.
Click to expand...


The whole 'fair share' concept is flawed when 'taxing the rich more' is looked at as the way to fix the current economic problems of the country.  Evenmoreso when those proposing it think the government needs to be even bigger and cost more money.

But as for recession and depression:



> *Top Five Causes of the Great Depression*
> 
> *1. Stock Market Crash of 1929*
> Many believe erroneously that the stock market crash that occurred on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929 is one and the same with the Great Depression. In fact, it was one of the major causes that led to the Great Depression. Two months after the original crash in October, stockholders had lost more than $40 billion dollars. Even though the stock market began to regain some of its losses, by the end of 1930, it just was not enough and America truly entered what is called the Great Depression.
> 
> *2. Bank Failures *
> Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures.
> 
> *3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board*
> With the stock market crash and the fears of further economic woes, individuals from all classes stopped purchasing items. This then led to a reduction in the number of items produced and thus a reduction in the workforce. As people lost their jobs, they were unable to keep up with paying for items they had bought through installment plans and their items were repossessed. More and more inventory began to accumulate. The unemployment rate rose above 25% which meant, of course, even less spending to help alleviate the economic situation.
> 
> *4. American Economic Policy with Europe*
> As businesses began failing, the government created the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930 to help protect American companies. This charged a high tax for imports thereby leading to less trade between America and foreign countries along with some economic retaliation.
> 
> *5. Drought Conditions*
> While not a direct cause of the Great Depression, the drought that occurred in the (midwest) in 1930 was of such proportions that many could not even pay their taxes or other debts and had to sell their farms for no profit to themselves. The area was nicknamed "The Dust Bowl." This was the topic of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.
> Great Depression - Top Five Causes of the Great Depression



And why did the Depression go on for so long?  In addition to long range affects as listed above. . . .



> A year before the bottom of the Great Depression, the Revenue Act of 1932 increased the top marginal federal tax rate on personal income from 25 percent to 63 percent, increased the corporate tax rate from 12 percent to 13.75 percent, and doubled the estate tax rate. The Revenue Act of 1936 further increased the top marginal tax rate on personal income to 79 percent and the rate on undistributed corporate profits to 42 percent. These two revenue acts increased federal tax rates more than in any other peacetime period and extended the length of the Great Depression by substantially weakening the incentive to work, save, invest, and increase productivity. . . .
> 
> . . . . The trade and labor policies of the 1930s were designed to maintain the prices of products and labor services, usually at the expense of the amounts supplied. Other policies had the same objectives and effects. The 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act authorized cartels to maintain prices; until this act was declared unconstitutional in 1935, for example, members of these cartels were subject to fines for discounting. The most egregious of such policies was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933; until this act was declared unconstitutional in 1936, this act authorized payments to farmers to reduce their acreage under cultivation. In effect, these policies established a floor under prices that prevented many product and labor markets from clearing, given the decline in nominal demand. These policies were an important reason why total output did not recover to the 1929 level until 1939, and the unemployment rate at the end of this decade was 17.2 percent.
> 
> . . . .One other policy of both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations was a substantial increase in federal expenditures for public infrastructure, especially hydroelectric facilities. These programs did not reduce total output but they were clearly not effective, given the combination of other policies, in reducing the depth or duration of the Great Depression. The government of Japan enacted a substantially larger public infrastructure program in the 1990s, also with no effect on ending what turned out to be a decade of very low economic growth. A major provision of President Obama&#8217;s fiscal stimulus proposal, of course, is a substantial increase in federal expenditures for public infrastructure. Fed Chairman Bernanke was correct to observe recently that &#8220;Fiscal actions are unlikely to promote a lasting recovery unless they are accompanied by strong measures to further stabilize and strengthen the financial system.&#8221;
> How to Turn a Recession into a Depression | Cato Institute



Those with the ability to read and comprehend will almost certainly see parallels in this and current policy, both that already implemented and that which is proposed.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Those who deplore wealth inequity too often also ignore the reasons for it.  It is not due to the wealthy taking more than their 'fair share'.  It IS related to the incentives and encouragement and freedom afforded to the poor to become unpoor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .Property is a legal concept, whereas wealth is an economic concept. The two are often confused, but they should be kept quite clearly distinct. The one refers to a set of rights, the other to how people value such rights. The same legal claim to property may yield great wealth today and none tomorrow. Market exchanges change the values of property claims continuously, as Ludwig Lachmann explained clearly in his important essay on The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth.[4] . . . .
> 
> 
> . . . .What is responsible for wealth inequality is a very complicated topic. It seems that, in market-based economies, education drives much of the inequality. Thus, to get rid of the inequality, we could stop people from acquiring knowledge. Its clear thats not the kind of direction Hassoun would want to go. (At least, I hope not.) Shes concerned about people suffering in poverty.
> 
> Bryan Caplan posed scenarios according to which people in the United States might be responsible for the plight of the poor of Haiti. Hassoun affirmed in her response, I think that the current distribution of property rights globally is very unjust because it leaves people unable to meet their basic needs. I think that she missed the point. Caplan focused on how people in wealthy countries could act to improve the lot of people in poor countries, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he says. But its really only a part of the problem. The people of Haiti are poor because they have been governed for generations by a succession of kleptocrats and psychopaths.
> 
> In the course of their histories, of course, most countries have suffered from such rulers. Those that have succeeded in limiting their power and thus liberating creative activity have increased their wealth and prosperity. I encourage people interested in this issue to consider the treatment of the causes of prosperity in Deirdre McCloskeys remarkable book Bourgeois Dignity, which considers all the accounts Id ever heard of (and some I hadnt) and measures them against the enormous wealth explosion of the past two centuries. Economic freedom and respect for entrepreneurship are the only explanations that emerge as capable of explaining what she calls the great fact.
> Some Thoughts on Inequality of Wealth and the Moral Claims We May Make on Each Other | Cato Unbound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income inequality in the USA goes up and down over the decades but is really not any more pronounced now than it was when the country was founded.  The Founders themselves were no doubt in the 1% category.  And yet they created a system that allowed everybody a shot at becoming wealthy.
> 
> Freedom does not seem to affect wealth equality.  But freedom has a huge affect on the  ability of the poor to be less poor.  From the same link as above.:
Click to expand...


You make it clear with every post how entitled you feel to the truth. Unfortunately, the universe disagrees. 

From  Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Studies indicate the source of the widening gap (sometimes called the Great Divergence) has not been gender inequality, which has declined in the US over the last several decades,[12] nor inequality between black and white Americans, which has stagnated during that time,[13] nor has the gap between the poor and middle class been the major causethough it has grown.[14] Most of the growth has been between the middle class and top earners, with the disparity becoming more extreme the further one goes up in the income distribution.[15] Upward redistribution of income is responsible for about 43% of the projected Social Security shortfall over the next 75 years.[16] The Brookings Institution said in 2013 that income inequality was increasing and becoming permanent, reducing social mobility in the US.[17]"

This paragraph would make a good epitaph for America in the unlikely event that Republicans ever get re-elected.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ, the master of the non sequitur.

But to add more perspective:



> Income inequality is the wrong focus for government policy. After all, if we doubled the income of every American tomorrow, inequality would actually increase -- but we would also lift a lot of Americans out of poverty.
> 
> In the context of deficit reduction, that means we should keep this goal in mind: not punishing the rich, but reducing poverty. And we know that in the long run, the best way to reduce poverty is to create more jobs and opportunity. Too many think of the economy as a fixed pie, and the role of government is to divide up the slices of that pie. If one person gets a bigger portion of pie, others of necessity get smaller pieces.
> 
> But in reality the size of the pie is not fixed. We can pursue policies that grow a bigger pie, allowing a bigger slice for everyone. Conversely, we can shrink the pie, meaning everyone gets less. And unfortunately, if the pie shrinks, those without skills and connections in society -- the poor -- are likely to end up with little more than crumbs.
> 
> And history also shows that government programs and redistribution do a surprisingly poor job of reducing poverty, especially when compared to economic growth. For instance, at the start of the 20th century more than three-quarters of Americans were poor by most definitions. By 1965, that had been reduced to less than 20 percent. That happened not because of government redistribution but because of the phenomenal growth of the American economy. More than $15 trillion in social welfare spending since then has done little to further reduce poverty.
> 
> As we look for ways to reduce the deficit, we should avoid policies like raising taxes that will discourage economic growth and job creation. Instead, we should recognize that an ever-growing and more expensive government is a burden that will ultimately reduce growth and make it harder for the poor to move up the income ladder. . . .
> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...lity-is-the-wrong-focus-for-government-policy


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government.  Gotcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole 'fair share' concept is flawed when 'taxing the rich more' is looked at as the way to fix the current economic problems of the country.  Evenmoreso when those proposing it think the government needs to be even bigger and cost more money.
> 
> But as for recession and depression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Top Five Causes of the Great Depression*
> 
> *1. Stock Market Crash of 1929*
> Many believe erroneously that the stock market crash that occurred on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929 is one and the same with the Great Depression. In fact, it was one of the major causes that led to the Great Depression. Two months after the original crash in October, stockholders had lost more than $40 billion dollars. Even though the stock market began to regain some of its losses, by the end of 1930, it just was not enough and America truly entered what is called the Great Depression.
> 
> *2. Bank Failures *
> Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures.
> 
> *3. Reduction in Purchasing Across the Board*
> With the stock market crash and the fears of further economic woes, individuals from all classes stopped purchasing items. This then led to a reduction in the number of items produced and thus a reduction in the workforce. As people lost their jobs, they were unable to keep up with paying for items they had bought through installment plans and their items were repossessed. More and more inventory began to accumulate. The unemployment rate rose above 25% which meant, of course, even less spending to help alleviate the economic situation.
> 
> *4. American Economic Policy with Europe*
> As businesses began failing, the government created the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930 to help protect American companies. This charged a high tax for imports thereby leading to less trade between America and foreign countries along with some economic retaliation.
> 
> *5. Drought Conditions*
> While not a direct cause of the Great Depression, the drought that occurred in the (midwest) in 1930 was of such proportions that many could not even pay their taxes or other debts and had to sell their farms for no profit to themselves. The area was nicknamed "The Dust Bowl." This was the topic of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.
> Great Depression - Top Five Causes of the Great Depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why did the Depression go on for so long?  In addition to long range affects as listed above. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A year before the bottom of the Great Depression, the Revenue Act of 1932 increased the top marginal federal tax rate on personal income from 25 percent to 63 percent, increased the corporate tax rate from 12 percent to 13.75 percent, and doubled the estate tax rate. The Revenue Act of 1936 further increased the top marginal tax rate on personal income to 79 percent and the rate on undistributed corporate profits to 42 percent. These two revenue acts increased federal tax rates more than in any other peacetime period and extended the length of the Great Depression by substantially weakening the incentive to work, save, invest, and increase productivity. . . .
> 
> . . . . The trade and labor policies of the 1930s were designed to maintain the prices of products and labor services, usually at the expense of the amounts supplied. Other policies had the same objectives and effects. The 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act authorized cartels to maintain prices; until this act was declared unconstitutional in 1935, for example, members of these cartels were subject to fines for discounting. The most egregious of such policies was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933; until this act was declared unconstitutional in 1936, this act authorized payments to farmers to reduce their acreage under cultivation. In effect, these policies established a floor under prices that prevented many product and labor markets from clearing, given the decline in nominal demand. These policies were an important reason why total output did not recover to the 1929 level until 1939, and the unemployment rate at the end of this decade was 17.2 percent.
> 
> . . . .One other policy of both the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations was a substantial increase in federal expenditures for public infrastructure, especially hydroelectric facilities. These programs did not reduce total output but they were clearly not effective, given the combination of other policies, in reducing the depth or duration of the Great Depression. The government of Japan enacted a substantially larger public infrastructure program in the 1990s, also with no effect on ending what turned out to be a decade of very low economic growth. A major provision of President Obamas fiscal stimulus proposal, of course, is a substantial increase in federal expenditures for public infrastructure. Fed Chairman Bernanke was correct to observe recently that Fiscal actions are unlikely to promote a lasting recovery unless they are accompanied by strong measures to further stabilize and strengthen the financial system.
> How to Turn a Recession into a Depression | Cato Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those with the ability to read and comprehend will almost certainly see parallels in this and current policy, both that already implemented and that which is proposed.
Click to expand...


I don't want to startle you but this is 2013, not 1929. No thanks to conservatives but the world is different now. Considerably.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ, the master at missing the point made.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have an agenda. That is the exclusive province of liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an agenda - I freely admit it.
> 
> Here is my agenda;
> 
> Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Click to expand...


Interesting. The same as mine.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government.  Gotcha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole 'fair share' concept is flawed when 'taxing the rich more' is looked at as the way to fix the current economic problems of the country.
Click to expand...


Taxing the rich is not for fixing the economy. It makes the rest to be better off.



> Those with the ability to read and comprehend will almost certainly see parallels in this and current policy, both that already implemented and that which is proposed.



And what about this depression, does Cato Institute had an explanation? Is it because Obama raised tom marginal rates to 63%? Or did he authorized cartels to maintain prices?

Cato is a fraud. They list all FDR policies as the cause of Great Depression with no data to substantiate their claims. And the fact that we have another depression without those policies is one more proof that Cato is a fraud.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recession brought on by massive growth in government spending and belligerent policies towards banks forcing them to make bad loans will be solved by more government.  Gotcha.
Click to expand...


You are one ignorant man. 

Show me the part where bankers agreed to give up due diligence?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work with people. I sell the wealth that I create for money to buy what I want and need. Are you keeping up so far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you create wealth?  Is that hard?  Why do you limit your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?  Why do you think people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creating wealth is making something of value for customers who therefore are willing to exchange our tokens of worth, money, for it.
> 
> Henry Ford, for instance, had one notion that created huge value. Paying the builders of automobiles enough so that they could afford automobiles. I have no idea how many hours it took him to think of that idea.
> 
> Some people get wealthy through the lottery which creates zero wealth. Or the stock market. Or, like Bernie Madoff, just by stealing it.
> 
> I created wealth through product and process innovations.
> 
> Some people create wealth by welding, or assembling, or farming.
> 
> Our wealth is the sum total of what we create, goods and services. In the perfect world we all would keep the wealth that we create. But in the perfect world, many would earn nothing, because they have no wealth producing skills. Society's best option in those cases is to educate everyone to have wealth creation skills, because the wealth that we have to divy up among everyone is all of the wealth that we, all together, create.
> 
> Pretty basic stuff here.
Click to expand...


Ok that's one question answered.  Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.

Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


----------



## ilia25

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sounds like we agree. Just lower income tax to a flat 10% and put the gov't on a SERIOUS diet! Then we will have it licked, right??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean put the government on a serious diet like Europe did so that we could share their success in recovery from the Great Recession? Fortunately most of us aren't that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Europe's "serious diet" was the equivalent of putting less butter on their potato chips.  That socialist countries didn't rebound is an argument for nothing.
Click to expand...


"Socialist" countries are fine -- Northern Europe are more socialist than the South. Here, taxes as percent of GDP:
Sweden 45.8
Germany 40.6
----
Greece 30.0
Ireland 30.8

Yet Sweden and Germany are doing very well, and Greece and Ireland are in deep depression because of huge cuts in public spending.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ, the master of the non sequitur.



There are, as I've frequently pointed out, many examples of media conservatism Newspeak, where common English words have been appropriated to the task of mis-communicating rather than communicating. 

One is "non-sequitor" which they claim as meaning at odds with conservative media dogma. 

Of course, in all cults, there is nothing more forbidden than being at odds with dogma.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some here--I won't mention names like PMZ (cough)--seem to have a really tough time differentiating between socialism and social contract.
> 
> He probably doesn't vote so he doesn't see all the permissions and bond issues, yadda yadda, that appear on our ballots when we go vote.  These give us opportunity to say yes or no whether we want our local or state tax dollars going for road and street repairs or a new bridge or better street lights or a beautification project or a new wing for the library or whatever.  The federal government, however, does not ask our permission directly but asks permission of our elected representatives.  Or that's the way it used to work.
> 
> Infrastructure is NOT socialism.  It is the people choosing to share and fund a sewer system or a power source or the streets and roads that allow us to get around instead of us each having to provide our own services.  It is choosing to share in the cost of professional law enforcement and fire fighters and street maintenance so that we don't have to each one provide that for ourselves.  Responsible infrastructure FOLLOWS economic development as the people need it to expand and grow.
> 
> A Homeowner's Association is NOT socialism.  It is a group of people who contract with each other to share costs for certain services, protections, and security of property values that would be far more expensive for the individual homeowners to provide for themselves.
> 
> A school district is NOT socialism when it is parents, teachers, and administrators agreeing to what sort of education they want their children to have and agreeing to share in its costs rather than each parent homeschooling their kids.
> 
> Socialism is the government controlling the means of production, infrastructure, and social services.  It assigns a fair share for each person to pay to support that.
> 
> Marxism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, and redistributing them as the government thinks they should be distributed.   Private ownership is not allowed, everything is owned by everybody, and everybody should receive according to their needs.
> 
> Totalitarianism is the government confiscating property and resources from the people, assigning the people what privileges they will be allowed, and doing whatever it damn well wants to do which will almost always be to mostly benefit those in government.  A fair share is whatever the government wants it to be, and that can be everything we have or control.
> 
> The Founders saw the role of the government as securing our unlienable rights and then leaving us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have and prosper as we were able.  A fair share was small and equally expected of each citizen regardless of who they were or how much they owned.
> 
> So which form of government do you think the USA currently has?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from a free democratic republic with a capitalist economy (Americanism?) toward socialism with shades of totalitarianism thrown in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already proven that you have no idea of the meaning of the words that you were told to use.
> 
> We have democracy. Government of, for, and by, we the people. Of, for, and by.
> 
> You advocate that we replace that with plutocracy. Government of, for, and by "special" people. Special by wealth, or cult, or position. In order to make those people more free.
> 
> I believe that we should all be free.
Click to expand...


Why are you lying about the views of others?  Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out?  Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.  

I also believe that we should all be free.  I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though.  You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you?  Is that your belief?  Do you really believe that the only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free?  Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe



What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you say that you are a job creator. Who creates the wealth that is sold to your customers? Who sells it to your customers? Who delivers it to your customers? Your customers create jobs because the employees who use your means satisfy their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed this.  If anyone on my staff leaves, I can get a raft of resumes to replace them.  The hardest to replace are my managers and senior staff by the way, the ones closes to being me.  The rest are just an inconvenience to hire and train a replacement.  If I leave, the jobs go away.  People who do what I do, particularly with our belligerent government trying to trip us every step of the way, are few and far between.
> 
> So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government.  Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people.  If we go broke lose my pile.
> 
> But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.
> 
> And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter.  Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't slavery grand? No wonder business is holding back America's economic recovery. The poorer the economy, the cheaper slaves are. And with modern slavery, you don't have to even pay the people creating your wealth enough for food.
Click to expand...


What do slaves have to do with the discussion?


----------



## ilia25

kaz said:


> So, I risk my pile, set up a company, deal with personnel issues, finance, the government.  Create processes, hire the right people, fire the wrong people.  If we go broke lose my pile.
> 
> But the actual work is done by endlessly replaceable people.
> 
> And you're arguing the credit goes to the latter.  Got it.



The credit goes to all of you. You would not be able to earn your income w/o your employees, and vice versa. You are not doing what you do out of charity, and it does not entitle you to higher income or any other exceptional reward.

There is no moral argument for taxing the rich less. There is one for taxing them more.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you create wealth?  Is that hard?  Why do you limit your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?  Why do you think people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creating wealth is making something of value for customers who therefore are willing to exchange our tokens of worth, money, for it.
> 
> Henry Ford, for instance, had one notion that created huge value. Paying the builders of automobiles enough so that they could afford automobiles. I have no idea how many hours it took him to think of that idea.
> 
> Some people get wealthy through the lottery which creates zero wealth. Or the stock market. Or, like Bernie Madoff, just by stealing it.
> 
> I created wealth through product and process innovations.
> 
> Some people create wealth by welding, or assembling, or farming.
> 
> Our wealth is the sum total of what we create, goods and services. In the perfect world we all would keep the wealth that we create. But in the perfect world, many would earn nothing, because they have no wealth producing skills. Society's best option in those cases is to educate everyone to have wealth creation skills, because the wealth that we have to divy up among everyone is all of the wealth that we, all together, create.
> 
> Pretty basic stuff here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok that's one question answered.  Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.
> 
> Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
Click to expand...


They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers. 

I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium. 

I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well. 

Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn. 

I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.

I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving from a free democratic republic with a capitalist economy (Americanism?) toward socialism with shades of totalitarianism thrown in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already proven that you have no idea of the meaning of the words that you were told to use.
> 
> We have democracy. Government of, for, and by, we the people. Of, for, and by.
> 
> You advocate that we replace that with plutocracy. Government of, for, and by "special" people. Special by wealth, or cult, or position. In order to make those people more free.
> 
> I believe that we should all be free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you lying about the views of others?  Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out?  Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.
> 
> I also believe that we should all be free.  I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though.  You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you?  Is that your belief?  Do you really believe that he only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free?  Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.
Click to expand...


So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders debated whether power should be centralized or dispersed among the states as in Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.
Click to expand...


Do you know what the word "Federalist" means?  Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."


----------



## Foxfyre

I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end.  I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.

But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars.  And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.

We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves.  And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.

Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creating wealth is making something of value for customers who therefore are willing to exchange our tokens of worth, money, for it.
> 
> Henry Ford, for instance, had one notion that created huge value. Paying the builders of automobiles enough so that they could afford automobiles. I have no idea how many hours it took him to think of that idea.
> 
> Some people get wealthy through the lottery which creates zero wealth. Or the stock market. Or, like Bernie Madoff, just by stealing it.
> 
> I created wealth through product and process innovations.
> 
> Some people create wealth by welding, or assembling, or farming.
> 
> Our wealth is the sum total of what we create, goods and services. In the perfect world we all would keep the wealth that we create. But in the perfect world, many would earn nothing, because they have no wealth producing skills. Society's best option in those cases is to educate everyone to have wealth creation skills, because the wealth that we have to divy up among everyone is all of the wealth that we, all together, create.
> 
> Pretty basic stuff here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok that's one question answered.  Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.
> 
> Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.
> 
> I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.
> 
> I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.
> 
> Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.
> 
> I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.
Click to expand...

Pretty basic, yes.  Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions.  Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.

So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have.  However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.

To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "Federalist" means?  Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."
Click to expand...


Is this another Newspeak thing that you'd like to appropriate to conservative dogma?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they meant by "centralized" was a different universe from what you do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "Federalist" means?  Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end.  I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.
> 
> But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars.  And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.
> 
> We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves.  And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.



So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already proven that you have no idea of the meaning of the words that you were told to use.
> 
> We have democracy. Government of, for, and by, we the people. Of, for, and by.
> 
> You advocate that we replace that with plutocracy. Government of, for, and by "special" people. Special by wealth, or cult, or position. In order to make those people more free.
> 
> I believe that we should all be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you lying about the views of others?  Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out?  Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.
> 
> I also believe that we should all be free.  I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though.  You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you?  Is that your belief?  Do you really believe that he only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free?  Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do not think the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor.  Money does not make one free, in some respects money, and more particularly assets, make one less free due to the responsibilities and burden of ownership.  Freedom to me is, in part, the ability to do what I want when I want to do it, so long as I do not harm others, and without being burdened by an oppressive government, rules and regulations.   

Yes, I started out broke earning minimum wage bagging groceries and cutting lawns.  Now, I have hundreds of inventions, have run my own company, and worked for a few companies as an Engineer.  I still work but I do so for much less money than I did during the dot com boom years.  For me the act of deciding to earn less money, meant freeing myself up to do more things, such as spending more time at home with my family.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "Federalist" means?  Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this another Newspeak thing that you'd like to appropriate to conservative dogma?
Click to expand...


Actually it's pretty funny that you chose the word "Federalist" to mean "centralized power" when it's actually not that at all.  In fact I am a Federalist.  Power divided is power checked.  You're a socialist.  We're all equal, some people are just more equal than others...


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard the terms "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist"? That, I assume, is what the meant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "Federalist" means?  Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end.  I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.
> 
> But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars.  And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.
> 
> We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves.  And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?
Click to expand...


You made the assumption with your first sentence how?  You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how?   You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how?  And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok that's one question answered.  Now that we understand the terms you are using... Let's continue on to your political philosophy.
> 
> Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.
> 
> I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.
> 
> I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.
> 
> Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.
> 
> I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty basic, yes.  Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions.  Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.
> 
> So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have.  However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.
> 
> To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.
Click to expand...


Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be. 

You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.



But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).

Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.


----------



## kaz

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
Click to expand...


We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.  What you want to do is make it worse.  Money does not come out of nowhere.  Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul.  Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for.  Neither is incented to work.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are pretty basic questions. That's why I'm surprised that you don't know the answers.
> 
> I got educated to do what I'm best at. My specialty. I always enjoyed doing what I'm best at, and that specialty allowed my family to live the kind of lives that we wanted to live. Of course, over the years I had to pay others to do their specialty for me, but, that's life in the third melenium.
> 
> I don't know anybody who worked harder than I, and enjoyed the life I led, but always had my heroes who did my specialty exceptionally well.
> 
> Capitalism and socialism define who owns the means. Some or all of us. Who is the landlord. Business goes well beyond that meager description. It is how people create wealth and harvest the benefit of whatever wealth production skills and abilities they have been given or can learn.
> 
> I respect all who invest their time in wealth production for it is through work that mankind advances. Today I just see too many people reaping huge rewards for marginal contribution. Too many people who fall for the pure BS that huge rewards means huge contributions.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by penalizing. I don't consider paying my phone bill a penalty. Nor my taxes. They are merely the cost to me of other specialties that support the life that I want to live.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty basic, yes.  Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions.  Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.
> 
> So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have.  However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.
> 
> To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.
> 
> You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.
Click to expand...


>>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be. 

How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.

You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country.  Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine.  You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?

I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word "Federalist" means?  Hint, it does not mean "centralized power."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been poor enough when we subsisted on oatmeal and $1 for 3 lbs pinto beans for days on end.  I have been poor enough we didn't know where our next meal was coming from or how we were going to make the car payment or pay the rent or keep the lights on.
> 
> But I had every bit as much choice in how to use my own ability and resources as the rich people who were all over town living in their beautifully landscaped brick homes and driving their expensive new model cars.  And because those rich people chose to give us opportunity to earn wages and we had complete freedom in how to use them, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and eventually could drive our own new car, lived in our own home that we owned, and ran our own business.
> 
> We could have easily have wrung our hands that we were at the bottom when others were at the top and felt sorry for ourselves.  And we could have just sat down and whined that others had more than we did and we deserved more than we had.
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made the assumption with your first sentence how?  You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how?   You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how?  And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?
Click to expand...


I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here. 

If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
Click to expand...


The question is not whether or not improvements can be made.  The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty basic, yes.  Yet, you have not been able to even come close to answering these very basic questions.  Instead of answering the questions, you bob and weave and start talking about being some sort of justice over all that is fair and just.
> 
> So in your non-answers you indicate that you are ok with rich people keeping their money if you personally make the decision that they have earned it as much as you have.  However, if you make the personal decision that they did not earn it as much as you have then you will (use weapons?) to take their money and redistribute it to people who are more worthy of these assets that the unjust rich have stolen from the people. For example, by redistributing the money to such as yourself or others that you will personally select.
> 
> To the issue of reaping... the government is supposed to be breaking up monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.
> 
> You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.
> 
> How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.
> 
> You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country.  Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine.  You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?
> 
> I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.
Click to expand...


Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again. 

If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?

Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the assumption with your first sentence how?  You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how?   You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how?  And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.
> 
> If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?
Click to expand...

Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business.  The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs.  The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business.  How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is not whether or not improvements can be made.  The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.
Click to expand...


Exactly what President Obama has said and done for 5 years while Republicans shut down Congress to prevent progress.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the assumption with your first sentence how?  You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how?   You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how?  And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.
> 
> If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business.  The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs.  The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business.  How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?
Click to expand...


Business used to be smart enough to invest in productivity which allowed skilled workers to out produce cheap workers. Then people like you said let's give that money to CEOs instead as they are all a company needs to be successful. 

What were you thinking????


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Exactly what President Obama has said and done for 5 years while Republicans shut down Congress to prevent progress.



Mark Twain:  The opposite of progress is Congress

I almost spit all over my computer screen when you bewailed that shutting down Congress was "preventing" progress.  I can think of no better way to enable it.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you didn't see any difference between poverty and wealth? Interesting. I've tried both and much prefer more to less. Like you, I had a choice. I did what I had to to get from one to the other. I believe in the American Dream and assume others do as well. In fact, I can't imagine who would simply choose poverty given a choice. But, if that satisfies them, I guess that it's no skin off my nose. But for people who have no choice, if I can help them by giving them more choice, why wouldn't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made the assumption with your first sentence how?  You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how?   You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how?  And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.
> 
> If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?
Click to expand...


When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to.  In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary.  If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better.  I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.

Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector.  Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.

Business has not let the country down.  Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work.  That is a failing of government policy, not business.

And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads.   Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?

And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.  What you want to do is make it worse.  Money does not come out of nowhere.  Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul.  Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for.  Neither is incented to work.
Click to expand...


I remember when business was smart enough to grow and satisfy we, the people. Now we are paying CEO's 10-100X for shrinking. And they want to trash the country because disposing of waste responsibly is too hard. 

Let's find and bring back the capable ones and send the bean counters to China.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you're just making up stuff. I told you why I'm free and respect the country that gave me the opportunity to be who I am. You can live any life you are capable of achieving. Just do it and stop whining. You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.
> 
> You live in a free market country. Find a better deal if you don't like ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.
> 
> How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.
> 
> You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country.  Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine.  You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?
> 
> I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.
> 
> If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?
> 
> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
Click to expand...

Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.

1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income? 

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you? 

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?


>>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about? 
You straw-man is wrong.  I like my country.  What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.

>>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. 
When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?

>>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?

I don't that's the point.  Socialism, has never and will never work.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the assumption with your first sentence how?  You made the assumption that I haven't experienced both, how?   You drew the assumption that I chose poverty how?  And who among us, other than the severely mentally or physically challenged, has no choice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.
> 
> If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to.  In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary.  If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better.  I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.
> 
> Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector.  Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.
> 
> Business has not let the country down.  Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work.  That is a failing of government policy, not business.
> 
> And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads.   Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?
> 
> And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.
Click to expand...


I am absolutely the master of non-sequitur using your definition. Conservative dogma has brought both business and government down, so adhering to it is pathetically ignorant. 

You are an aristocracy syncophant. Your choice. The longer that you preach that business can do no harm and government no good, your place in our politics is cemented in place. Irrelevant. It's just too bad that the country gave you the chance that we did. It's going to take several generations to repair the damage.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> You're nowhere near as special as you'd like to be.
> 
> How would you know whether I'm happy with my place in life or not? You know nothing of me.
> 
> You did not answer the questions. I did not ask you why you are free or if you respect the country.  Those were your statements answering your own questions not mine.  You appear to be talking to yourself. Can you answer the questions I asked or not?
> 
> I intend to do whatever it takes to stop folks, like you, from fundamentally changing my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.
> 
> If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?
> 
> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.
> 
> 1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
> 
> 
> >>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
> You straw-man is wrong.  I like my country.  What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.
> 
> >>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
> When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?
> 
> >>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> I don't that's the point.  Socialism, has never and will never work.
Click to expand...


"1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work. 

2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."

3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?  "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?

5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them? Got to go. Will be back.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.
> 
> If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business.  The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs.  The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business.  How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business used to be smart enough to invest in productivity which allowed skilled workers to out produce cheap workers. Then people like you said let's give that money to CEOs instead as they are all a company needs to be successful.
> 
> What were you thinking????
Click to expand...

Huh?  On what planet do you live? 

Can you name one Business that does not invest in productivity?  Can you name one person or company on the planet that would pick cheap unskilled labor over skilled labor?  What you are not understanding, likely, is that Americans do not have a patent on skill, nor do they have a patent on intelligence, nor do they have a patent on effort, nor do they have a patent on capitalism.  If you want to talk about CEO pay your gonna have to talk to the owners of the company.  I would agree that most CEOs get paid way too much money, and I certainly would not pay my CEO more than I think he's worth.  That said I don't want the government setting salary caps.  I do think the government is supposed to break up monopolies. If the CEOs have a monopoly on money based on some monopolizing of labor.. yeah break up the monopoly.  For example, the owners should be allowed to have a say in what the pay is for their CEOs, such as by a shareholder vote.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.
> 
> If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?
> 
> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.
> 
> 1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
> 
> 
> >>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
> You straw-man is wrong.  I like my country.  What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.
> 
> >>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
> When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?
> 
> >>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> I don't that's the point.  Socialism, has never and will never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?  "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them? Got to go. Will be back.
Click to expand...


You call those answers?  

1) You insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income, because work creates wealth?  What the hell does that mean?    That's not even close to an answer.  Are you trying to say you limit your income because you are lazy?   

>>> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. 

Ok then this is something we can work from.  Why do you want a progressive tax, and / or why do you feel income for CEOs is undeserved but your income is more deserved and/or more important than the rich guy's money so you should be rewarded with a lower tax rate.  Or are you changing your mind and now agree we should move to a flat rate or zero income tax?

>>> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?  "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.

Not true, I'm using YOUR definition of wealth, wealth being that which is created through labor.  Can you answer this basic question, yes or no?

FYI if you want to debate, it'll be easier to make progress if you at least attempt to not make up lies about the people you are talking to.   If progress is not your intention, well then I'll just assume you are just Trolling and move on.


----------



## ilia25

kaz said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
Click to expand...


You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question is not whether or not improvements can be made.  The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.
Click to expand...


And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.

Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
Click to expand...


You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates.  What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you ever check the news or not, but business has let the country down by their inability to grow. So, one of the consequences of the Bush regime is stubborn unemployment keeping many willing workers on the sidelines. You say that they willing choose poverty over employment. I doubt that. That there are many unfulfilled jobs out there. Kaz tells us that he can replace all of his workers anytime that he wants, so there is a disconnect here.
> 
> If you and I chose to leave poverty when we had the opportunity, where did these people come from who choose otherwise and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to.  In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary.  If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better.  I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.
> 
> Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector.  Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.
> 
> Business has not let the country down.  Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work.  That is a failing of government policy, not business.
> 
> And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads.   Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?
> 
> And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am absolutely the master of non-sequitur using your definition. Conservative dogma has brought both business and government down, so adhering to it is pathetically ignorant.
> 
> You are an aristocracy syncophant. Your choice. The longer that you preach that business can do no harm and government no good, your place in our politics is cemented in place. Irrelevant. It's just too bad that the country gave you the chance that we did. It's going to take several generations to repair the damage.
Click to expand...


I now pronounce PMZ hopeless.  He/she/it has absolutely no ability and/or motivation to read what is there, and it is simply too tedious to keep correcting him/her/it on stating that something is there that is not there.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question is not whether or not improvements can be made.  The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.
> 
> Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.
Click to expand...


>>> we cannot improve the market economy. 
ROFL the sky is falling it won't work!! aahhaa  lol

>>> Yes, we should provide training and education.
ROFL ... nothing "provided" will be appreciated.  You want training and education? Earn it.  All you are doing by "providing" stuff is creating a moocher class of folks who believe they are "entitled" to sit on the butt and collect $. 

>>> the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents

So the market should not have bought any apple computers?  So the market should not have bought tabasco sauce?  What makes you think the market only sends money to the top few %?  The market buys what the market wants to buy.  The government stopped doing it's job to break up the monopolies.  Instead the government decided to become the king maker and punish success that it disagrees with.  Our government probably needs to be toppled that does not mean there is a problem with free markets and capitalism with a government making sure the strong do not choke out competition. 

A progressive tax on personal income will not increase revenues or change the ratio of rich to poor.  All it will do is bring about sheltering of assets and personal income avoidance.  Instead of getting a million dollar salary they will get a company car and/or a company provided house. Stop that and they'll just find somewhere else to live.

The rich don't need personal income.  You could charge a 90% personal income tax rate over a million dollars and get zero revenue.


----------



## RKMBrown

The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed.  Perhaps the problem is the feds have exceeded their mandate, are spending too much, and refuse to live under the same laws that you and I are forced to live under?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Looks like PMZ scurried off. Too bad, I was looking for a fight.


----------



## RKMBrown

I know right?  May you live in interesting times..  Political discussions would be boring if the lemmings all hit the bottom of the cliff at the same time.


----------



## Redfish

ilia25 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
Click to expand...


the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.    Debt must be serviced by raising taxes,  then more debt is created to replace the spending power lost through taxation,  then more taxes are needed.   It never ends,  thats why we are 17 trillion in debt and growing every day.    

its called economic stupidity.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed.  Perhaps the problem is the feds have exceeded their mandate, are spending too much, and refuse to live under the same laws that you and I are forced to live under?



No kidding.  In today's WAPO:




> When President Obama makes his first extended trip to sub-
> Saharan Africa this month, the federal agencies charged with keeping him safe wont be taking any chances.
> 
> Hundreds of U.S. Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.
> 
> Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet*proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the presidents airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.
> 
> The elaborate security provisions  which will cost the government tens of millions of dollars  are outlined in a confidential internal planning document obtained by The Washington Post. While the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past, the document offers an unusual glimpse into the colossal efforts to protect the U.S. commander in chief on trips abroad.
> Document: Major resources needed for Obama Africa trip - The Washington Post



Now before the Obama apologists start caterwauling about "Bush did that too" or whatever, I am just asking.  How many Americans' combined taxes paid over a lifetime will be consumed by this one trip?   And in these tough economic times when the government is already running trillion dollar deficits, this will all be borrowed money that future generations will have to repay.  And it will likely happen again and again and again.

Is this a judicious and necessary expenditure from the national treasury?

And this is a drop in the bucket from so many other things the government spends our money on.   The pro big government people don't care.

Does anybody any more?


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy
Click to expand...


If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.

Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?



> to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates



The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.


----------



## ilia25

Redfish said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.
Click to expand...


I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.

It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.
> 
> Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.
Click to expand...


And who would that be?  What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots? Why do you think you can't get a loan or join a group that get's a loan and uses robots to compete? 

If you've never tried to start a business, yeah ok I can understand then how you don't think our regulatory system has gone overboard.  Fines for not buying health insurance for your employ?  Fines for generating too much CO2?  .001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.
> 
> It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.
Click to expand...


And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?  How about if we stop paying people to not work?  Wouldn't that be a good way to increase income for the poor?


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is not whether or not improvements can be made.  The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.
> 
> Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> we cannot improve the market economy.
> ROFL the sky is falling it won't work!! aahhaa  lol
> 
> >>> Yes, we should provide training and education.
> ROFL ... nothing "provided" will be appreciated.  You want training and education? Earn it.  All you are doing by "providing" stuff is creating a moocher class of folks who believe they are "entitled" to sit on the butt and collect $.
> 
> >>> the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents
> 
> So the market should not have bought any apple computers?
Click to expand...


We should let the market do the good things it does. And then correct the bad outcomes it creates.



> What makes you think the market only sends money to the top few %?



I never said that it does. It's you reading comprehension issues.



> The government stopped doing it's job to break up the monopolies.



What monopolies you are keep talking about?



> Instead the government decided to become the king maker and punish success that it disagrees with



Nobody wants to punish anyone. It's about the fairness, not the punishment.



> that does not mean there is a problem with free markets and capitalism with a government making sure the strong do not choke out competition.



Even with the government breaking monopolies and ensuring competition the income inequality won't go away.



> A progressive tax on personal income will not increase revenues or change the ratio of rich to poor.



Yes it will. It's an income redistribution, it will make the poor richer and the rich poorer.



> All it will do is bring about sheltering of assets and personal income avoidance.



I think you underestimate the power of IRS. That could be a very costly mistake.



> Instead of getting a million dollar salary they will get a company car and/or a company provided house. Stop that and they'll just find somewhere else to live.



An inhabited island? Yes, that would be a place to make millions. It is so amusing you people on the right actually believe that "you built this"...



> You could charge a 90% personal income tax rate over a million dollars and get zero revenue.



We'll see about that...


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.
> 
> It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
Click to expand...


Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.



> How about if we stop paying people to not work?



We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.
> 
> Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who would that be?  What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots?
Click to expand...


I was talking about taxing the investment income too.



> Why do you think you can't get a loan or join a group that get's a loan and uses robots to compete?



I can do that. But each and everyone can't.



> If you've never tried to start a business, yeah ok I can understand then how you don't think our regulatory system has gone overboard.  Fines for not buying health insurance for your employ?  Fines for generating too much CO2?



Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.



> .001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?



You've got a better estimation?


----------



## RKMBrown

Responses To: ilia25
>>> I never said that it does. It's you reading comprehension issues.

Don't be obtuse you said "the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents." I ask then what makes you think the market sends most of newly created wealth to the top few percents?

>>> What monopolies you are keep talking about?
Government monopoly on SS and Medicare, to name the two biggest ones.  CEO hegemony over Executive pay in spite of objections of the owners (stockholders), Oil and Gas oligarchies, and DOD contracting shops to name a few that are popular to be broken up from the left. 

>>> Nobody wants to punish anyone. It's about the fairness, not the punishment.
Taxation on income is punishment. You can call it fair but beating me into submission by taking my salary out of my kids mouths is not about fairness, it's about aggression by the mob. 

>> Even with the government breaking monopolies and ensuring competition the income inequality won't go away.

So?  Why should we live in a world where everyone makes the same money no matter what?


>> Income redistribution, it will make the poor richer and the rich poorer.

Yeah ok.. well at least you admit what you are.

>> I think you underestimate the power of IRS. That could be a very costly mistake.

I think you overestimate your paid henchmen.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.
> 
> It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we stop paying people to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
Click to expand...


Really?  You pull out the grandma, disabled vets, and hard working poor card as an excuse for people who don't work at all? What's next starving children? 

There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you. Why do I owe you a job?  I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?  

No jobs? Bull.  I've never been out of work for more than 5min.  I'm fifty.  My kids have never been out of work.  The only people I've ever known who are out of work are the people we are paying to sit on their butt.


----------



## g5000

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



How much is "fair share"...

How much you got?

There's your answer.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he is, regulations are just another myth, not unlike the myth about waste spending. Everyone talks about it as a fact, but if you ask for a specific example, thy come up with some dubious allegations about 0.001% of govt. budget.
> 
> Regulations are at best, an unproductive allocation of resources -- but how much resources are being misallocated this way? 0.001% of GDP?
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for income inequality is not some evil monopolies. It's the nature of technological progress. Robots take over people, and the income goes to those owning the robots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who would that be?  What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about taxing the investment income too.
> 
> 
> 
> I can do that. But each and everyone can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you've never tried to start a business, yeah ok I can understand then how you don't think our regulatory system has gone overboard.  Fines for not buying health insurance for your employ?  Fines for generating too much CO2?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got a better estimation?
Click to expand...

We already tax investment income.  Are you really asking investors stop investing?  Why would I invest money if you are gonna take the returns?  What is the incentive to investing if there can be no profits?

Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys? What incentive would there be for me to even sell hamburgers... nah I'd just close up shop, no point in the business if there is no profit. What part of the purpose of businesses is to make profit is confusing you?

Hard to say what the regulatory requirements does to brake the GDP.  Put it this way, we can't even build a new nuclear power plant or refinery in this country.  Our  growth rate is at zero.  When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..


----------



## TemplarKormac

g5000 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much is "fair share"...
> 
> How much you got?
> 
> There's your answer.
Click to expand...


Pretty much the liberal philosophy on prosperity. Thanks for the revelation, g5.


----------



## RKMBrown

Tag, your turn Templar I'm gonna go watch Superman solve all our problems.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who would that be?  What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about taxing the investment income too.
> 
> 
> 
> I can do that. But each and everyone can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got a better estimation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already tax investment income.  Are you really asking investors stop investing?  Why would I invest money if you are gonna take the returns?  What is the incentive to investing if there can be no profits?
Click to expand...


Why you people insist that black and white are the only two colors in the Universe? Nobody is proposing a 100% tax. Investors would invest because after paying off the taxes they would still have enough to buy their yachts.



> Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys?



Because they work as hard as you do.



> What incentive would there be for me to even sell hamburgers... nah I'd just close up shop, no point in the business if there is no profit. What part of the purpose of businesses is to make profit is confusing you?



You either playing an idiot, or you really have no grasp on how the economy works. Health insurance is just another business expense. It will make your business unprofitable only if your competitors don't have to play by the same rules. Otherwise everyone would have to pass the cost on the consumers, and it will be OK, because people always need to eat.



> Hard to say what the regulatory requirements does to brake the GDP.  Put it this way, we can't even build a new nuclear power plant or refinery in this country.



We ARE building new nuclear power plants. 



> Our  growth rate is at zero.



It is not zero. It is slower than it could be if the Republicans would not block any attempt at stimulating the economic recovery. But it is enough for the economy to recover slowly on its own.



> When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..



Why would it be higher? You keep making completely baseless assumptions about business not willing to invest because of regulations. The investment is low because the consumers are still hold off their spending, years after 2008 shock. But that's a temporary condition.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we stop paying people to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You pull out the grandma, disabled vets, and hard working poor card as an excuse for people who don't work at all? What's next starving children?
Click to expand...


Who are those able people who do not work at all? They only exists in your imagination!



> There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you.



There is -- otherwise why have it in the first place?



> Why do I owe you a job?



You owe it to yourself. If you don't give a job to your employees, you won't have income and will be living on welfare.




> I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?



I have not switched, and we need both -- safety net and income redistribution.



> No jobs? Bull.  I've never been out of work for more than 5min



I said "not enough decent paying jobs". Can't you read?


----------



## Foxfyre

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.
> 
> It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we stop paying people to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
Click to expand...


We pay a LOT of people not to work.  And we already have progressive taxes, strong safety nets, and supplemental income for the working poor.  In fact about 50% of all Americans now receive some kind of government subsidy/benefit.  More than has ever been the case in American history.

And yet, according to you and others, the income inequality is worse than ever.

Is it just possible that all that government 'contribution' is a significant reason for the income inequality?  If not, why haven' we seen it start to decrease?


----------



## TemplarKormac

RKMBrown said:


> Tag, your turn Templar I'm gonna go watch Superman solve all our problems.



I want to see that movie so bad, I'm jealous.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> Responses To: ilia25
> >>> I never said that it does. It's you reading comprehension issues.
> 
> Don't be obtuse you said "the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents." I ask then what makes you think the market sends most of newly created wealth to the top few percents?



No -- you said "What makes you think the market *only* sends money to the top few %?". And I never said that.

But the market does send most of newly created wealth to the top few %:






The green line is productivity gains. Meaning we are creating more wealth per worker, but most of it goes to the to 1%, while the average income is stagnating.



> >>> What monopolies you are keep talking about?
> Government monopoly on SS and Medicare, to name the two biggest ones.



SS and Medicare keeps the wages low? How?!.

You either kidding, or crazy.



> CEO hegemony over Executive pay in spite of objections of the owners (stockholders)



First, it's not a monopoly. Second, if owners would not want to pay their CEO, they would not. But they do, because it pays to have the best people running your company. Even if it is only chance to actually get the best.



> Oil and Gas oligarchies, and DOD contracting shops to name a few that are popular to be broken up from the left



You throwing everything hoping it will stick, but the fact is that we do not have monopolies, and we have plenty of competition in every single sector -- from oil to high tech. It's not the porblem.



> >>> Nobody wants to punish anyone. It's about the fairness, not the punishment.
> Taxation on income is punishment.



No, it's fairness.



> You can call it fair but beating me into submission by taking my salary out of my kids mouths is not about fairness, it's about aggression by the mob.



That "mob" is the reason you have your salary. Or you still think you could have build your business alone on an inhabited island?



> >> Even with the government breaking monopolies and ensuring competition the income inequality won't go away.
> 
> So?  Why should we live in a world where everyone makes the same money no matter what?



Because that would be fair. Because all human beings are equal and should be treated as such. Unfortunately we cannot eliminate inequality completely, because it would also remove any incentive to be good and productive member of society. But having inequality beyond that goal is harmful.



> >> Income redistribution, it will make the poor richer and the rich poorer.
> 
> Yeah ok.. well at least you admit what you are.



And where did I try to make an impression otherwise?



> >> I think you underestimate the power of IRS. That could be a very costly mistake.
> 
> I think you overestimate your paid henchmen.



What are you talking about?


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we stop paying people to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We pay a LOT of people not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, those are disabled and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we already have progressive taxes, strong safety nets, and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but we should have more of that. Again, the goal is not to eliminate inequality, but to have it as little as possible w/o hurting the whole economy. And we can still go a long way in that direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact about 50% of all Americans now receive some kind of government subsidy/benefit.  More than has ever been the case in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe that is a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, according to you and others, the income inequality is worse than ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The income inequality is not affected by the government. That's how the market balances the labor market given the level of technological development. 50 year old technology made market creating a lot of good paying blue-collar jobs. Today's technology replaced them with robots, thus market creates low paying service jobs instead.
> 
> So the income inequality rises, yest we respond with less progressive taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just possible that all that government 'contribution' is a significant reason for the income inequality?  If not, why haven' we seen it start to decrease?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can explain how is that possible, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Ilia, I'm not going to respond to a chopped up post like that.  It destroys the context and becomes just one liner talking points by rote and pretty well misses the point being made.  I'll give you props for sticking like a terrier to one of the most exreme leftwing propaganda point of view  I've seen in awhile.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you lying about the views of others?  Is that some silly debate tactic you are trying out?  Nothing you have said about me has been even close to the truth yet.
> 
> I also believe that we should all be free.  I don't think you and I use the same definition of free though.  You appear to believe that people with more wealth have more freedom than people with less wealth, is that correct? Is that your belief? You also appear to believe that people with more money are "special" people of some cult that hold position and title over you?  Is that your belief?  Do you really believe that he only way we can have freedom is by making slaves of the rich? By taking their money from them and redistributing it to the poor we make everyone free?  Dude, if that's what you think, that's just nutz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do not think the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor.  Money does not make one free, in some respects money, and more particularly assets, make one less free due to the responsibilities and burden of ownership.  Freedom to me is, in part, the ability to do what I want when I want to do it, so long as I do not harm others, and without being burdened by an oppressive government, rules and regulations.
> 
> Yes, I started out broke earning minimum wage bagging groceries and cutting lawns.  Now, I have hundreds of inventions, have run my own company, and worked for a few companies as an Engineer.  I still work but I do so for much less money than I did during the dot com boom years.  For me the act of deciding to earn less money, meant freeing myself up to do more things, such as spending more time at home with my family.
Click to expand...


Why did you work to become wealthy if you'd rather be poor?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, that was in the era when there weren't any entitlements or government safety nets for us.  And it never occurred that our prosperity was anybody's responsibility other than ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.  What you want to do is make it worse.  Money does not come out of nowhere.  Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul.  Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for.  Neither is incented to work.
Click to expand...


Give me one example of government in the way and preventing people from making something of themselves.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your style seems to be to ask a question, then if you don't like the answer, claim it unanswered, I suppose because you think that only the answer that you prefer is the truth. That's that entitlement thing again.
> 
> If you don't like your country, what do you care about? Just getting your way?
> 
> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely. Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.
> 
> 1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
> 
> 
> >>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
> You straw-man is wrong.  I like my country.  What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.
> 
> >>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
> When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?
> 
> >>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> I don't that's the point.  Socialism, has never and will never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?  "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
Click to expand...


 I don't consider paying ones bills as being penalized.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Businesses are growing, but many of these businesses have decided to do their growth in other countries where the business climate is more amenable to their business.  The dirt bag in charge decided to pick and choose which Businesses that would be favored Businesses, by writing huge checks to his personal favs.  The dirt bag in charge prefers union business, government business, and green business.  How are the dirt bag's picks going so far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business used to be smart enough to invest in productivity which allowed skilled workers to out produce cheap workers. Then people like you said let's give that money to CEOs instead as they are all a company needs to be successful.
> 
> What were you thinking????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh?  On what planet do you live?
> 
> Can you name one Business that does not invest in productivity?  Can you name one person or company on the planet that would pick cheap unskilled labor over skilled labor?  What you are not understanding, likely, is that Americans do not have a patent on skill, nor do they have a patent on intelligence, nor do they have a patent on effort, nor do they have a patent on capitalism.  If you want to talk about CEO pay your gonna have to talk to the owners of the company.  I would agree that most CEOs get paid way too much money, and I certainly would not pay my CEO more than I think he's worth.  That said I don't want the government setting salary caps.  I do think the government is supposed to break up monopolies. If the CEOs have a monopoly on money based on some monopolizing of labor.. yeah break up the monopoly.  For example, the owners should be allowed to have a say in what the pay is for their CEOs, such as by a shareholder vote.
Click to expand...


The workers have as big a stake in the quality of the CEO as anybody. He/she should serve at their pleasure.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong... I'll ask them again and number them this time to make it easier for you to follow.
> 
> 1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income?
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them?
> 
> 
> >>> If you don't like your country, what do you care about?
> You straw-man is wrong.  I like my country.  What I care about is stopping folks like you from turning the best country on the planet into some sort of quasi socialist regime run by an emperor and his czars.
> 
> >>> Conservatism had a more than adequate chance to perform and failed completely.
> When was that? When the democrats were running congress or when the neo-con socialist war hawk Bush was elected president?
> 
> >>> Why would you think that doing the same thing over and over would lead to different results?
> 
> I don't that's the point.  Socialism, has never and will never work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "1) Why do you insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income?" Because work creates wealth. Wealth doesn't need to work.
> 
> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have. This is what you have to make up about others to look good yourself."
> 
> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?  "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.
> 
> 4) Why do you insist on penalizing him for working twice as many hours as you do?
> 
> 5) Pretty basic questions can you answer them? Got to go. Will be back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call those answers?
> 
> 1) You insist on limiting your wealth creation to your self classified middle income, because work creates wealth?  What the hell does that mean?    That's not even close to an answer.  Are you trying to say you limit your income because you are lazy?
> 
> >>> 2) Why do you insist that people that make more money than you, don't deserve their income as much as you deserve your income? "I don't and never have.
> 
> Ok then this is something we can work from.  Why do you want a progressive tax, and / or why do you feel income for CEOs is undeserved but your income is more deserved and/or more important than the rich guy's money so you should be rewarded with a lower tax rate.  Or are you changing your mind and now agree we should move to a flat rate or zero income tax?
> 
> >>> 3) If someone works 80 hours to produce twice the wealth you create in 40 hours, why should they have to pay a higher tax rate than you?  "You're assuming that wealth produced=income. Extremely naive.
> 
> Not true, I'm using YOUR definition of wealth, wealth being that which is created through labor.  Can you answer this basic question, yes or no?
> 
> FYI if you want to debate, it'll be easier to make progress if you at least attempt to not make up lies about the people you are talking to.   If progress is not your intention, well then I'll just assume you are just Trolling and move on.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that the landlord of the factory and the CEO produce something of value. Take the workers out of the factory, leave the CEO there, and tell me what gets shipped and sold.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates.  What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.
Click to expand...


You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them. 

Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose. 

That's not rocket science.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there are tens of millions of capable people out of work, yes Kaz can replace his workforce fairly easily should he need to.  In times of full employment, that sometimes becomes much more difficult to do without offering much more in wages and benefits, however in a robust economy, the businessman can expect profits that will allow him to pay more without that becoming inflationary.  If the same work force is making me $2 million in profits over the $1 million I was earning during a prolonged recession, I can afford to pay those people much better.  I will also likely be encouraged to expland my business and hire more people and thereby increase my profits.
> 
> Many people do choose quasi proverty on the government dole if they receive a higher income that way than they can make earning low wages in the private sector.  Unfortunately, those who choose that option will be stuck in permanent quasi poverty while those who choose to work their way out of poverty probably won't stay in poverty.
> 
> Business has not let the country down.  Thousands, maybe millions of small businesses are unable to borrow the operating capital they need to make bids or get their people back to work.  That is a failing of government policy, not business.
> 
> And businesses, large and small, are sitting on trillions of investment capital rather than risk putting it to work in the most business-unfriendly Administration I can remember in my lifetime and in the face of a permanently stuck economy and a government who refuses to initiate policy to allow it to get moving, and most especially in the face of uncertain taxes and regulation this government is holding over their heads.   Why would reasonable people risk all to put money to work only to lose it and then have nothing to live on?
> 
> And again you are the master of non-sequitur by quoting my post and then spouting stuff that answered not a single question nor was it responsive to my point in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am absolutely the master of non-sequitur using your definition. Conservative dogma has brought both business and government down, so adhering to it is pathetically ignorant.
> 
> You are an aristocracy syncophant. Your choice. The longer that you preach that business can do no harm and government no good, your place in our politics is cemented in place. Irrelevant. It's just too bad that the country gave you the chance that we did. It's going to take several generations to repair the damage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I now pronounce PMZ hopeless.  He/she/it has absolutely no ability and/or motivation to read what is there, and it is simply too tedious to keep correcting him/her/it on stating that something is there that is not there.
Click to expand...


I am proudly hopeless as a cult member. I am proudly hopeless when it comes to denying the truth. I'm proudly hopeless when it comes to denying science. I am proudly hopeless when people demand that I throw America under the bus. I am proudly hopeless when others tell me how and what to think. 

Most of America used to be like me. A majority still are. The rest can be found in a chain of trunk to tail elephants all blindly following one of the most ignorant people to ever occupy space on the planet, Rush Limbaugh. Or Grover Norquist for God's sakes. Or Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch, or John Boehner or Mitch MCConnell.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed.  Perhaps the problem is the feds have exceeded their mandate, are spending too much, and refuse to live under the same laws that you and I are forced to live under?



"The fact that Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue does not necessarily mean that we have a taxation problem that needs to be fixed. "

What it means is that we are recovering from another Republican assault in the name of supply side economics.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is not whether or not improvements can be made.  The question is what improvements can be made that will result in a better country being left to our children than the one we've been handed by our parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the answer is simple -- we cannot improve the market economy. Yes, we should provide training and education. But after all said and done, the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents. That is the nature of 21st century economy.
> 
> Therefore, we should change the income distribution that market creates with progressive tax system. In other words, taxing the rich more. Leaving them with only 10 times the average income, instead of 100.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> we cannot improve the market economy.
> ROFL the sky is falling it won't work!! aahhaa  lol
> 
> >>> Yes, we should provide training and education.
> ROFL ... nothing "provided" will be appreciated.  You want training and education? Earn it.  All you are doing by "providing" stuff is creating a moocher class of folks who believe they are "entitled" to sit on the butt and collect $.
> 
> >>> the market would still keep sending most of newly created wealth to the top few percents
> 
> So the market should not have bought any apple computers?  So the market should not have bought tabasco sauce?  What makes you think the market only sends money to the top few %?  The market buys what the market wants to buy.  The government stopped doing it's job to break up the monopolies.  Instead the government decided to become the king maker and punish success that it disagrees with.  Our government probably needs to be toppled that does not mean there is a problem with free markets and capitalism with a government making sure the strong do not choke out competition.
> 
> A progressive tax on personal income will not increase revenues or change the ratio of rich to poor.  All it will do is bring about sheltering of assets and personal income avoidance.  Instead of getting a million dollar salary they will get a company car and/or a company provided house. Stop that and they'll just find somewhere else to live.
> 
> The rich don't need personal income.  You could charge a 90% personal income tax rate over a million dollars and get zero revenue.
Click to expand...


You are saying that the theft of the country is complete and irreversible. The wealthy don't need to work. They own the government. They are above the law. 

They own all of the wealth that the middle class has created in recent history and don't need the middle class any more. 

Perhaps you are right. For sure you would be right if we had fallen for McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan. 

But we didn't. 

We still have to pay off the $17,000,000,000,000 that Bush's policies left us with. But,the wealthy who benefitted from those policies are on the hook too. 

We can get back the country. We can fix business and continue to fix government. Because we haven't lost democracy or the Constitution yet.


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> Looks like PMZ scurried off. Too bad, I was looking for a fight.



Anybody who picks a superhero avatar or wears superhero underwear is not fighting material. Only cartoon material.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Foxfyre said:


> Ilia, I'm not going to respond to a chopped up post like that.  It destroys the context and becomes just one liner talking points by rote and pretty well misses the point being made.  I'll give you props for sticking like a terrier to one of the most exreme leftwing propaganda point of view  I've seen in awhile.



Is what happens when all of an argument is based on beliefs and not fact, Fox. Bear that in mind


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like PMZ scurried off. Too bad, I was looking for a fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who picks a superhero avatar or wears superhero underwear is not fighting material. Only cartoon material.
Click to expand...


Oh there you are, do you dare challenge me? Or will you put up quips like that in place of a nonexistent argument? Lets go, tough guy!


----------



## PMZ

Redfish said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.    Debt must be serviced by raising taxes,  then more debt is created to replace the spending power lost through taxation,  then more taxes are needed.   It never ends,  thats why we are 17 trillion in debt and growing every day.
> 
> its called economic stupidity.
Click to expand...


The government doesn't create debt. Bush could have paid it off. Republican supply side economics creates debt. 

The government does not create jobs. Business creates jobs when they are run by competent managers capable of achieving growth.


----------



## PMZ

ilia25 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.
> 
> It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.
Click to expand...


Capitalism works because it distributes wealth up. If unchecked it would lead to extreme inequality and societal instability. Societal stability is the biggest responsibility government has.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The desire to be a free man is in fact a higher life form than taking pride from seeking dependency and the use of force to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who wrote the Constitution did not think freedom came from the Constitution.  You've made clear you have no interest in understanding what the Constitution is.
> 
> What's funny in a multiply ironic way is your use of the phrase "republican plutocracy."
> 
> Besides that you don't know what republican means
> 
> - the founders were republican
> - the constitution is republican
> - the founders were overwhelmingly the wealthy
> - the founders set up a system to protect liberty for all <<<--- hint to the first point in the post
> - it's actually democrats and liberalism who are destroying that.
> 
> What a post you wrote, outstanding!
Click to expand...


He frankly became unlistenable when he said, "Right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never read the Constitution, Jake. You have no clue what is in it.
Click to expand...


But he knows that sheepskin feels SO SOFT when he wipes his ass with it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not talking about creating jobs, you moron. The market takes care of that most of the time.
> 
> It's the income inequality that the government can and should fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?  How about if we stop paying people to not work?  Wouldn't that be a good way to increase income for the poor?
Click to expand...


"And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?"

Progressive income tax and taxation of income from wealth at rates equal or greater than income from work.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we stop paying people to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You pull out the grandma, disabled vets, and hard working poor card as an excuse for people who don't work at all? What's next starving children?
> 
> There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you. Why do I owe you a job?  I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?
> 
> No jobs? Bull.  I've never been out of work for more than 5min.  I'm fifty.  My kids have never been out of work.  The only people I've ever known who are out of work are the people we are paying to sit on their butt.
Click to expand...


So, in your opinion, there are jobs out there right now waiting to employ every American?


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.    Debt must be serviced by raising taxes,  then more debt is created to replace the spending power lost through taxation,  then more taxes are needed.   It never ends,  thats why we are 17 trillion in debt and growing every day.
> 
> its called economic stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The government doesn't create debt. Bush could have paid it off. Republican supply side economics creates debt.
> 
> The government does not create jobs. Business creates jobs when they are run by competent managers capable of achieving growth.
Click to expand...


1. That is patently false. Where does the debt come from? That's funny you have to reach all the way back to Reagan for an argument. When Reagen tripled the deficit, that was only 1 trillion IN EIGHT YEARS. When Obama doubled the deficit, the amount IS NEARLY FIVE TIMES THAT!

2. Ever seen the public sector lately?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who would that be?  What makes you think the CEO and not the corporate investors is the owner of the robots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about taxing the investment income too.
> 
> 
> 
> I can do that. But each and everyone can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .001% of GDP dude what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got a better estimation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already tax investment income.  Are you really asking investors stop investing?  Why would I invest money if you are gonna take the returns?  What is the incentive to investing if there can be no profits?
> 
> Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys? What incentive would there be for me to even sell hamburgers... nah I'd just close up shop, no point in the business if there is no profit. What part of the purpose of businesses is to make profit is confusing you?
> 
> Hard to say what the regulatory requirements does to brake the GDP.  Put it this way, we can't even build a new nuclear power plant or refinery in this country.  Our  growth rate is at zero.  When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..
Click to expand...


What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You pull out the grandma, disabled vets, and hard working poor card as an excuse for people who don't work at all? What's next starving children?
> 
> There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you. Why do I owe you a job?  I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?
> 
> No jobs? Bull.  I've never been out of work for more than 5min.  I'm fifty.  My kids have never been out of work.  The only people I've ever known who are out of work are the people we are paying to sit on their butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, there are jobs out there right now waiting to employ every American?
Click to expand...


Enough to drop the unemployment rate under 5% yes. As of the the last business day in April, there were 3.8 million job openings in America.

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about taxing the investment income too.
> 
> 
> 
> I can do that. But each and everyone can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Do what you have to do and you won't be paying fines.
> 
> 
> 
> You've got a better estimation?
> 
> 
> 
> We already tax investment income.  Are you really asking investors stop investing?  Why would I invest money if you are gonna take the returns?  What is the incentive to investing if there can be no profits?
> 
> Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys? What incentive would there be for me to even sell hamburgers... nah I'd just close up shop, no point in the business if there is no profit. What part of the purpose of businesses is to make profit is confusing you?
> 
> Hard to say what the regulatory requirements does to brake the GDP.  Put it this way, we can't even build a new nuclear power plant or refinery in this country.  Our  growth rate is at zero.  When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?
Click to expand...


Uhh, if  you keep the government of a small business, it will grow without the government's help. And since when is it government's job to determine the growth rate of a business anyway? This class warfare argument, so thinly veiled, is preposterous. You get paid to succeed, not to fail.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how should our government employees fix our income inequality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive taxes, strong safety net and supplemental income for the working poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we stop paying people to not work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't. We help elderly, disabled and those who lost their jobs recently and those with low income. The economy does not create enough decent paying jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We pay a LOT of people not to work.  And we already have progressive taxes, strong safety nets, and supplemental income for the working poor.  In fact about 50% of all Americans now receive some kind of government subsidy/benefit.  More than has ever been the case in American history.
> 
> And yet, according to you and others, the income inequality is worse than ever.
> 
> Is it just possible that all that government 'contribution' is a significant reason for the income inequality?  If not, why haven' we seen it start to decrease?
Click to expand...


There is a term that some of us have heard before. Baby boomers. A large group of post war population now retiring. For their whole careers they have been contributing to SS and Medicare and are now claiming what they have been saving for. 

Are you saying that their savings should be confiscated and given to the wealthy in the form of Republican supply side wealth redistribution tax cuts instead?


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like PMZ scurried off. Too bad, I was looking for a fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who picks a superhero avatar or wears superhero underwear is not fighting material. Only cartoon material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh there you are, do you dare challenge me? Or will you put up quips like that in place of a nonexistent argument? Lets go, tough guy!
Click to expand...


What are you, 10 or 11 years old?

I only deal in the real world. Go take on Mighty Mouse or Wonder Woman.


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the government does not create jobs, the government creates debt.    Debt must be serviced by raising taxes,  then more debt is created to replace the spending power lost through taxation,  then more taxes are needed.   It never ends,  thats why we are 17 trillion in debt and growing every day.
> 
> its called economic stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The government doesn't create debt. Bush could have paid it off. Republican supply side economics creates debt.
> 
> The government does not create jobs. Business creates jobs when they are run by competent managers capable of achieving growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. That is patently false. Where does the debt come from? That's funny you have to reach all the way back to Reagan for an argument. When Reagen tripled the deficit, that was only 1 trillion IN EIGHT YEARS. When Obama doubled the deficit, the amount IS NEARLY FIVE TIMES THAT!
> 
> 2. Ever seen the public sector lately?
Click to expand...


1. You be right on if dates caused debt. Unfortunately, policies cause debt. Holy wars and wealth distribution tax cuts for the wealthy and unsupervised Wall St and near zero interest rates feeding the housing boom and Great Recessions to be recovered from. Bush could have had us debt free by continuing Clintonomics. He chose to do the opposite. All $17,000,000,000,000 is attributable to what he started and the cost of recovering from the damages. 

2. If by the public sector you mean recovering all of the American jobs given away by incompetent business leaders, yes, I've seen the public sector. Shameful.


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You pull out the grandma, disabled vets, and hard working poor card as an excuse for people who don't work at all? What's next starving children?
> 
> There is no requirement for the "economy" to create a job for you. Why do I owe you a job?  I thought you said you wanted income redistributed, now you switch to saying you just want welfare for the needy?
> 
> No jobs? Bull.  I've never been out of work for more than 5min.  I'm fifty.  My kids have never been out of work.  The only people I've ever known who are out of work are the people we are paying to sit on their butt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion, there are jobs out there right now waiting to employ every American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough to drop the unemployment rate under 5% yes. As of the the last business day in April, there were 3.8 million job openings in America.
> 
> Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary
Click to expand...


Read your reference. Those openings are just over job losses. The net is very small. Business executives have no incentive to grow from Wall St. Wall St rewards shrinking not growing.


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already tax investment income.  Are you really asking investors stop investing?  Why would I invest money if you are gonna take the returns?  What is the incentive to investing if there can be no profits?
> 
> Why should I have to pay for health care for minimum wage burger flippers and pizza delivery boys? What incentive would there be for me to even sell hamburgers... nah I'd just close up shop, no point in the business if there is no profit. What part of the purpose of businesses is to make profit is confusing you?
> 
> Hard to say what the regulatory requirements does to brake the GDP.  Put it this way, we can't even build a new nuclear power plant or refinery in this country.  Our  growth rate is at zero.  When we had government that was more amenable to business our growth rate was significantly higher..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh, if  you keep the government of a small business, it will grow without the government's help. And since when is it government's job to determine the growth rate of a business anyway? This class warfare argument, so thinly veiled, is preposterous. You get paid to succeed, not to fail.
Click to expand...


Business used to understand that growth defined success. Then Wall St suggested that they'd pay more for shrinkage. Incredibly stupid. Who gets the rewards? Stock brokers encouraging turnover. Who loses?  Every American.


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who picks a superhero avatar or wears superhero underwear is not fighting material. Only cartoon material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh there you are, do you dare challenge me? Or will you put up quips like that in place of a nonexistent argument? Lets go, tough guy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you, 10 or 11 years old?
> 
> I only deal in the real world. Go take on Mighty Mouse or Wonder Woman.
Click to expand...


RUN! RUN AWAY! Run away and never return, coward!


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's changed is not government less amenable to business but rather business leaders less capable of growth. Why should they when Wall Street gives them lavish personal rewards for shrinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, if  you keep the government of a small business, it will grow without the government's help. And since when is it government's job to determine the growth rate of a business anyway? This class warfare argument, so thinly veiled, is preposterous. You get paid to succeed, not to fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business used to understand that growth defined success. Then Wall St suggested that they'd pay more for shrinkage. Incredibly stupid. Who gets the rewards? Stock brokers encouraging turnover. Who loses?  Every American.
Click to expand...


Everyone loses when you spout such biased and unproven propaganda. Be quiet. Rich people are eeeevil I say, EEEEEVIILLLL!!!


----------



## PMZ

Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills. 

Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work. 

Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?

But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage. 

Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible. 

At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race. 

All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum. 

So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste. 

It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would possibly disagree with that.  The issue is whether freedom comes from our Constitution and democracy or from Republican plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wrote the Constitution did not think freedom came from the Constitution.  You've made clear you have no interest in understanding what the Constitution is.
> 
> What's funny in a multiply ironic way is your use of the phrase "republican plutocracy."
> 
> Besides that you don't know what republican means
> 
> - the founders were republican
> - the constitution is republican
> - the founders were overwhelmingly the wealthy
> - the founders set up a system to protect liberty for all <<<--- hint to the first point in the post
> - it's actually democrats and liberalism who are destroying that.
> 
> What a post you wrote, outstanding!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He frankly became unlistenable when he said, "Right and wrong are in the eye of the beholder."
Click to expand...


It's clear that people like you believe that right is in your eye. People who disagree with you are wrong.  That's ego talking.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't think that the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor? That's bizarre. Have you ever been either?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do not think the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor.  Money does not make one free, in some respects money, and more particularly assets, make one less free due to the responsibilities and burden of ownership.  Freedom to me is, in part, the ability to do what I want when I want to do it, so long as I do not harm others, and without being burdened by an oppressive government, rules and regulations.
> 
> Yes, I started out broke earning minimum wage bagging groceries and cutting lawns.  Now, I have hundreds of inventions, have run my own company, and worked for a few companies as an Engineer.  I still work but I do so for much less money than I did during the dot com boom years.  For me the act of deciding to earn less money, meant freeing myself up to do more things, such as spending more time at home with my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you work to become wealthy if you'd rather be poor?
Click to expand...


I didn't say I'd rather be poor.  More I'd rather be comfortable.  My definition of poor and yours are probably two different things I suspect.  I can make as much money as I want to make, or as little as I want to make.

During the 80s I bought into the American dream is fancy cars, the biggest house you borrow money against, and throwing money away like it grows on trees.  So I worked really hard and became very successful working with people that you would easily recognize.  In the 90s I found I had more fun coaching my son's pop-warner football games than working overtime to pay for new corvettes, so I sold my software company for a profit and switched to a different career.  It was easy to start over even though it was a lower income, there was little responsibility and I had more free time to spend with the family.  I got too good at that new job and ended up making too much money again and spent most of it.  Ok yeah I have a decent nest egg..  Then I decided to switch careers again, again cutting my income in half, it was that or take the promotion they wanted me to take and travel all over the damn place..  In short.. I've grown out of my desire to participate in the rat race. I've paid more taxes than most people will ever earn.  I've gone the gamut of having a family income of 30k a year to what you would probably call semi rich and back again to just enough to cover the basics.  The times I have the most fun are the times I've reset what I was doing to start over at a greatly reduced income level and a greatly reduced level of effort.  Shedding the shackles of wealth and responsibility is an enlightening feeling, learning new things is fun.  I've found that no matter how much I earn, I always managed to find ways to spend it all and no matter how much I cut back on my income, I always found ways to survive and actually thrive on the lower income.  

The only thing I regret?  Working so hard that my income fed the beast that enslaves others through wealth redistribution.  Yeah it really sucks to know the government uses your income to make slaves of the poor.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> You either playing an idiot, or you really have no grasp on how the economy works. Health insurance is just another business expense. It will make your business unprofitable only if your competitors don't have to play by the same rules. Otherwise everyone would have to pass the cost on the consumers, and it will be OK, because people always need to eat.



Would you buy a $40 dollar pizza from a pizza hut, or a 20dollar hamburger from the golden arches?  People need to eat but they don't need to pay for 20k a year pizza delivery boys that get 30k in Obama mandated benefits.  You'll have to bag your own groceries and cook your own pizza.


----------



## ilia25

Foxfyre said:


> Ilia, I'm not going to respond to a chopped up post like that.  It destroys the context and becomes just one liner talking points by rote and pretty well misses the point being made.  I'll give you props for sticking like a terrier to one of the most exreme leftwing propaganda point of view  I've seen in awhile.



Well, that not surprising, you were never able to argue your point when faced with facts and logic. Ad hominem attacks is all you are capable of.

Have fun with PMZ.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either playing an idiot, or you really have no grasp on how the economy works. Health insurance is just another business expense. It will make your business unprofitable only if your competitors don't have to play by the same rules. Otherwise everyone would have to pass the cost on the consumers, and it will be OK, because people always need to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you buy a $40 dollar pizza from a pizza hut, or a 20dollar hamburger from the golden arches?  People need to eat but they don't need to pay for 20k a year pizza delivery boys that get 30k in Obama mandated benefits.  You'll have to bag your own groceries and cook your own pizza.
Click to expand...


Well that's a good point -- there is of course a limit of what you can pass to the customers. However, I don't think that what you have described is a real world scenario. I don't think Obamacare would cost the consumers $30 dollars per pizza.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills.
> 
> Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work.
> 
> Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?
> 
> But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage.
> 
> Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race.
> 
> All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum.
> 
> So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste.
> 
> It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.



ROFL... you have no idea what you are talking about.  Infinite grace?  ROFL You think Bill and Buffet are "gods" because they fund democrat coffers?

Bill got rich by leveraging his mom's relationship with the IBM CEO's wife to get an exclusive deal on some software for the IBM PC, DOS and Basic.  IBM funded the whole thing so they could avoid the government splitting them up like they had just split up ma bell.  Then Bill is allowed to create a monopoly on PC operating systems and office software by our government through every PC manufacturer.  The "angel" Bill you are talking about?  Yeah he's the guy that made sure Windows is virus prone from the core so you'll have to keep buying new OS updates.  The stuff I could tell you would make your hair stand on end.  ROFL go back to sleep.


----------



## Obamanation

Oprah Ranked Most Generous Celebrity Pop Tags: Oprah Winfrey Posted on September 14th, 2008 by Eva Lam 

Oprah Winfrey has been proclaimed the world&#8217;s biggest giver &#8212; again. 

For the seoncd year running, the day-time host topped a list of the 30 most generous celebrities for giving $50.2 million US last year through the Oprah Winfrey Foundation and Oprah&#8217;s Angel Network, which fund education, health care and advocacy for women and children. 

The list, now in its second year, was compiled by The Giving Back Fund, a charity that aims to encourage philanthropy. 

Claiming the No. 2 spot was trumpeter Herb Alpert, who gave $13 million for education, including music lessons, through the Herb Alpert Foundation. 

Three athletes also made the top 10, with cyclist Lance Armstrong, basketball star Michael Jordan and Canadian hockey player Eric Lindros giving $5 million each. 

Here is the top 10 on The Giving Back Fund&#8217;s list of most generous celebrities (all figures in US dollars): 

1. Oprah Winfrey, $50.2 million. 2. Herb Alpert, $13 million. 3. Barbra Streisand, $11 million. 4. Paul Newman, $10 million. 5. Mel Gibson, $9.9 million. 6. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, $8.4 million. 7. Lance Armstrong, $5 million. 8. Michael Jordan, $5 million. 9. Eric Lindros, $5 million. 10. Rush Limbaugh, $4.2 million.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



*Funny, but I don;t see either Gates or Buffett on that list...*


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You either playing an idiot, or you really have no grasp on how the economy works. Health insurance is just another business expense. It will make your business unprofitable only if your competitors don't have to play by the same rules. Otherwise everyone would have to pass the cost on the consumers, and it will be OK, because people always need to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you buy a $40 dollar pizza from a pizza hut, or a 20dollar hamburger from the golden arches?  People need to eat but they don't need to pay for 20k a year pizza delivery boys that get 30k in Obama mandated benefits.  You'll have to bag your own groceries and cook your own pizza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's a good point -- there is of course a limit of what you can pass to the customers. However, I don't think that what you have described is a real world scenario. I don't think Obamacare would cost the consumers $30 dollars per pizza.
Click to expand...


A large pizza with 3 toppings no coupon plus tip is 20 here.  I added 20bucks to pay for the doubled labor cost, for the guy who cooks the pizza, the guy who delivers the pizza, not to mention the extra cost at the pump for the guy behind the counter who takes your gas money, and the farmer's laborer that pulls the toppings...  It all adds up.  Maybe my guess is off.. fine add in the other stuff Obama wants to increase taxes for like carbon taxes.  Can you just imagine how much CO2 goes into a peperoni pizza?  Yeah sure Obama may decide to "bail" out some ff chains that have unions, for example, but don't you find it curious the thousands of Obama's selected friends who are being given "exemptions" from Obama care law?  What happens to the businesses that don't get Obama's exemptions?  What happens to taxes when the revenue is too low because Obama's friends don't pay?  Yeah the taxes go up even higher on the ones that do pay, yet Obama's friends keep their exemptions.  Why don't the democrats just make it illegal to be anti-democrat and get it over with.  All this pussyfooting around is quite tiresome.

Just to add.. just look at Bloomburg for what's coming for the country.  Large pizza?  ROFL anything more than a small slice will be illegal.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you buy a $40 dollar pizza from a pizza hut, or a 20dollar hamburger from the golden arches?  People need to eat but they don't need to pay for 20k a year pizza delivery boys that get 30k in Obama mandated benefits.  You'll have to bag your own groceries and cook your own pizza.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a good point -- there is of course a limit of what you can pass to the customers. However, I don't think that what you have described is a real world scenario. I don't think Obamacare would cost the consumers $30 dollars per pizza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large pizza with 3 toppings no coupon plus tip is 20 here.  I added 20bucks to pay for the doubled labor cost, for the guy who cooks the pizza, the guy who delivers the pizza, not to mention the extra cost at the pump for the guy behind the counter who takes your gas money, and the farmer's laborer that pulls the toppings...  It all adds up.  Maybe my guess is off..
Click to expand...


Yes, it adds up and you are off by an order of magnitude. In your calculation Obamacare would cost $10 per man/hour, which would add up to about $20,000 per year per worker. In reality the penalties for not providing insurance is $2000 per worker, with the first 30 employees being exempt. 

And how many pizzerias employ more than 50 workers?



> Just to add.. just look at Bloomburg for what's coming for the country.  Large pizza?  ROFL anything more than a small slice will be illegal.



Oh yes... Bikes. Horror.


----------



## Redfish

PMZ said:


> Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills.
> 
> Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work.
> 
> Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?
> 
> But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage.
> 
> Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race.
> 
> All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum.
> 
> So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste.
> 
> It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.



Your bias is showing.   Limbaugh gave more to charity than either Gates or Buffet.  

How much did Obama and Biden give?   How about Pelosi and Reid?  How about Maher and Matthews?  How about Michael Moore?   Liberals never give like conservatives----they just demand that everyone else do it.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a good point -- there is of course a limit of what you can pass to the customers. However, I don't think that what you have described is a real world scenario. I don't think Obamacare would cost the consumers $30 dollars per pizza.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A large pizza with 3 toppings no coupon plus tip is 20 here.  I added 20bucks to pay for the doubled labor cost, for the guy who cooks the pizza, the guy who delivers the pizza, not to mention the extra cost at the pump for the guy behind the counter who takes your gas money, and the farmer's laborer that pulls the toppings...  It all adds up.  Maybe my guess is off..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it adds up and you are off by an order of magnitude. In your calculation Obamacare would cost $10 per man/hour, which would add up to about $20,000 per year per worker. In reality the penalties for not providing insurance is $2000 per worker, with the first 30 employees being exempt.
> 
> And how many pizzerias employ more than 50 workers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add.. just look at Bloomburg for what's coming for the country.  Large pizza?  ROFL anything more than a small slice will be illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes... Bikes. Horror.
Click to expand...

Yeah and SS started out as a 2% tax, now it's 15%.  Pretty sure McDonald's and Dominoes have more than 50 employees.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is a different era. This economy leaves most people w/o decent wages, even when they are working hard (and by decent I mean 21st century decent, not just having the roof over your head and bread on your table).
> 
> Give me one reason why we should NOT try and fix that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.  What you want to do is make it worse.  Money does not come out of nowhere.  Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul.  Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for.  Neither is incented to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me one example of government in the way and preventing people from making something of themselves
Click to expand...


- The minimum wage prevents people not worth $7.25 from working.  It is not a tide, it is a hurdle.

- As an employer, if I give someone a shot and they don't work out and I fire them, the government sticks me with a bunch of taxes to pay for their unemployment.

- The government jacks up the cost of every employee by piling on payroll, unemployment, workers comp, healthcare and other benefit mandates and taxes.

- There is no penalty for unemployment filings for people who don't qualify, so over and over I have to follow up and file paperwork and appear at hearings for people who keep filing.  They lose every time, but they do it because there is no risk to them and if I don't file and appear at every hearing they win by default.

- Even though my business is in a "Right to Work" state (North Carolina), endless regulations like ADA, age, race, sex and other regulation applies and government like unemployment completely represents the employee and there is no consequence to their filing to try to extort money from me even when there is zero case.  Again, I've won every time but what a monumental waste of money.

- If I take people from part to full time, a bunch of more regulations apply.

- Government forces everyone in certain jobs, industries or for companies to join a union and forces companies to bargain with them even when they have no market power behind them, just government force.

Sorry, you said give you "one."  This is actually just a start.  All employers hesitate to hire until we absolutely have to because you can't buy the milk, you buy the cow.  Government should want to make us quick to hire, not make it our last resort.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably an idiot, so let me repeat it for you: this economy does not create enough of decent paying jobs. If the government gets out of the way, most of people will have to work for low pay. That is what the 21st century economy does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates.  What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.
> 
> Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.
> 
> That's not rocket science.
Click to expand...


Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates.  What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.
> 
> Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.
> 
> That's not rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.
> 
> Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.
> 
> That's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
Click to expand...


Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...

Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do not think the wealthy have more freedom of choice than the poor.  Money does not make one free, in some respects money, and more particularly assets, make one less free due to the responsibilities and burden of ownership.  Freedom to me is, in part, the ability to do what I want when I want to do it, so long as I do not harm others, and without being burdened by an oppressive government, rules and regulations.
> 
> Yes, I started out broke earning minimum wage bagging groceries and cutting lawns.  Now, I have hundreds of inventions, have run my own company, and worked for a few companies as an Engineer.  I still work but I do so for much less money than I did during the dot com boom years.  For me the act of deciding to earn less money, meant freeing myself up to do more things, such as spending more time at home with my family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you work to become wealthy if you'd rather be poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I'd rather be poor.  More I'd rather be comfortable.  My definition of poor and yours are probably two different things I suspect.  I can make as much money as I want to make, or as little as I want to make.
> 
> During the 80s I bought into the American dream is fancy cars, the biggest house you borrow money against, and throwing money away like it grows on trees.  So I worked really hard and became very successful working with people that you would easily recognize.  In the 90s I found I had more fun coaching my son's pop-warner football games than working overtime to pay for new corvettes, so I sold my software company for a profit and switched to a different career.  It was easy to start over even though it was a lower income, there was little responsibility and I had more free time to spend with the family.  I got too good at that new job and ended up making too much money again and spent most of it.  Ok yeah I have a decent nest egg..  Then I decided to switch careers again, again cutting my income in half, it was that or take the promotion they wanted me to take and travel all over the damn place..  In short.. I've grown out of my desire to participate in the rat race. I've paid more taxes than most people will ever earn.  I've gone the gamut of having a family income of 30k a year to what you would probably call semi rich and back again to just enough to cover the basics.  The times I have the most fun are the times I've reset what I was doing to start over at a greatly reduced income level and a greatly reduced level of effort.  Shedding the shackles of wealth and responsibility is an enlightening feeling, learning new things is fun.  I've found that no matter how much I earn, I always managed to find ways to spend it all and no matter how much I cut back on my income, I always found ways to survive and actually thrive on the lower income.
> 
> The only thing I regret?  Working so hard that my income fed the beast that enslaves others through wealth redistribution.  Yeah it really sucks to know the government uses your income to make slaves of the poor.
Click to expand...


"Yeah it really sucks to know the government uses your income to make slaves of the poor"

What enslaves the poor is poverty. I'm really surprised that you are not smart enough to understand that.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you work to become wealthy if you'd rather be poor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I'd rather be poor.  More I'd rather be comfortable.  My definition of poor and yours are probably two different things I suspect.  I can make as much money as I want to make, or as little as I want to make.
> 
> During the 80s I bought into the American dream is fancy cars, the biggest house you borrow money against, and throwing money away like it grows on trees.  So I worked really hard and became very successful working with people that you would easily recognize.  In the 90s I found I had more fun coaching my son's pop-warner football games than working overtime to pay for new corvettes, so I sold my software company for a profit and switched to a different career.  It was easy to start over even though it was a lower income, there was little responsibility and I had more free time to spend with the family.  I got too good at that new job and ended up making too much money again and spent most of it.  Ok yeah I have a decent nest egg..  Then I decided to switch careers again, again cutting my income in half, it was that or take the promotion they wanted me to take and travel all over the damn place..  In short.. I've grown out of my desire to participate in the rat race. I've paid more taxes than most people will ever earn.  I've gone the gamut of having a family income of 30k a year to what you would probably call semi rich and back again to just enough to cover the basics.  The times I have the most fun are the times I've reset what I was doing to start over at a greatly reduced income level and a greatly reduced level of effort.  Shedding the shackles of wealth and responsibility is an enlightening feeling, learning new things is fun.  I've found that no matter how much I earn, I always managed to find ways to spend it all and no matter how much I cut back on my income, I always found ways to survive and actually thrive on the lower income.
> 
> The only thing I regret?  Working so hard that my income fed the beast that enslaves others through wealth redistribution.  Yeah it really sucks to know the government uses your income to make slaves of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Yeah it really sucks to know the government uses your income to make slaves of the poor"
> 
> What enslaves the poor is poverty. I'm really surprised that you are not smart enough to understand that.
Click to expand...




RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills.
> 
> Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work.
> 
> Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?
> 
> But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage.
> 
> Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race.
> 
> All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum.
> 
> So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste.
> 
> It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL... you have no idea what you are talking about.  Infinite grace?  ROFL You think Bill and Buffet are "gods" because they fund democrat coffers?
> 
> Bill got rich by leveraging his mom's relationship with the IBM CEO's wife to get an exclusive deal on some software for the IBM PC, DOS and Basic.  IBM funded the whole thing so they could avoid the government splitting them up like they had just split up ma bell.  Then Bill is allowed to create a monopoly on PC operating systems and office software by our government through every PC manufacturer.  The "angel" Bill you are talking about?  Yeah he's the guy that made sure Windows is virus prone from the core so you'll have to keep buying new OS updates.  The stuff I could tell you would make your hair stand on end.  ROFL go back to sleep.
Click to expand...


You have already made the point that you can't understand the world around you. This wealth envy is just icing on the cake.


----------



## PMZ

Obamanation said:


> Oprah Ranked Most Generous Celebrity Pop Tags: Oprah Winfrey Posted on September 14th, 2008 by Eva Lam
> 
> Oprah Winfrey has been proclaimed the worlds biggest giver  again.
> 
> For the seoncd year running, the day-time host topped a list of the 30 most generous celebrities for giving $50.2 million US last year through the Oprah Winfrey Foundation and Oprahs Angel Network, which fund education, health care and advocacy for women and children.
> 
> The list, now in its second year, was compiled by The Giving Back Fund, a charity that aims to encourage philanthropy.
> 
> Claiming the No. 2 spot was trumpeter Herb Alpert, who gave $13 million for education, including music lessons, through the Herb Alpert Foundation.
> 
> Three athletes also made the top 10, with cyclist Lance Armstrong, basketball star Michael Jordan and Canadian hockey player Eric Lindros giving $5 million each.
> 
> Here is the top 10 on The Giving Back Funds list of most generous celebrities (all figures in US dollars):
> 
> 1. Oprah Winfrey, $50.2 million. 2. Herb Alpert, $13 million. 3. Barbra Streisand, $11 million. 4. Paul Newman, $10 million. 5. Mel Gibson, $9.9 million. 6. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, $8.4 million. 7. Lance Armstrong, $5 million. 8. Michael Jordan, $5 million. 9. Eric Lindros, $5 million. 10. Rush Limbaugh, $4.2 million.
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> *Funny, but I don;t see either Gates or Buffett on that list...*





They are not celebrities dumbo.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you buy a $40 dollar pizza from a pizza hut, or a 20dollar hamburger from the golden arches?  People need to eat but they don't need to pay for 20k a year pizza delivery boys that get 30k in Obama mandated benefits.  You'll have to bag your own groceries and cook your own pizza.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's a good point -- there is of course a limit of what you can pass to the customers. However, I don't think that what you have described is a real world scenario. I don't think Obamacare would cost the consumers $30 dollars per pizza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large pizza with 3 toppings no coupon plus tip is 20 here.  I added 20bucks to pay for the doubled labor cost, for the guy who cooks the pizza, the guy who delivers the pizza, not to mention the extra cost at the pump for the guy behind the counter who takes your gas money, and the farmer's laborer that pulls the toppings...  It all adds up.  Maybe my guess is off.. fine add in the other stuff Obama wants to increase taxes for like carbon taxes.  Can you just imagine how much CO2 goes into a peperoni pizza?  Yeah sure Obama may decide to "bail" out some ff chains that have unions, for example, but don't you find it curious the thousands of Obama's selected friends who are being given "exemptions" from Obama care law?  What happens to the businesses that don't get Obama's exemptions?  What happens to taxes when the revenue is too low because Obama's friends don't pay?  Yeah the taxes go up even higher on the ones that do pay, yet Obama's friends keep their exemptions.  Why don't the democrats just make it illegal to be anti-democrat and get it over with.  All this pussyfooting around is quite tiresome.
> 
> Just to add.. just look at Bloomburg for what's coming for the country.  Large pizza?  ROFL anything more than a small slice will be illegal.
Click to expand...


So, you think that the country saves money by having people without health ins? And you claim to have been a successful businessman? I guess it's true that that must be a job that anyone can do.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...
> 
> Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.
Click to expand...


Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times.  And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then.  Separate subject.  Separate debate.

The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.   

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.

So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.

We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.


----------



## PMZ

Redfish said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills.
> 
> Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work.
> 
> Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?
> 
> But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage.
> 
> Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible.
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race.
> 
> All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum.
> 
> So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste.
> 
> It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your bias is showing.   Limbaugh gave more to charity than either Gates or Buffet.
> 
> How much did Obama and Biden give?   How about Pelosi and Reid?  How about Maher and Matthews?  How about Michael Moore?   Liberals never give like conservatives----they just demand that everyone else do it.
Click to expand...


Limbaugh hasn't even made in his whole "career" what both Gates and Buffett have pledged to give away.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should fix it.  Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves.  What you want to do is make it worse.  Money does not come out of nowhere.  Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul.  Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for.  Neither is incented to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one example of government in the way and preventing people from making something of themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - The minimum wage prevents people not worth $7.25 from working.  It is not a tide, it is a hurdle.
> 
> - As an employer, if I give someone a shot and they don't work out and I fire them, the government sticks me with a bunch of taxes to pay for their unemployment.
> 
> - The government jacks up the cost of every employee by piling on payroll, unemployment, workers comp, healthcare and other benefit mandates and taxes.
> 
> - There is no penalty for unemployment filings for people who don't qualify, so over and over I have to follow up and file paperwork and appear at hearings for people who keep filing.  They lose every time, but they do it because there is no risk to them and if I don't file and appear at every hearing they win by default.
> 
> - Even though my business is in a "Right to Work" state (North Carolina), endless regulations like ADA, age, race, sex and other regulation applies and government like unemployment completely represents the employee and there is no consequence to their filing to try to extort money from me even when there is zero case.  Again, I've won every time but what a monumental waste of money.
> 
> - If I take people from part to full time, a bunch of more regulations apply.
> 
> - Government forces everyone in certain jobs, industries or for companies to join a union and forces companies to bargain with them even when they have no market power behind them, just government force.
> 
> Sorry, you said give you "one."  This is actually just a start.  All employers hesitate to hire until we absolutely have to because you can't buy the milk, you buy the cow.  Government should want to make us quick to hire, not make it our last resort.
Click to expand...


All inept employers hesitate to hire because they hope to keep that money In their pocket by squeezing more from current employees. Good businessmen love to hire because it signifies growth for everyone.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two may be talking about different subjects.  He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates.  What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.
> 
> Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.
> 
> That's not rocket science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
Click to expand...


We are a democracy and we are a republic because we don't have a monarch. To know those things one has to get out of the Lazy Boy, leave your cult leaders blaring away from their little boxes, and read a dictionary. Tough for you, I know.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.
> 
> Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.
> 
> That's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
Click to expand...


We started as a republic and have always been because we've never had a monarch. What you are talking about is that we started as a plutocracy, ammended our Constitution to become a democracy and Republicans would like to take us back to a plutocracy and are promoting a power grab of the wealthy to achieve that. That is what will be inscribed on the tombstone of the GOP. 

Fortunately, we are American and don't surrender government of, for, and by, we, the people.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We started as a republic and have always been because we've never had a monarch. What you are talking about is that we started as a plutocracy, ammended our Constitution to become a democracy and Republicans would like to take us back to a plutocracy and are promoting a power grab of the wealthy to achieve that. That is what will be inscribed on the tombstone of the GOP.
> 
> Fortunately, we are American and don't surrender government of, for, and by, we, the people.
Click to expand...


My God you're lazy.  You don't even need to buy a dictionary, you can just Google terms.  Liking the way a word sounds doesn't mean you can redefine it to mean whatever you want.  I'm sure there's some coherent thought in your head (let's go with that), but your butchering of the English language is not resulting in coherent thoughts in your posts.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic.  We have a federal system of government.  I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.
Click to expand...


Republican advertising for the return to a plutocracy of old white wealthy Christian men. 

Ain't going to happen. We're America. It's our government. If you don't like that, be free and move to a place with a government that gives you power over others.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...
> 
> Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.
Click to expand...


You can live in total freedom. Just not on this overcrowded planet, or in these troubled times.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...
> 
> Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can live in total freedom. Just not on this overcrowded planet, or in these troubled times.
Click to expand...


Your argument that there is a price to pay to live in society does not logically in any way justify your attempt to maximize that pain.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.   I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them.  Today we really are a democracy.  Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority.  With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority.  You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left.  What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...
> 
> Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times.  And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then.  Separate subject.  Separate debate.
> 
> The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.
> 
> So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.
> 
> We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.
Click to expand...


My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...
> 
> Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times.  And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then.  Separate subject.  Separate debate.
> 
> The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.
> 
> So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.
> 
> We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.
Click to expand...


Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant.  You are saying what our great leader says they meant.  I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start.  They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We started as a republic and have always been because we've never had a monarch. What you are talking about is that we started as a plutocracy, ammended our Constitution to become a democracy and Republicans would like to take us back to a plutocracy and are promoting a power grab of the wealthy to achieve that. That is what will be inscribed on the tombstone of the GOP.
> 
> Fortunately, we are American and don't surrender government of, for, and by, we, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God you're lazy.  You don't even need to buy a dictionary, you can just Google terms.  Liking the way a word sounds doesn't mean you can redefine it to mean whatever you want.  I'm sure there's some coherent thought in your head (let's go with that), but your butchering of the English language is not resulting in coherent thoughts in your posts.
Click to expand...


Republic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you think that Americans are so stupid as to let tyrants take us back to plutocratic times from our hard earned democratic times by redefining English to Newspeak, you have no idea what Americans are.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.


The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.  

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times.  And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then.  Separate subject.  Separate debate.
> 
> The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.
> 
> So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.
> 
> We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant.  You are saying what our great leader says they meant.  I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.
Click to expand...


I'm saying that the Federalists and Antifederalists settled their debate in favor of Federalism. And because of that we caught up to and surpassed Europe.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.



Interesting my new rule of thumb is to stop reading when I encounter the tag PMZ.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.
> 
> Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.
> 
> Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.
Click to expand...


Anarchy is a tough sell to people used to democracy. Government of, by, and for the people. Anarchy always, always, always, is very short term and results in tyranny. The guy with the biggest club. Latest evidence? Afghanistan.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting my new rule of thumb is to stop reading when I encounter the tag PMZ.
Click to expand...


Ignorant people always have strategies to maintain their ignorance. It's the only way that they can feel right.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.
> 
> Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.
> 
> Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.
Click to expand...


All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Well PMZ I read your first word...  Not surprised... "anarchy."  Yeah that's what we had under Reagan, anarchy. Anything less than absolute facist or communist control for you mother ___ers is anarchy.  I can't wait to see people like you have to go back to work to earn a living you cry baby.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.
> 
> Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.
> 
> Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.
> 
> That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.
> 
> I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.
Click to expand...


I get your gist.  But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.  

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other.  And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.
> 
> The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that.  If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.
> 
> Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.
> 
> Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.
> 
> That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.
> 
> I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.
Click to expand...


I'm glad that you took the time to inform America's electorate of the consequences of empowering Republicans. My goal has always been to keep the electorate informed. Then let our democracy work it's magic. 

My enemies are the media moguls paid lavishly to advertise for the GOP 24/7/365. They employ marketing Newspeak to uninformed the electorate.

For those not familiar with Newspeak, here's a good explanation.

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant.  You are saying what our great leader says they meant.  I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that the Federalists and Antifederalists settled their debate in favor of Federalism. And because of that we caught up to and surpassed Europe.
Click to expand...


That's true, but you don't know what the words mean.  I'll go ahead and explain it, then you can not get it and repeat your incoherent ramblings.

A Republic, as is the type we were formed to be, is a collection of mostly autonomous States which divide power with a National "central" government.  Note "divide" not "subjugate" or "share."   The term "Federal" government, which means the same thing, a government which divides power with States, was used to reflect that.  Divide means there are specific powers each has.  In our case, the Federal government those listed in the Constitution, the States everything else.

A "Federal" government is limited to certain enumerated roles and specifically prohibited from doing anything else.  Else they stop being a Federal government and become a central government.  So for example, the common defense, treaties with other countries, that sort of thing which are impractical at the State level are ceded to the Federal government.

Now I'll explain the debate between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" you don't grasp.  Many people felt that the National government under the articles of confederation was too weak to provide the critical functions, like defense.  For example, Britain did not recognize our independence and was stopping American ships and conscripting American sailors into the British Navy.  The confederation government had no resources to do anything about it.  Others felt it was safer to have a very weak National government as they were the greater threat.  They have a good argument.  See Obama and the Democratic party.

So, unlike your erroneous view that the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists were strong central government versus weak central government, it was actually a debate between a strictly limited national government and a virtually powerless one.

If you were smarter than you are.  A lot smarter.  Then you would recognize that I'm really more of a Federalist and Oddball for example is really an anti-federalist.  He really argues against any Federal authority.I do think for example it's a dangerous world and as weak as he'd make the central government it would be hard to defend ourselves.  Neither of us would be using the military across the globe as the two pathetic parties do.  You can be a libertarian and be either as both are for strictly limiting government.  You are a socialist, which is no no way a libertarian.  There is zero overlap other then some word games you play.

Feel free to correct me if I'm mishearing you oddball.  That's what I understand you saying.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.
> 
> Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.
> 
> Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.
> 
> That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.
> 
> I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get your gist.  But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.
> 
> The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.
Click to expand...


The founders had a plutocracy of wealthy, white, educated, Christian, men only. Many have died to end that in favor of democracy. Now you want to undo all of that progress.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses.  Through incorporation  our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states.  Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process.  Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.
> 
> Principaled?  Tyrants are never principled.  The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.
> 
> Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government.  It's time to throw them all out and start over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.
> 
> That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.
> 
> I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get your gist.  But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.
> 
> The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.
Click to expand...


The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.

The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant.  You are saying what our great leader says they meant.  I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that the Federalists and Antifederalists settled their debate in favor of Federalism. And because of that we caught up to and surpassed Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, but you don't know what the words mean.  I'll go ahead and explain it, then you can not get it and repeat your incoherent ramblings.
> 
> A Republic, as is the type we were formed to be, is a collection of mostly autonomous States which divide power with a National "central" government.  Note "divide" not "subjugate" or "share."   The term "Federal" government, which means the same thing, a government which divides power with States, was used to reflect that.  Divide means there are specific powers each has.  In our case, the Federal government those listed in the Constitution, the States everything else.
> 
> A "Federal" government is limited to certain enumerated roles and specifically prohibited from doing anything else.  Else they stop being a Federal government and become a central government.  So for example, the common defense, treaties with other countries, that sort of thing which are impractical at the State level are ceded to the Federal government.
> 
> Now I'll explain the debate between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" you don't grasp.  Many people felt that the National government under the articles of confederation was too weak to provide the critical functions, like defense.  For example, Britain did not recognize our independence and was stopping American ships and conscripting American sailors into the British Navy.  Others felt it was safer to have a very weak National government.
> 
> So, unlike your erroneous view that the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists were strong central government versus weak central government, it was actually a debate between a strictly limited national government and a virtually powerless one.
> 
> If you were smarter than you are.  A lot smarter.  Then you would recognize that I'm really more of a Federalist and Oddball for example is really an anti-federalist.  He really argues against any Federal authority.  I do think for example it's a dangerous world and as weak as he'd make the central government it would be hard to defend ourselves.  Neither of us would be using the military across the globe as the two pathetic parties do.
> 
> Feel free to correct me if I'm mishearing you oddball.  That's what I understand you saying.
Click to expand...


What the founders AGREED to, fortunately, they wrote down as the bylaws of our government. We have never deviated from that. 

Your argument is that your interpretation of what they wrote down is different than those that they empowered to adjudicate Constitutional issues. 

Why? The media told you to believe that. 

Americans understand and pledge alligiance to the Constitution that they wrote, not what you or Rush wish that they wrote.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.
> 
> That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.
> 
> I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get your gist.  But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.
> 
> The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.
> 
> The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.
Click to expand...


Americans understand that what the founders wrote in the Constitution was flawed by their times. The founders understood that too. So, they empowered the owners of government, we, the people, an avenue to maintain concurrency with the times. 

One of the ways that has been done, with great national sacrifice, is through Ammendments to move from the flaws of their times, plutocracy, to the strength of our times, democracy. 

Moving back is not an option for free people. Because what makes us free is ownership of government. 

You want to weaken the government that we own, so that it's powerless against business that you own. 

No wonder your party is sitting on the sidelines.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Why? The media told you to believe that.
> 
> Americans understand and pledge alligiance to the Constitution that they wrote, not what you or Rush wish that they wrote.



So the liberal media and a Conservative both told me to be a libertarian who disagrees with them. Got it.  My IQ is going up just knowing you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Well PMZ I read your first word...  Not surprised... "anarchy."  Yeah that's what we had under Reagan, anarchy. Anything less than absolute facist or communist control for you mother ___ers is anarchy.  I can't wait to see people like you have to go back to work to earn a living you cry baby.



I was working before you were born shithead.

Is your post supposed to be a defense of anarchy????


----------



## Foxfyre

What the Founding Fathers wrote down re their intent:

&#8220;When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.&#8221;
-Benjamin Franklin

&#8220;To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

&#8220;A wise and frugal government &#8230; shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

&#8220;Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson

&#8220;When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

&#8220;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.&#8221;
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788  (Note:  the context of the full letter did not suggest this is what should happen, but rather the tendency is something we must always be vigilant about and resist.)

&#8220;The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If &#8216;Thou shalt not covet&#8217; and &#8216;Thou shalt not steal&#8217; were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.&#8221;
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
&#8220;With respect to the two words &#8216;general welfare,&#8217; I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.&#8221;

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, &#8220;I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.&#8221;
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

&#8220;&#8230;[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.&#8221;
-James Madison

&#8220;If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.&#8221; James Madison, &#8220;Letter to Edmund Pendleton,&#8221;

-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
&#8220;An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.&#8221;

-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788
&#8220;There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.&#8221;
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

See more at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes.html


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? The media told you to believe that.
> 
> Americans understand and pledge alligiance to the Constitution that they wrote, not what you or Rush wish that they wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the liberal media and a Conservative both told me to be a libertarian who disagrees with them. Got it.  My IQ is going up just knowing you.
Click to expand...


That's the only direction that it could possibly go.

As I said, my goal is an informed electorate. Even you.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> What the Founding Fathers wrote down re their intent:
> 
> When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
> -Benjamin Franklin
> 
> To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
> 
> A wise and frugal government  shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
> -Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
> 
> Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
> -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
> -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332
> 
> The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788  (Note:  the context of the full letter did not suggest this is what should happen, but rather the tendency is something we must always be vigilant about and resist.)
> 
> The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If Thou shalt not covet and Thou shalt not steal were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.
> -John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
> With respect to the two words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
> 
> In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
> -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
> 
> [T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
> -James Madison
> 
> If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton,
> 
> -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
> An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
> 
> -James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788
> There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
> -James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788
> 
> See more at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes.html



What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to. 

Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A large pizza with 3 toppings no coupon plus tip is 20 here.  I added 20bucks to pay for the doubled labor cost, for the guy who cooks the pizza, the guy who delivers the pizza, not to mention the extra cost at the pump for the guy behind the counter who takes your gas money, and the farmer's laborer that pulls the toppings...  It all adds up.  Maybe my guess is off..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it adds up and you are off by an order of magnitude. In your calculation Obamacare would cost $10 per man/hour, which would add up to about $20,000 per year per worker. In reality the penalties for not providing insurance is $2000 per worker, with the first 30 employees being exempt.
> 
> And how many pizzerias employ more than 50 workers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to add.. just look at Bloomburg for what's coming for the country.  Large pizza?  ROFL anything more than a small slice will be illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes... Bikes. Horror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and SS started out as a 2% tax, now it's 15%.
Click to expand...


And that's good! Providing seniors with means to live in dignity is good. 



> Pretty sure McDonald's and Dominoes have more than 50 employees.



I thought we were talking about small businesses. As for your the big corporations, I'm sure they'll find a way to get by.


----------



## Foxfyre

Do any of you guys ever get the feeling that we're in a Dumb and Dumber movie?   

The Founders expressed comments were just doodles?

And the SBA defines small business as this:
&#8226;    Manufacturing: Maximum number of employees may range from 500 to 1500, depending on the type of product manufactured;
&#8226;   Wholesaling: Maximum number of employees may range from 100 to 500 depending on the particular product being provided;
&#8226;    Services: Annual receipts may not exceed $2.5 to $21.5 million, depending on the particular service being provided;
&#8226;    Retailing: Annual receipts may not exceed $5.0 to $21.0 million, depending on the particular product being provided;
&#8226;    General and Heavy Construction: General construction annual receipts may not exceed $13.5 to $17 million, depending on the type of construction;
&#8226;    Special Trade Construction: Annual receipts may not exceed $7 million; and
&#8226;    Agriculture: Annual receipts may not exceed $0.5 to $9.0 million, depending on the agricultural product.

While small business can certainly be a one or two person mom and pop operation, maybe somebody can point me to all those businesses with receipts of $2.5 million or more who have fewer than 50 employees.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances.  There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts.  Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.
> 
> That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune.  And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.
> 
> I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get your gist.  But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.
> 
> The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.
> 
> The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.
Click to expand...

Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it adds up and you are off by an order of magnitude. In your calculation Obamacare would cost $10 per man/hour, which would add up to about $20,000 per year per worker. In reality the penalties for not providing insurance is $2000 per worker, with the first 30 employees being exempt.
> 
> And how many pizzerias employ more than 50 workers?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes... Bikes. Horror.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and SS started out as a 2% tax, now it's 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's good! Providing seniors with means to live in dignity is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure McDonald's and Dominoes have more than 50 employees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we were talking about small businesses. As for your the big corporations, I'm sure they'll find a way to get by.
Click to expand...

Providing seniors with dignity?  You can't provide someone with dignity, dignity is derived from within, not from income/assets taken by force from your grand kids.  You want to put dignity back into SS? Easy give the seniors back all of the money they put into SS and the backing money that their companies put into SS as one time cash payments to their 401k plans.  That puts dignity back into the system.

Yeah and how long do you think the exemptions for small companies are gonna last?  Aren't those small company owners the evil rich? I thought the democrats wanted to end all the loop holes.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your gist.  But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.
> 
> The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.
> 
> The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.
Click to expand...


Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.

Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.
> 
> Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.



Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument.  Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know.  Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.
> 
> The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
Click to expand...


"Oh god, I don't want to be President."

No worries, mate. For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.
> 
> Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument.  Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know.  Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...
Click to expand...


I love it when conservatives are speechless. Or, pointless.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> "Oh god, I don't want to be President."
> 
> No worries, mate.


The "mate" is a she.



PMZ said:


> For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.



Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.
> 
> The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
Click to expand...


Fair / uniform..  Not sure how that can be achieved.  Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties.  Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent.  At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The system I suggest WAS the Founders system.  And yes, I am suggesting we go back to it.   Your analogy is pretty much where we could be headed. . . or much worse. . . if we don't wake up and start understanding and appreciating the Founders' intent and demanding that government get back to it.
> 
> The Founders were pretty much of one mind that there was nothing in the Constitution that allowed the federal government to use the tax payers money to benefit anybody other than what addressed the general welfare; i.e. post offices that all, rich and poor alike, would use or roads that all, rich and poor alike, would use.    What charity and special needs or economic stimulus was needed was the prerogative and responsibility of the various states and local communities, not the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
Click to expand...


BTW, your Lincoln quote is very timely. It's nearly impossible for me to understand how the Republican Party got from his profound thinking to the current state of cult delusion. I guess that being bought by business interests is a large part of the explanation.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you quote are their doodles during the debate which had to come down to what they agreed to as the bylaws for our government. Unlike modern Republicans, they were in honest search of the best bylaws which are enshrined in our Constitution. That's what our country is based on. What they agreed to.
> 
> Part of Newspeak is the claim that conservatives are constitutionalists. The truth is, maybe, but obviously not our Constitution, but another one that they dream of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument.  Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know.  Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when conservatives are speechless. Or, pointless.
Click to expand...


Ouch!  You called me a conservative!?!  I'm going to cry now at your relentless onslaught.



Sorry man, I was trying to cry.  Really, I was...


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Oh god, I don't want to be President."
> 
> No worries, mate.
> 
> 
> 
> The "mate" is a she.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.
Click to expand...


Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, your Lincoln quote is very timely. It's nearly impossible for me to understand how the Republican Party got from his profound thinking to the current state of cult delusion. I guess that being bought by business interests is a large part of the explanation.
Click to expand...


Profound?  ROFL You haven't even figured out that you are not talking to republicans yet.  The only thing profound around here is how much like a stump you are.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, every quote she gave you went DIRECTLY to your argument.  Why liberals think "duh, I don't get it" is indicative of intelligence I'll never know.  Well, then again, maybe now that I think about it I get it now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when conservatives are speechless. Or, pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch!  You called me a conservative!?!  I'm going to cry now at your relentless onslaught.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry man, I was trying to cry.  Really, I was...
Click to expand...


I guess that once you get to pointless, you can't stop.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, your Lincoln quote is very timely. It's nearly impossible for me to understand how the Republican Party got from his profound thinking to the current state of cult delusion. I guess that being bought by business interests is a large part of the explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Profound?  ROFL
Click to expand...


Speaking of pointless........


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox for president!  Sadly we're probably gonna have to have a civil war first.  The voters have access to the coffers now, it's over.  Willing to be proven wrong, but have seen way to many supposed conservatives argue that liberty is for fools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair / uniform..  Not sure how that can be achieved.  Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties.  Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent.  At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.
Click to expand...


I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board.  I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery.  And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.

Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor.  They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it.   Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.

The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.

I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government.  We do that at the state and local level.  I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level.  But whatever the tax it must be uniform.  We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Oh god, I don't want to be President."
> 
> No worries, mate.
> 
> 
> 
> The "mate" is a she.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.
Click to expand...


News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it.  Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.

Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot.  I can't say the same for his wife or Obama.  I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day.  Obama?  I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President?  OMG


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Oh god, I don't want to be President."
> 
> No worries, mate.
> 
> 
> 
> The "mate" is a she.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you or any Republican. At least not until we get your unpaid bills taken care of. Perhaps a dozen or two generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.
Click to expand...


You are trying to say he balanced the budget, not that he paid the bills.  He didn't reduce the debt by any measure, which is what paying our unpaid bills would mean.  However, beyond that your Clinton argument is so deliciously ironic to my point, will get back to that in a sec.

Question 1:  How did a President who can't pass a budget balance the budget?  The Congress, who was Republican and could balance the budget would have had to do that.

Question 2:  Say we ignore the facts and give Clinton credit.  If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?

The answer to both is the irony I referred to.  Government is lying to you.  The government you want to give dictatorial powers who we deal with.  That is why you must beg the question to get there, facts aren't going to do the job...


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair / uniform..  Not sure how that can be achieved.  Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties.  Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent.  At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board.  I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery.  And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.
> 
> Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor.  They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it.   Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.
> 
> The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.
> 
> I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government.  We do that at the state and local level.  I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level.  But whatever the tax it must be uniform.  We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.
Click to expand...


"The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people."

We hire and fire the people in government. That's all of the power that we need. And that's why you will never get your dream of a weak government owned by we, the people and a strong business community, owned by the wealthy, overrunning the people.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "mate" is a she.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are trying to say he balanced the budget, not that he paid the bills.  He didn't reduce the debt by any measure, which is what paying our unpaid bills would mean.  However, beyond that your Clinton argument is so deliciously ironic to my point, will get back to that in a sec.
> 
> Question 1:  How did a President who can't pass a budget balance the budget?  The Congress, who was Republican and could balance the budget would have had to do that.
> 
> Question 2:  Say we ignore the facts and give Clinton credit.  If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?
> 
> The answer to both is the irony I referred to.  Government is lying to you.  The government you want to give dictatorial powers who we deal with.  That is why you must beg the question to get there, facts aren't going to do the job...
Click to expand...


First of all, you repeating the lies that came from Republican 24/7/365 advertising does not make them true, any more than the lies told by MB advertising make you powerful and respected. 

Congress passes budgets and Republicans have shut down Congress. 

We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.


----------



## RKMBrown

A budget that has to borrow trillions of dollars is not really a budget.


----------



## freedombecki

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.


 That would be viewed as an additional pet rock tax to the existing taxes on income, properties, imports, exports, and profits by many politicians who want Americans to be vassals to the system they already rule.

If you meant it to be the only tax, the present road to higher taxes was paved with ideas by bright minds were usurped by power-hungry monsters that want to control every aspect of American life by mining every scrap of information they can by any which means they can in order to procure the wealth of those that earned it and paid taxes on it already so they can reap the benefits of the American people without having to wait in line for health care like they have planned for the working class like us.

Thanks for your good idea, though, Mr. Brunswick. But having lived a lifetime watching the dogfight between the administration and the congress over who shall have the most money to spend, a sales tax would be viewed as their silver lining to higher taxes on the rest of America while they exploit loopholes they leave to slip their wealth through before anyone knows what happened.

I only have three words for our present government: drunk on power.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "mate" is a she.
> 
> Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it.  Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.
> 
> Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot.  I can't say the same for his wife or Obama.  I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day.  Obama?  I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President?  OMG
Click to expand...


Clinton didn't willingly balance the budget.  He went kicking and screaming through the process and finally signed onto it.  Sort of like the welfare reform (that allowed the budget to be balanced) that he vetoed three times before he finally acquiesced to public opinion and signed the legislation.

Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has done some great research on this stuff over the years, both for his radio show, for his books and columns he has written, and his television show:

Youtube montage of clinton on the budget - Bing Videos



It IS true that the debt clock slowed significantly during the brief period that we did have a 'balanced' budget and had we kept that amazing group of Congressmen, including about 30 conservative Democrats who helped make it happen, we might have started righting the ship.  But alas, most term limited themselves out, were replaced by more statists in both parties, and we remain in danger of capsizing under the weight of our own government greed.

Until we can all agree on and rise up and demand that total fairness be established in the system, meaning everybody, rich and poor, pays the same percentage, and demand that government stay within the bounds of the revenues it receives, it will only get worse.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "mate" is a she.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you're winning, our bills will never be paid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it.  Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.
> 
> Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot.  I can't say the same for his wife or Obama.  I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day.  Obama?  I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President?  OMG
Click to expand...


It was innovators who invented computers and the Internet who did it. 

A patriot is one that supports his country. President Obama has rebuilt America from the wreckage of the Bush Administration. You are the one that wants to tear it down again.

More Republican media Newspeak from you.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did it. Obama will too when and if business remembers that their function for we, the people, is growth. There has to be at least a few of the old Republicans around that know that and can still do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> News flash... it was the republican congress and the reagan economy he inherited that did it.  Clinton signed welfare reform... so yeah I guess he went along with it.
> 
> Just to add.. I do think Mr. Clinton was a patriot.  I can't say the same for his wife or Obama.  I would take Bill Clinton over Obama any day.  Obama?  I would not hire him to cut my grass, the guy is the biggest POS we have ever had as a government employee, President?  OMG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't willingly balance the budget.  He went kicking and screaming through the process and finally signed onto it.  Sort of like the welfare reform (that allowed the budget to be balanced) that he vetoed three times before he finally acquiesced to public opinion and signed the legislation.
> 
> Whatever one thinks of Rush Limbaugh, he has done some great research on this stuff over the years, both for his radio show, for his books and columns he has written, and his television show:
> 
> Youtube montage of clinton on the budget - Bing Videos
> 
> 
> 
> It IS true that the debt clock slowed significantly during the brief period that we did have a 'balanced' budget and had we kept that amazing group of Congressmen, including about 30 conservative Democrats who helped make it happen, we might have started righting the ship.  But alas, most term limited themselves out, were replaced by more statists in both parties, and we remain in danger of capsizing under the weight of our own government greed.
> 
> Until we can all agree on and rise up and demand that total fairness be established in the system, meaning everybody, rich and poor, pays the same percentage, and demand that government stay within the bounds of the revenues it receives, it will only get worse.
Click to expand...


"Fairness" possibly occurs in the next life, not this one. We're about passing on to our children a powerful, successful, progressive country as our parents passed on to us. That requires problem solving, something that Republicans have a decided aversion to, due to their focus on weakening the government and country.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.



If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?
Click to expand...


You have to give them, Congress and Clinton, props for the effort though Kaz.  And depending on whose charts and graphs you look at, the debt clock did almost stop when we were running surplusses for the first time, WAY ahead of schedule by the way than expected--see that montage of Clinton comments on the budget I posted a few posts ago.

But you are correct that to say that those surpluses were real surpluses does require a few smoke and mirror techniques.

The Clinton era surplus numbers look something like this:



> 1998 - $69.2 billion surplus
> 1999 - $125.6 billion surplus
> 2000 - $236.4 billion surplus
> 2001 - $127.3 billion surplus
> 
> Let's take one year to focus on - 2000. The "official" surplus number for that year was $236.4 billion. So the national debt must have declined that year, right?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Let's take a look at the numbers.
> 
> The total national debt on October 1st, 1999 was:
> 
> $5,540,570,493,226.32
> 
> The total national debt on September 30th, 2000 was:
> 
> $5,656,270,901,633.43
> 
> That's an INCREASE of over $100 billion, despite the fact that the country posted a surplus.
> 
> So what gives?
> 
> There are two things that happened here:
> 
> 1) The "on-budget" surplus was actually much smaller than the number that included both the "on-budget" and "off-budget" numbers, which is the number that is widely reported by the media.
> 
> 2) Any excess revenues from the Social Security trust funds are automatically invested in government-issued debt:
> 
> "Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States."
> Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years?


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, I don't want to be President.  But I sure would like a forum in which I could persuade the people to elect one who understands that the federal government we now have is unconstitutional in almost every aspect.  And we need to elect enough like minded people to Congress to help him get started on that amendment and other necessary changes.
> 
> Our fair share should be every citizen's uniform contribution to the government the Founders intended the federal government to be, and not one penny more.  And that wouldn't be a burden or hardship on anybody because we would again be free to prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair / uniform..  Not sure how that can be achieved.  Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties.  Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent.  At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board.  I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery.  And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.
> 
> Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor.  They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it.   Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.
> 
> The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.
> 
> I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government.  We do that at the state and local level.  I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level.  But whatever the tax it must be uniform.  We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.
Click to expand...

Just because someone is retired, does not excuse them from paying their own way.  Pretending they should get everything for free after a certain age?  Why? Why just the elderly? Why do we force women to have to pay taxes? Why children?  Why black people?  Why don't we just make rich white men between the ages of 25 and 60 pay taxes and everyone else get an exemption.  You want to be really fair? How about giving me a rebate with interest for the AMT tax I had to pay that would not count if taxed at my current salary?


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair / uniform..  Not sure how that can be achieved.  Some days I think maybe sales taxes, and import/export duties.  Some days I think maybe some form of smallish property tax like half a percent.  At any rate I can't believe any form of labor tax is anything but slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board.  I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery.  And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.
> 
> Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor.  They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it.   Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.
> 
> The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.
> 
> I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government.  We do that at the state and local level.  I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level.  But whatever the tax it must be uniform.  We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because someone is retired, does not excuse them for paying their own way.  Pretending they should get everything for free after a certain age?  Why?
Click to expand...


Who said anything about them not paying their own way?  I am retired and I haven't taken a dime from the federal government ever except for those stupid rebates they made everybody get.  I paid a HUGE amount of money into social security and medicare and so far have not drawn anywhere near as much as I paid in.

And I paid taxes on every dime of my earnings--more taxes than most because I was self employed for a lot of years--and I paid tax twice on my social security benefits for several years until I fully retired.   Most of our retirement is in Roth accounts so we have already paid income taxes on that.

So to have to pay 20% in federal income taxes in order to spend the money that has already been taxed is doubly hard on retirees and simply can't pass the fair play test.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will start paying down your debt when there is a job for everyone, just like Clinton did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to give them, Congress and Clinton, props for the effort though Kaz.  And depending on whose charts and graphs you look at, the debt clock did almost stop when we were running surplusses for the first time, WAY ahead of schedule by the way than expected--see that montage of Clinton comments on the budget I posted a few posts ago.
> 
> But you are correct that to say that those surpluses were real surpluses does require a few smoke and mirror techniques.
> 
> The Clinton era surplus numbers look something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1998 - $69.2 billion surplus
> 1999 - $125.6 billion surplus
> 2000 - $236.4 billion surplus
> 2001 - $127.3 billion surplus
> 
> Let's take one year to focus on - 2000. The "official" surplus number for that year was $236.4 billion. So the national debt must have declined that year, right?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Let's take a look at the numbers.
> 
> The total national debt on October 1st, 1999 was:
> 
> $5,540,570,493,226.32
> 
> The total national debt on September 30th, 2000 was:
> 
> $5,656,270,901,633.43
> 
> That's an INCREASE of over $100 billion, despite the fact that the country posted a surplus.
> 
> So what gives?
> 
> There are two things that happened here:
> 
> 1) The "on-budget" surplus was actually much smaller than the number that included both the "on-budget" and "off-budget" numbers, which is the number that is widely reported by the media.
> 
> 2) Any excess revenues from the Social Security trust funds are automatically invested in government-issued debt:
> 
> "Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States."
> Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In 2001, the CBO told Bush, that if he continued Clinton's fiscal policies, the entire debt would be paid off by 2006. In fact it was a concern because so much of the rest of the world invests in US Treasuries, which would no longer exist. In addition, they said that by 2011, we'd have a surplus of over $2,000,000,000,000.

He ignored that advice. That's why his true cost to us is the $17,000,000,000,000 that is from his unpaid bills plus the cost of recovery from his damages plus the $2,000,000,000,000 in surplus that we would have had if he had followed the CBO's advice.

A nearly $20T swing.


----------



## PMZ

freedombecki said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be viewed as an additional pet rock tax to the existing taxes on income, properties, imports, exports, and profits by many politicians who want Americans to be vassals to the system they already rule.
> 
> If you meant it to be the only tax, the present road to higher taxes was paved with ideas by bright minds were usurped by power-hungry monsters that want to control every aspect of American life by mining every scrap of information they can by any which means they can in order to procure the wealth of those that earned it and paid taxes on it already so they can reap the benefits of the American people without having to wait in line for health care like they have planned for the working class like us.
> 
> Thanks for your good idea, though, Mr. Brunswick. But having lived a lifetime watching the dogfight between the administration and the congress over who shall have the most money to spend, a sales tax would be viewed as their silver lining to higher taxes on the rest of America while they exploit loopholes they leave to slip their wealth through before anyone knows what happened.
> 
> I only have three words for our present government: drunk on power.
Click to expand...


I, personally, vote out those drunk on power, and vote in good public servants.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give them, Congress and Clinton, props for the effort though Kaz.  And depending on whose charts and graphs you look at, the debt clock did almost stop when we were running surplusses for the first time, WAY ahead of schedule by the way than expected--see that montage of Clinton comments on the budget I posted a few posts ago.
> 
> But you are correct that to say that those surpluses were real surpluses does require a few smoke and mirror techniques.
> 
> The Clinton era surplus numbers look something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1998 - $69.2 billion surplus
> 1999 - $125.6 billion surplus
> 2000 - $236.4 billion surplus
> 2001 - $127.3 billion surplus
> 
> Let's take one year to focus on - 2000. The "official" surplus number for that year was $236.4 billion. So the national debt must have declined that year, right?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Let's take a look at the numbers.
> 
> The total national debt on October 1st, 1999 was:
> 
> $5,540,570,493,226.32
> 
> The total national debt on September 30th, 2000 was:
> 
> $5,656,270,901,633.43
> 
> That's an INCREASE of over $100 billion, despite the fact that the country posted a surplus.
> 
> So what gives?
> 
> There are two things that happened here:
> 
> 1) The "on-budget" surplus was actually much smaller than the number that included both the "on-budget" and "off-budget" numbers, which is the number that is widely reported by the media.
> 
> 2) Any excess revenues from the Social Security trust funds are automatically invested in government-issued debt:
> 
> "Federal law requires that all excess funds be invested in interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States."
> Why Did The National Debt Go Up During The Clinton Surplus Years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 2001, the CBO told Bush, that if he continued Clinton's fiscal policies, the entire debt would be paid off by 2006. In fact it was a concern because so much of the rest of the world invests in US Treasuries, which would no longer exist. In addition, they said that by 2011, we'd have a surplus of over $2,000,000,000,000.
> 
> He ignored that advice. That's why his true cost to us is the $17,000,000,000,000 that is from his unpaid bills plus the cost of recovery from his damages plus the $2,000,000,000,000 in surplus that we would have had if he had followed the CBO's advice.
> 
> A nearly $20T swing.
Click to expand...


Evidence:   

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...ic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf


----------



## Foxfyre

Pew's analysis left out 
1)  9/11
2) Katrina
3) The housing bubble collapse.  If it had not collapsed, the trend was to erase all the deficit again by the end of 2008.
. . . .ignoring these critical economic events casts strong suspicions on Pew's analysis wouldn't you think?

Also Pew DOES include Obama's excesses in the equation, something PMZ conveniently overlooked.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Pew's analysis left out
> 1)  9/11
> 2) Katrina
> 3) The housing bubble collapse.  If it had not collapsed, the trend was to erase all the deficit again by the end of 2008.
> . . . .ignoring these critical economic events casts strong suspicions on Pew's analysis wouldn't you think?
> 
> Also Pew DOES include Obama's excesses in the equation, something PMZ conveniently overlooked.



He also left out the inconvenient truth that congress is supposed to set the tax rates and spending not the president.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Pew's analysis left out
> 1)  9/11
> 2) Katrina
> 3) The housing bubble collapse.  If it had not collapsed, the trend was to erase all the deficit again by the end of 2008.
> . . . .ignoring these critical economic events casts strong suspicions on Pew's analysis wouldn't you think?
> 
> Also Pew DOES include Obama's excesses in the equation, something PMZ conveniently overlooked.



9/11 didn't cost the government anything. Katrina did, but small in proportion to $20T. The housing bubble collapse was pretty predictable and the government was complicit in it with give away interest rates. And the real issue was the collapse of Wall St due to over feeding on their own product, mortgage backed derivatives. 

I think that the low interest rates were a desperate attempt to rev up the economy to pay for the holy wars and wealth distribution tax cuts. 

What I keep thinking is where would we be if we had gone with the popular vote and elected Gore/Leibermann who most certainly would have continued Clinton's economic policies. Democracy is hard to beat at making good decisions. The Electoral College is a antique holdover from the days of Plutochracy which has far outlived its usefulness.


----------



## boedicca

9/11 didn't cost the government anything?

What did they use to repair the Pentagon?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pew's analysis left out
> 1)  9/11
> 2) Katrina
> 3) The housing bubble collapse.  If it had not collapsed, the trend was to erase all the deficit again by the end of 2008.
> . . . .ignoring these critical economic events casts strong suspicions on Pew's analysis wouldn't you think?
> 
> Also Pew DOES include Obama's excesses in the equation, something PMZ conveniently overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also left out the inconvenient truth that congress is supposed to set the tax rates and spending not the president.
Click to expand...


A Republican Congress and a Republican President don't offer much in terms of checks and balances.


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> 9/11 didn't cost the government anything?
> 
> What did they use to repair the Pentagon?



A few million dollars.


----------



## boedicca

That's real money, bub.

The true cost to the government, however, was the reduction in tax receipts as the economy slumped.  The cost to the people is the excessive expansion of government reach in to our private lives.


----------



## PMZ

HTML:
	






boedicca said:


> That's real money, bub.
> 
> The true cost to the government, however, was the reduction in tax receipts as the economy slumped.  The cost to the people is the excessive expansion of government reach in to our private lives.



As I recall, not much of a slump, perhaps surprisingly. 

Let me ask you, because I can't get an answer from any others.

Our government is too big........

Are whales too big also? Elephants? Mice? Microbes?

How does one know those answers?


----------



## Eric Cartman

Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"

None of the above.

I would say that the rate should be based on the amount needed to pay for the budget that our representatives pass.  Preferably in a progressive bracket structure.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care how they structure it so long as they take politics out of it and make it fair across the board.  I don't see a labor tax uniformly applied across the board, treating each and every citizen equally without respect to political leanings or socioeconomic standing as slavery.  And, except for fees for services utilized, a flat income tax would be the least regressive of any form of taxation.
> 
> Almost any other kind of tax erodes the resources of those who have retired and are living off the fruit of their own labor.  They already paid taxes on it once and anything other than an income tax will take more of it.   Unless they are grandfathered in on the old system or some such.
> 
> The important thing is that we remove the power from those in government and give it back to the people.
> 
> I am still mulling the pros and cons of whether the people should vote on the maximum amount of taxes that can be taken by the government.  We do that at the state and local level.  I'm looking for why we can't do it at the federal level.  But whatever the tax it must be uniform.  We must get away from this utterly insane and distructive system in which half the people pay little or no taxes but can vote to make sure that the other half pays more and more.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because someone is retired, does not excuse them for paying their own way.  Pretending they should get everything for free after a certain age?  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about them not paying their own way?  I am retired and I haven't taken a dime from the federal government ever except for those stupid rebates they made everybody get.  I paid a HUGE amount of money into social security and medicare and so far have not drawn anywhere near as much as I paid in.
> 
> And I paid taxes on every dime of my earnings--more taxes than most because I was self employed for a lot of years--and I paid tax twice on my social security benefits for several years until I fully retired.   Most of our retirement is in Roth accounts so we have already paid income taxes on that.
> 
> So to have to pay 20% in federal income taxes in order to spend the money that has already been taxed is doubly hard on retirees and simply can't pass the fair play test.
Click to expand...


Yeah and I maxed out on my SS deposits at 35.  I've been overpaying ever since.


----------



## RKMBrown

FYI... SS taxes have doubled every 15years or so, thus the older the generation the less by % they had to pay by about 4x the current generation.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> FYI... SS taxes have doubled every 15years or so, thus the older the generation the less by % they had to pay by about 4x the current generation.



It's called inflation. 

You would probably prefer the old Eskimo ice flow trick, right? If someone lives longer than their money, send them packing. I think that Sarah called them death panels.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI... SS taxes have doubled every 15years or so, thus the older the generation the less by % they had to pay by about 4x the current generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called inflation.
> 
> You would probably prefer the old Eskimo ice flow trick, right? If someone lives longer than their money, send them packing. I think that Sarah called them death panels.
Click to expand...


No dufus, it's called pyramid scheme.  Inflation went up for salaries as well.  The issue is % of our money required to pay for SS that also includes medicare now and did not at the start.  Are you really this dumb or do you just act like it?


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me.
> 
> How do you speak of rights, when you are willing to bring those who prosper to their knees? What good is the right to prosper when you make it difficult to? Why is prosperity in the highest degree such a bad thing? Why is it bad when someone has the upper hand? You want to squeeze altruism from a man, just as you would water from a turnip. The man who owns the store who employs the the employees got there from the same hard work that he accused of not doing. He isn't "nothing more than a landlord" he worked for his living just as you did, and you begrudge him the right to prosper? So what if he prospers more than you? Nobody should be made prosper the same, but at their own pace. This type of economic communalism is disturbing. If you are poor, strive to be rich, if you are rich, strive to help the poor.
> 
> You hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are merely repeating conservative media cult dogma. Mouthing the lyrics that took over your mind. Extremism.
> 
> The US has practiced both capitalist and socialist economics from the beginning. Both worked fine in their place. We accepted the danger of capitalism by our confidence that it's risks could be regulated, the biggest one being that the fact that there are no free markets anymore would lead to extreme wealth distribution towards the wealthy. We did that because we knew from experience that the product of extreme wealth distribution always will be unstable third world banana republics with the wealthy taking all of the political power as well as all of the wealth.
> 
> We are there now. By any measure of wealth inequality. How did we get here? Because the wealthy bought our way here. They paid for your mind and your vote by giving you a cartoon simple black and white picture of a complex world which you published above. They also gave you $17,000,000,000,000 in debt that they generated trying for all of the marbles.
> 
> The middle class is our economy both for supply and demand. Every time a CEO gets a $50,000,000 paycheck for the wealth created by workers doing their jobs despite his "leadership" the country gets more broken. That $50,000,000 is money that doesn't buy the groceries and cars and houses and school taxes that it would if it was used to pay middle class wealth creators, it goes to buy power.
> 
> Business is broken but the wealthy buy airtime to tell you that government is broken. Why? Because the power of democratic government of, by, and for the people is the one thing standing between the wealthy and all of the marbles.
> 
> Our predesessors built a country from the sweat of their brow. It's our responsibility to pass it on to our children. The Great Recession was the first major clue that we are failing them and if things don't continue to turn around we'll have nothing to pass on. At least, 80% of us won't. The other 20% will pass on enough money to buy the wealth created by others for a few generations. Then lights out.
Click to expand...


Yes yes yes..As we are all well aware, All liberal thought and speech is mainstream. While all conservative thought and speech are extremism.
Hey genius, the next time you quote someone, have the common decency to post a link.


----------



## thereisnospoon

1017 previous posts and still no number that should be considered a "fair share"...


----------



## RKMBrown

thereisnospoon said:


> 1017 previous posts and still no number that should be considered a "fair share"...



Zero.


----------



## ScienceRocks

A hybrid economic system that has served us well is what we want. We want a pro-business environment that allows innovation, but we also need a system that checks @ balances. The government also funds innovation...

This is what we want.


----------



## Cecilie1200

thereisnospoon said:


> 1017 previous posts and still no number that should be considered a "fair share"...



Did you actually expect them to give you an answer, rather than spouting their rote talking points in an attempt to 1) justify their insistence that there IS such an apocryphal figure, and 2) convince everyone to just shut up and pay whatever they're told to in the never-ending search for the aforementioned apocryphal figure?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI... SS taxes have doubled every 15years or so, thus the older the generation the less by % they had to pay by about 4x the current generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called inflation.
> 
> You would probably prefer the old Eskimo ice flow trick, right? If someone lives longer than their money, send them packing. I think that Sarah called them death panels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dufus, it's called pyramid scheme.  Inflation went up for salaries as well.  The issue is % of our money required to pay for SS that also includes medicare now and did not at the start.  Are you really this dumb or do you just act like it?
Click to expand...


Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.

You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with them. Shoot them?


----------



## PMZ

thereisnospoon said:


> 1017 previous posts and still no number that should be considered a "fair share"...



Why on earth would you expect a single number? The world hasn't been that simple for thousands of years.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called inflation.
> 
> You would probably prefer the old Eskimo ice flow trick, right? If someone lives longer than their money, send them packing. I think that Sarah called them death panels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dufus, it's called pyramid scheme.  Inflation went up for salaries as well.  The issue is % of our money required to pay for SS that also includes medicare now and did not at the start.  Are you really this dumb or do you just act like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with them. Shoot them?
Click to expand...


Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  That said what should happen is folks are given their money back so they can invest and spend it as they wish.  Charity is for people to provide voluntarily, not by force of law.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dufus, it's called pyramid scheme.  Inflation went up for salaries as well.  The issue is % of our money required to pay for SS that also includes medicare now and did not at the start.  Are you really this dumb or do you just act like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with t hem. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  That said what should happen is folks are given their money back so they can invest and spend it as they wish.
Click to expand...


Fine. Have at it. But you still didn't answer the question.


----------



## PMZ

It seems like one of the problems with those who get their opinions from Republican advertising is that they have no world experience. They seem to have zero first hand experience with other countries that practice what they preach. In fact, they apparently are instructed to disregard our own experience practicing what they preach. 

I have no knowledge of how cultism works but I suppose that it is a variation of hypnotism. The power of suggestion. If all of your input comes from one source, you have no idea if it's lies. Nothing to compare it to. 

Sad to see.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with t hem. Shoot them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  That said what should happen is folks are given their money back so they can invest and spend it as they wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine. Have at it. But you still didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...


Yes I did. I'll number the two answers since you seem to have missed them.

>> What would you do with them.
1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family.  Such as retiring to live with their kids.
2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> It seems like one of the problems with those who get their opinions from Republican advertising is that they have no world experience. They seem to have zero first hand experience with other countries that practice what they preach. In fact, they apparently are instructed to disregard our own experience practicing what they preach.
> 
> I have no knowledge of how cultism works but I suppose that it is a variation of hypnotism. The power of suggestion. If all of your input comes from one source, you have no idea if it's lies. Nothing to compare it to.
> 
> Sad to see.


This fantasy of yours should really be explained to a psychiatrist. I have no idea what you expect out of talking about it here, other than to let everyone see how nutz you are.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.



That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.

We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.


----------



## Wyatt earp

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called inflation.
> 
> You would probably prefer the old Eskimo ice flow trick, right? If someone lives longer than their money, send them packing. I think that Sarah called them death panels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dufus, it's called pyramid scheme.  Inflation went up for salaries as well.  The issue is % of our money required to pay for SS that also includes medicare now and did not at the start.  Are you really this dumb or do you just act like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with them. Shoot them?
Click to expand...


What does this post mean? are you suggesting Americans are to stupid to invest their money with out being forced to pay into S.S.? just a question how come I didnt get my wifes contribution into S.S. when she died? all I got was $250 bucks, and a thank you for playing that game.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
Click to expand...


You mean they cant just "print" as much money as they want?  Why not?  What would stop them from having the fed write us all checks?  They do it all the time just like the other 17T they can just borrow more.  Or the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel to "save" the planet from the recession.


----------



## PMZ

All in all, just more evidence of what I said.

"It seems like one of the problems with those who get their opinions from Republican advertising is that they have no world experience. They seem to have zero first hand experience with other countries that practice what they preach. In fact, they apparently are instructed to disregard our own experience practicing what they preach."

Where you have been led by your cult addition is to the land where what has demonstrably failed, works. Where what has demonstrably worked, fails. So you wander around, on script, proposing solutions to non-problems, and ignoring real problems. Again, right on que. 

It's embarrassing that you call yourself Americans. 

What is even more tragic for America, is that this strategy that seems to be the Republican's only hope for redemption, is also demonstrably failing. So in the end, nothing good will have been done to offset the costs of great damage. 

Just a bunch of media zombies wandering aimlessly, looking for relevance. 

The only historical equivalence that I can see were the Dark Ages, where the media of the time, the church, led people down a road that had no basis in humanity. Mankind almost didn't survive those holy wars, denial of science, class warfare, worship of status, and attention to unimportant things and ignor-ance of important things.

We have sacrificed a great deal to evolve from the founders only choice, plutocracy, to our salvation, democracy. Returning to governance by wealth is unthinkable, no matter what Newspeak blares at us 24/7/365.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  That said what should happen is folks are given their money back so they can invest and spend it as they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Have at it. But you still didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did. I'll number the two answers since you seem to have missed them.
> 
> >> What would you do with them.
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family.  Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
Click to expand...


Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean they cant just "print" as much money as they want?  Why not?  What would stop them from having the fed write us all checks?  They do it all the time just like the other 17T they can just borrow more.
Click to expand...


You apparently have to deny what policies caused us to spend, not the $17T we presently owe, but even more. Nearly $20T that is the difference from where we could be, to where we are. 

And that SS and Medicare both have significant surpluses now. The retirement savings of middle class  America. The retirement savings that the wealthy don't need, and that the unemployed poor of America can't afford.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
Click to expand...


While true inflation has some impact, it's not what you imply. Inflation floats all boats. Wages, costs, interest rates. So a dollar invested in 1950, may buy less in 2013, but it's no longer a dollar. Unless it was buried in the back yard, it's 10 dollars.


----------



## PMZ

bear513 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dufus, it's called pyramid scheme.  Inflation went up for salaries as well.  The issue is % of our money required to pay for SS that also includes medicare now and did not at the start.  Are you really this dumb or do you just act like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with them. Shoot them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does this post mean? are you suggesting Americans are to stupid to invest their money with out being forced to pay into S.S.? just a question how come I didnt get my wifes contribution into S.S. when she died? all I got was $250 bucks, and a thank you for playing that game.
Click to expand...


Obviously your joke doesn't have anything to do with the difference between republicans and democrats. It has to do with what you've fallen for. The difference as described by 24/7/365 republican media campaign advertising. Have you also fallen for the Mercedes ads? The Infomercials? The Viagra ads?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean they cant just "print" as much money as they want?  Why not?  What would stop them from having the fed write us all checks?  They do it all the time just like the other 17T they can just borrow more.  Or the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel to "save" the planet from the recession.
Click to expand...


"the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"

It would be good to post some evidence of this.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they cant just "print" as much money as they want?  Why not?  What would stop them from having the fed write us all checks?  They do it all the time just like the other 17T they can just borrow more.  Or the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel to "save" the planet from the recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"
> 
> It would be good to post some evidence of this.
Click to expand...


Why, you don't listen to evidence. You have some "other" person talking to you in your head.

global credit stock doubled from $57 trillion to $109 trillion in just 10 years (from 2000 to 2010)

Total Global Debt Has To Double To Over $200 Trillion By 2020 To Preserve Economic Growth | Zero Hedge


----------



## Eric Cartman

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they cant just "print" as much money as they want?  Why not?  What would stop them from having the fed write us all checks?  They do it all the time just like the other 17T they can just borrow more.  Or the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel to "save" the planet from the recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"
> 
> It would be good to post some evidence of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, you don't listen to evidence. You have some "other" person talking to you in your head.
> 
> global credit stock doubled from $57 trillion to $109 trillion in just 10 years (from 2000 to 2010)
> 
> Total Global Debt Has To Double To Over $200 Trillion By 2020 To Preserve Economic Growth | Zero Hedge
Click to expand...


"the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"

So, what your reference says, and what you said, are almost completely disconnected. Thought so.


----------



## PMZ

Eric Cartman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?
Click to expand...


There is only one problem with SS and Medicare. The working wealthy have to pay their share of it, and receive the same return on their savings as the middle class, but they don't need it. They figure what's the use of their wealth if it doesn't allow them exclusivity. Of course it does, and they show it off at every opportunity, but it could be even more so if they were the only ones able to retire. 

Pathetic.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only one problem with SS and Medicare. The working wealthy have to pay their share of it, and receive the same return on their savings as the middle class, but they don't need it. They figure what's the use of their wealth if it doesn't allow them exclusivity. Of course it does, and they show it off at every opportunity, but it could be even more so if they were the only ones able to retire.
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Their share of it?  Comrade, you think paying 15% of your salary for 45years to see a possible return of 1/10th the money that was put into SS/Medicare as fair? Stealing 13% of a man's family income to make your life easier is fair?  You idea of fairness is pathetic.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"
> 
> It would be good to post some evidence of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, you don't listen to evidence. You have some "other" person talking to you in your head.
> 
> global credit stock doubled from $57 trillion to $109 trillion in just 10 years (from 2000 to 2010)
> 
> Total Global Debt Has To Double To Over $200 Trillion By 2020 To Preserve Economic Growth | Zero Hedge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"
> 
> So, what your reference says, and what you said, are almost completely disconnected. Thought so.
Click to expand...

Can you tell the class what unlimited expansion of credit means?  Can you explain where the money comes from for our system of unlimited expansion of credit?


----------



## RKMBrown

Eric Cartman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?
Click to expand...


Why do you think the government is a better investor of your retirement money than you are?  The government is pissing away our retirement funds, 15% of everyone's salary, is causing poverty not fixing it.  It was and is a pyramid scheme, that is almost completely unfunded and will require your grand children to pay in 25% or so of their salary to make up for the fact that the government spent your salary, your retirement deposits, on parties, bonuses, and raises for themselves. The government employees are living large and now get more income and benefits and "parties" than the private sector ever has.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Have at it. But you still didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did. I'll number the two answers since you seem to have missed them.
> 
> >> What would you do with them.
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family.  Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
Click to expand...


Which answer confused you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one problem with SS and Medicare. The working wealthy have to pay their share of it, and receive the same return on their savings as the middle class, but they don't need it. They figure what's the use of their wealth if it doesn't allow them exclusivity. Of course it does, and they show it off at every opportunity, but it could be even more so if they were the only ones able to retire.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their share of it?  Comrade, you think paying 15% of your salary for 45years to see a possible return of 1/10th the money that was put into SS/Medicare as fair? Stealing 13% of a man's family income to make your life easier is fair?  You idea of fairness is pathetic.
Click to expand...


As usual, your facts are not accurate. You make up numbers hoping that someone out there no smarter than you will support your plea for anarchy.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why, you don't listen to evidence. You have some "other" person talking to you in your head.
> 
> global credit stock doubled from $57 trillion to $109 trillion in just 10 years (from 2000 to 2010)
> 
> Total Global Debt Has To Double To Over $200 Trillion By 2020 To Preserve Economic Growth | Zero Hedge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"
> 
> So, what your reference says, and what you said, are almost completely disconnected. Thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell the class what unlimited expansion of credit means?  Can you explain where the money comes from for our system of unlimited expansion of credit?
Click to expand...


Show us in the US budget actuals, where the $40T came from and to whom it went.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did. I'll number the two answers since you seem to have missed them.
> 
> >> What would you do with them.
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone.  Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family.  Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.  For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which answer confused you?
Click to expand...


Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the government is a better investor of your retirement money than you are?  The government is pissing away our retirement funds, 15% of everyone's salary, is causing poverty not fixing it.  It was and is a pyramid scheme, that is almost completely unfunded and will require your grand children to pay in 25% or so of their salary to make up for the fact that the government spent your salary, your retirement deposits, on parties, bonuses, and raises for themselves. The government employees are living large and now get more income and benefits and "parties" than the private sector ever has.
Click to expand...


Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Cartman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any reason to think that poverty rates among the elderly wouldn't skyrocket to the level they were before Social Security?  Could they even be worse because of the competitive global labor market?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the government is a better investor of your retirement money than you are?  The government is pissing away our retirement funds, 15% of everyone's salary, is causing poverty not fixing it.  It was and is a pyramid scheme, that is almost completely unfunded and will require your grand children to pay in 25% or so of their salary to make up for the fact that the government spent your salary, your retirement deposits, on parties, bonuses, and raises for themselves. The government employees are living large and now get more income and benefits and "parties" than the private sector ever has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
Click to expand...


The same thing you do with people who spend all their money at any stage of life.   If your neighbor gambles away all his money and is then hungry, what do you do?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which answer confused you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
Click to expand...


Once more I'll answer, again numbered. You'll note that these are the same answers provided above.

1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone. Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family. Such as retiring to live with their kids.

2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish. For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly. (just to add, in case they run out of money, see number (1) above, folks can get a job to earn money, and can seek welfare from charities.)


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the government is a better investor of your retirement money than you are?  The government is pissing away our retirement funds, 15% of everyone's salary, is causing poverty not fixing it.  It was and is a pyramid scheme, that is almost completely unfunded and will require your grand children to pay in 25% or so of their salary to make up for the fact that the government spent your salary, your retirement deposits, on parties, bonuses, and raises for themselves. The government employees are living large and now get more income and benefits and "parties" than the private sector ever has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with people who spend all their money at any stage of life.   If your neighbor gambles away all his money and is then hungry, what do you do?
Click to expand...


Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money? I'm looking for an answer, not a question!


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the government is a better investor of your retirement money than you are?  The government is pissing away our retirement funds, 15% of everyone's salary, is causing poverty not fixing it.  It was and is a pyramid scheme, that is almost completely unfunded and will require your grand children to pay in 25% or so of their salary to make up for the fact that the government spent your salary, your retirement deposits, on parties, bonuses, and raises for themselves. The government employees are living large and now get more income and benefits and "parties" than the private sector ever has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with people who spend all their money at any stage of life.   If your neighbor gambles away all his money and is then hungry, what do you do?
Click to expand...

I think his problem may be that he's not capable of thinking/doing things on his own, can only think of things in terms of media defined and / or government provided solutions, he probably worked for the government.  That might explain his idea that we get all our ideas from republican media as a projection of the difference between getting all ones ideas from democrat media.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which answer confused you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more I'll answer, again numbered. You'll note that these are the same answers provided above.
> 
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone. Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family. Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish. For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly. (just to add, in case they run out of money, see number (1) above, folks can get a job to earn money, and can seek welfare from charities.)
Click to expand...


Why would you assume that the people paying for their parents, and the charities that you seem to love to live off, would be any cheaper than SS and Medicare?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with people who spend all their money at any stage of life.   If your neighbor gambles away all his money and is then hungry, what do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think his problem is that he's not capable of doing anything on his own, can only think of things in terms of government provided solutions, he probably worked for the government.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem. I worked all of my life and saved. I have SS that I paid for, Medicare that I paid for, my investments that I paid for. 

I have been fortunate. Many are less so. For instance, I paid for fire insurance on our houses my whole life and never got back a dime. All of my money went to others who were less fortunate and had to rebuild their houses. Should I whine like a baby for that?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with people who spend all their money at any stage of life.   If your neighbor gambles away all his money and is then hungry, what do you do?
> 
> 
> 
> I think his problem is that he's not capable of doing anything on his own, can only think of things in terms of government provided solutions, he probably worked for the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem. I worked all of my life and saved. I have SS that I paid for, Medicare that I paid for, my investments that I paid for.
> 
> I have been fortunate. Many are less so. For instance, I paid for fire insurance on our houses my whole life and never got back a dime. All of my money went to others who were less fortunate and had to rebuild their houses. Should I whine like a baby for that?
Click to expand...


Ah good.  Then you have found the solution for the person who runs out of money before the end of their lives.  Or the neighbor who gambles away all his money and is then hungry.  Or those who failed to purchase insurance on their homes.  Good for you.  A moral society takes care of the truly helpless and even offers a hand up to the careless. clueless, and stupid.  But a moral society does it out of their own pockets and not out of the pocket of the other guy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more I'll answer, again numbered. You'll note that these are the same answers provided above.
> 
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone. Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family. Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish. For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly. (just to add, in case they run out of money, see number (1) above, folks can get a job to earn money, and can seek welfare from charities.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that the people paying for their parents, and the charities that you seem to love to live off, would be any cheaper than SS and Medicare?
Click to expand...


A. I did not claim it would be cheaper.  Why would I want my parents to live a spartan life in retirement?

B. Retirement is not cheap.  People need and deserve more income in retirement than they get from the current system of SS / Medicare, which is ridiculous considering that the system broke and insufficient.  Why? Because they spent it on shovel ready government fat, instead of investing it for profit.  Governments / Politicians are the last people we should trust with our money.


----------



## ilia25

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which answer confused you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more I'll answer, again numbered. You'll note that these are the same answers provided above.
> 
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone. Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family. Such as retiring to live with their kids.
Click to expand...


What if they don't have kids, or their kids don;t want to live with them?



> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish.



And what do you do with those of them who outlive their money?


----------



## RKMBrown

ilia25 said:


> What if they don't have kids, or their kids don;t want to live with them?



Well if they never had kids then they should have more money to spend on themselves, if every member of their family, brothers, sisters, parents, first cousins, children alike, all died they should get insurance. 

If their family doesn't want them to live with them... Why should I pay for their desire to live independently?  That's their choice.

That said, if folks want money they can get a job to earn money.  They can also seek welfare from charities.



ilia25 said:


> And what do you do with those of them who outlive their money?


Why should I pay the federal government to do anything for my parents and/or for my neighbor's parents, and/or for some elderly that have no family to fall back on?  Is there some sort of understood law that we as a nation must run all charities and families out of business and convert them into federal programs?  We should break the piggy bank of all citizens so our federal government can screw up our charities and bankrupt our families? We should tithe to our government and worship our government so it will take care of us with SS checks in our old age? WTF?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think his problem is that he's not capable of doing anything on his own, can only think of things in terms of government provided solutions, he probably worked for the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem. I worked all of my life and saved. I have SS that I paid for, Medicare that I paid for, my investments that I paid for.
> 
> I have been fortunate. Many are less so. For instance, I paid for fire insurance on our houses my whole life and never got back a dime. All of my money went to others who were less fortunate and had to rebuild their houses. Should I whine like a baby for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah good.  Then you have found the solution for the person who runs out of money before the end of their lives.  Or the neighbor who gambles away all his money and is then hungry.  Or those who failed to purchase insurance on their homes.  Good for you.  A moral society takes care of the truly helpless and even offers a hand up to the careless. clueless, and stupid.  But a moral society does it out of their own pockets and not out of the pocket of the other guy.
Click to expand...


I get a big kick out of an anarchist talking about a moral society.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more I'll answer, again numbered. You'll note that these are the same answers provided above.
> 
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone. Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family. Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish. For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly. (just to add, in case they run out of money, see number (1) above, folks can get a job to earn money, and can seek welfare from charities.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that the people paying for their parents, and the charities that you seem to love to live off, would be any cheaper than SS and Medicare?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. I did not claim it would be cheaper.  Why would I want my parents to live a spartan life in retirement?
> 
> B. Retirement is not cheap.  People need and deserve more income in retirement than they get from the current system of SS / Medicare, which is ridiculous considering that the system broke and insufficient.  Why? Because they spent it on shovel ready government fat, instead of investing it for profit.  Governments / Politicians are the last people we should trust with our money.
Click to expand...


Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't. 

Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they don't have kids, or their kids don;t want to live with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they never had kids then they should have more money to spend on themselves, if every member of their family, brothers, sisters, parents, first cousins, children alike, all died they should get insurance.
> 
> If their family doesn't want them to live with them... Why should I pay for their desire to live independently?  That's their choice.
> 
> That said, if folks want money they can get a job to earn money.  They can also seek welfare from charities.
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you do with those of them who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I pay the federal government to do anything for my parents and/or for my neighbor's parents, and/or for some elderly that have no family to fall back on?  Is there some sort of understood law that we as a nation must run all charities and families out of business and convert them into federal programs?  We should break the piggy bank of all citizens so our federal government can screw up our charities and bankrupt our families? We should tithe to our government and worship our government so it will take care of us with SS checks in our old age? WTF?
Click to expand...


For some reason you seem to be anxious to have lots of old people on the streets, begging for survival. I have seen that elsewhere and it's the result of the most pathetic governments and economies in the world. If you want to relocate to those poor countries to save money, feel free. What you are not going to do is to drag America into that gutter.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that the people paying for their parents, and the charities that you seem to love to live off, would be any cheaper than SS and Medicare?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. I did not claim it would be cheaper.  Why would I want my parents to live a spartan life in retirement?
> 
> B. Retirement is not cheap.  People need and deserve more income in retirement than they get from the current system of SS / Medicare, which is ridiculous considering that the system broke and insufficient.  Why? Because they spent it on shovel ready government fat, instead of investing it for profit.  Governments / Politicians are the last people we should trust with our money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't.
> 
> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.
Click to expand...


>>> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't. 

Your not listening.  I want my money back, all of it. I don't submit to your mandatory retirement plan  Soon many like me will begin to fight back, maybe you'll win the fight, maybe you'll be wishing you stood up to the pyramid scheme before your grandchildren did. 

>>> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.

ROFL T-Bills?  ROFL  The money is gone, it is spent.  All you have to show for it is 3t in IOUs that are being paid for by stealing 15% of your grandchildren's paychecks.  If you loose the paycheck theft from your grandchildren there is no money.  Nothing but mountains of promises.  Soon they will be forced to increase the 15% to a higher number and probably to move the earliest retirement date again as they did before.  They expanded it to cover health care for the poor (chips) and other welfare programs and have broken the piggy bank trying hand over fist to spend the money.  US treasuries ROFL that's a joke.  What interest does it pay zero or is that some negative number now when you compare it to inflation?

Even if you dream up the lie the 3t is real money, here's the real joke.  3trillion is nothing, a drop in the bucket, gonna be spent on Obuma Care.  






But hey, cross your fingers you might die before your grand kids are left holding the bag of the pyramid scheme that you got to live off.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if they don't have kids, or their kids don;t want to live with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they never had kids then they should have more money to spend on themselves, if every member of their family, brothers, sisters, parents, first cousins, children alike, all died they should get insurance.
> 
> If their family doesn't want them to live with them... Why should I pay for their desire to live independently?  That's their choice.
> 
> That said, if folks want money they can get a job to earn money.  They can also seek welfare from charities.
> 
> 
> 
> ilia25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you do with those of them who outlive their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I pay the federal government to do anything for my parents and/or for my neighbor's parents, and/or for some elderly that have no family to fall back on?  Is there some sort of understood law that we as a nation must run all charities and families out of business and convert them into federal programs?  We should break the piggy bank of all citizens so our federal government can screw up our charities and bankrupt our families? We should tithe to our government and worship our government so it will take care of us with SS checks in our old age? WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some reason you seem to be anxious to have lots of old people on the streets, begging for survival. I have seen that elsewhere and it's the result of the most pathetic governments and economies in the world. If you want to relocate to those poor countries to save money, feel free. What you are not going to do is to drag America into that gutter.
Click to expand...


You have a serious reading comprehension problem.  No where in any of my statements have I put anyone on any street.  I think you are a sick sad old man.

Just because people like Obama won't take their brother or Aunt in, does not mean the rest of us are like that to our families.  You are projecting for yourself I suppose. Yeah I can imagine if no one in your family loves ya, that you would be concerned about being left by your family to be destitute.  If you do not participate in local charities, yeah then I guess I could see how people like you would rather force your neighbors to tithe to your god, govco.

Look I want to take care of my family.  You are not a part of my family.  Yet you feel that you deserve to walk into my house and take the food out of my children's and parents mouths by force so that you can receive a SS check.  People like you are no better than common criminals hiding behind government regulations to accomplish your desire for theft.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. I did not claim it would be cheaper.  Why would I want my parents to live a spartan life in retirement?
> 
> B. Retirement is not cheap.  People need and deserve more income in retirement than they get from the current system of SS / Medicare, which is ridiculous considering that the system broke and insufficient.  Why? Because they spent it on shovel ready government fat, instead of investing it for profit.  Governments / Politicians are the last people we should trust with our money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't.
> 
> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't.
> 
> Your not listening.  I want my money back, all of it. I don't submit to your mandatory retirement plan  Soon many like me will begin to fight back, maybe you'll win the fight, maybe you'll be wishing you stood up to the pyramid scheme before your grandchildren did.
> 
> >>> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.
> 
> ROFL T-Bills?  ROFL  The money is gone, it is spent.  All you have to show for it is 3t in IOUs that are being paid for by stealing 15% of your grandchildren's paychecks.  If you loose the paycheck theft from your grandchildren there is no money.  Nothing but mountains of promises.  Soon they will be forced to increase the 15% to a higher number and probably to move the earliest retirement date again as they did before.  They expanded it to cover health care for the poor (chips) and other welfare programs and have broken the piggy bank trying hand over fist to spend the money.  US treasuries ROFL that's a joke.  What interest does it pay zero or is that some negative number now when you compare it to inflation?
> 
> Even if you dream up the lie the 3t is real money, here's the real joke.  3trillion is nothing, a drop in the bucket, gonna be spent on Obuma Care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, cross your fingers you might die before your grand kids are left holding the bag of the pyramid scheme that you got to live off.
Click to expand...


You make it sound like what you want matters to anybody but you. I get a big kick out of your graph with an axis of % GDP. A completely irrelevant measure. 

We're a democracy. The vast majority of we, the people, think that SS and Medicare are smart, well run, necessary benefits of government. 

You don't. You loose. 

It sounds like you are an experienced loser.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they never had kids then they should have more money to spend on themselves, if every member of their family, brothers, sisters, parents, first cousins, children alike, all died they should get insurance.
> 
> If their family doesn't want them to live with them... Why should I pay for their desire to live independently?  That's their choice.
> 
> That said, if folks want money they can get a job to earn money.  They can also seek welfare from charities.
> 
> 
> Why should I pay the federal government to do anything for my parents and/or for my neighbor's parents, and/or for some elderly that have no family to fall back on?  Is there some sort of understood law that we as a nation must run all charities and families out of business and convert them into federal programs?  We should break the piggy bank of all citizens so our federal government can screw up our charities and bankrupt our families? We should tithe to our government and worship our government so it will take care of us with SS checks in our old age? WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason you seem to be anxious to have lots of old people on the streets, begging for survival. I have seen that elsewhere and it's the result of the most pathetic governments and economies in the world. If you want to relocate to those poor countries to save money, feel free. What you are not going to do is to drag America into that gutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.  No where in any of my statements have I put anyone on any street.  I think you are a sick sad old man.
> 
> Just because people like Obama won't take their brother or Aunt in, does not mean the rest of us are like that to our families.  You are projecting for yourself I suppose. Yeah I can imagine if no one in your family loves ya, that you would be concerned about being left by your family to be destitute.  If you do not participate in local charities, yeah then I guess I could see how people like you would rather force your neighbors to tithe to your god, govco.
> 
> Look I want to take care of my family.  You are not a part of my family.  Yet you feel that you deserve to walk into my house and take the food out of my children's and parents mouths by force so that you can receive a SS check.  People like you are no better than common criminals hiding behind government regulations to accomplish your desire for theft.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what it is when those have worked for it think they are entitled to what others own or earn.  And our government seems to embrace that concept more and more with each passing year.  SS was well intended and served what it was intended to do--supplement in a very modest way the retirement income for the elderly.  But instead of focusing on those who were truly destitute and had nobody to turn to, they made it a mandatory entitlement for everybody--the first of many our country would eventually have.  

And rather than keep it a small, manageable, modest program never intended to support anybody, they eventually turned it into a massive government social welfare program.  Go into any social security office in the country and you'll see a lot more able bodied young people there than you will see old folks who need their pensions supplemented.

But then. . . .


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason you seem to be anxious to have lots of old people on the streets, begging for survival. I have seen that elsewhere and it's the result of the most pathetic governments and economies in the world. If you want to relocate to those poor countries to save money, feel free. What you are not going to do is to drag America into that gutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a serious reading comprehension problem.  No where in any of my statements have I put anyone on any street.  I think you are a sick sad old man.
> 
> Just because people like Obama won't take their brother or Aunt in, does not mean the rest of us are like that to our families.  You are projecting for yourself I suppose. Yeah I can imagine if no one in your family loves ya, that you would be concerned about being left by your family to be destitute.  If you do not participate in local charities, yeah then I guess I could see how people like you would rather force your neighbors to tithe to your god, govco.
> 
> Look I want to take care of my family.  You are not a part of my family.  Yet you feel that you deserve to walk into my house and take the food out of my children's and parents mouths by force so that you can receive a SS check.  People like you are no better than common criminals hiding behind government regulations to accomplish your desire for theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what it is when those have worked for it think they are entitled to what others own or earn.  And our government seems to embrace that concept more and more with each passing year.  SS was well intended and served what it was intended to do--supplement in a very modest way the retirement income for the elderly.  But instead of focusing on those who were truly destitute and had nobody to turn to, they made it a mandatory entitlement for everybody--the first of many our country would eventually have.
> 
> And rather than keep it a small, manageable, modest program never intended to support anybody, they eventually turned it into a massive government social welfare program.  Go into any social security office in the country and you'll see a lot more able bodied young people there than you will see old folks who need their pensions supplemented.
> 
> But then. . . .
Click to expand...


Why would you label a program of people saving for retirement massive government social welfare?


----------



## Polk

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



A sales taxes with no deductions would, even under the most favorable estimates, have to be north of 30% to be revenue neutral.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Why would you label a program of people saving for retirement massive government social welfare?



SS is not a savings system in which you put a dollar in and receive a dollar out plus interest in retirement.

Nay, SS is a system where you are forced by the government to put in ten dollars and are then lucky if you get to receive one dollar back.

The people that most benefit from SS are the ones that put the least number of dollars in, and / or the ones that get lucky enough to outlive the averages.

The luckiest generations are each previous generation, because each successive generation has had to put in twice the amount of the previous generation by % of their income. 

Retired people are not the only ones drawing on SS money.  SS money is used to fund many other programs.  

If you were to try to do a retirement system like SS in the private world our government would arrest you for grand theft.  Pyramid schemes like SS are illegal.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't.
> 
> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't.
> 
> Your not listening.  I want my money back, all of it. I don't submit to your mandatory retirement plan  Soon many like me will begin to fight back, maybe you'll win the fight, maybe you'll be wishing you stood up to the pyramid scheme before your grandchildren did.
> 
> >>> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.
> 
> ROFL T-Bills?  ROFL  The money is gone, it is spent.  All you have to show for it is 3t in IOUs that are being paid for by stealing 15% of your grandchildren's paychecks.  If you loose the paycheck theft from your grandchildren there is no money.  Nothing but mountains of promises.  Soon they will be forced to increase the 15% to a higher number and probably to move the earliest retirement date again as they did before.  They expanded it to cover health care for the poor (chips) and other welfare programs and have broken the piggy bank trying hand over fist to spend the money.  US treasuries ROFL that's a joke.  What interest does it pay zero or is that some negative number now when you compare it to inflation?
> 
> Even if you dream up the lie the 3t is real money, here's the real joke.  3trillion is nothing, a drop in the bucket, gonna be spent on Obuma Care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, cross your fingers you might die before your grand kids are left holding the bag of the pyramid scheme that you got to live off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make it sound like what you want matters to anybody but you. I get a big kick out of your graph with an axis of % GDP. A completely irrelevant measure.
> 
> We're a democracy. The vast majority of we, the people, think that SS and Medicare are smart, well run, necessary benefits of government.
> 
> You don't. You loose.
> 
> It sounds like you are an experienced loser.
Click to expand...


Showing revenue of a product that is drawn from GDP, is irrelevant when shown in relation to GDP? Huh?






Better?  And yes, I'm experienced with loosing my income to your henchmen.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you label a program of people saving for retirement massive government social welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SS is not a savings system in which you put a dollar in and receive a dollar out plus interest in retirement.
> 
> Nay, SS is a system where you are forced by the government to put in ten dollars and are then lucky if you get to receive one dollar back.
> 
> The people that most benefit from SS are the ones that put the least number of dollars in, and / or the ones that get lucky enough to outlive the averages.
> 
> The luckiest generations are each previous generation, because each successive generation has had to put in twice the amount of the previous generation by % of their income.
> 
> Retired people are not the only ones drawing on SS money.  SS money is used to fund many other programs.
> 
> If you were to try to do a retirement system like SS in the private world our government would arrest you for grand theft.  Pyramid schemes like SS are illegal.
Click to expand...


SS is an annuity. A combination of an investment account and life insurance. A defined benefit savings account. Self funded by our government. A great example of government of, by and for the people. 

Who would make the same deal with a private company? Trust us! Give us money while you're working and if we haven't spent it all on executive bonuses we'll give you some back. 

If SS was as you say, "a system where you are forced by the government to put in ten dollars and are then lucky if you get to receive one dollar back", it would be great for taxpayers. But it's not. 

Again, though, it's a free market out there. If you don't like the deal from our government, find a better deal.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Both you and your parents are perfectly free to supplement their SS and Medicare as much as you'd like. The object of those programs are to insure that people who work have saved enough of their earnings when they worked to take care of their minimal needs when they can't.
> 
> Your not listening.  I want my money back, all of it. I don't submit to your mandatory retirement plan  Soon many like me will begin to fight back, maybe you'll win the fight, maybe you'll be wishing you stood up to the pyramid scheme before your grandchildren did.
> 
> >>> Both SS and Medicare are required to invest their surplus in US Treasuries, generally considered the safest investment in the world. This crap that the government has stolen the surplus is merely the work of cheap politicians and their ignorant following.
> 
> ROFL T-Bills?  ROFL  The money is gone, it is spent.  All you have to show for it is 3t in IOUs that are being paid for by stealing 15% of your grandchildren's paychecks.  If you loose the paycheck theft from your grandchildren there is no money.  Nothing but mountains of promises.  Soon they will be forced to increase the 15% to a higher number and probably to move the earliest retirement date again as they did before.  They expanded it to cover health care for the poor (chips) and other welfare programs and have broken the piggy bank trying hand over fist to spend the money.  US treasuries ROFL that's a joke.  What interest does it pay zero or is that some negative number now when you compare it to inflation?
> 
> Even if you dream up the lie the 3t is real money, here's the real joke.  3trillion is nothing, a drop in the bucket, gonna be spent on Obuma Care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, cross your fingers you might die before your grand kids are left holding the bag of the pyramid scheme that you got to live off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make it sound like what you want matters to anybody but you. I get a big kick out of your graph with an axis of % GDP. A completely irrelevant measure.
> 
> We're a democracy. The vast majority of we, the people, think that SS and Medicare are smart, well run, necessary benefits of government.
> 
> You don't. You loose.
> 
> It sounds like you are an experienced loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Showing revenue of a product that is drawn from GDP, is irrelevant when shown in relation to GDP? Huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better?  And yes, I'm experienced with loosing my income to your henchmen.
Click to expand...


Apparently you don't believe in government of, for, and by, the people. Your choice. I think you'd better start looking for a country that would elect you Absolute Ruler. What you can't choose is to be Absolute Ruler of America. The last one with that job was King George. We threw him out. Then the Confederacy tried. We defeated them. Then Hitler, Muscle-ini and Hirohito tried. Same result. 

Of course media made extreme conservatives were the last pretenders to America's throne. They've been largely evicted too.

We have freedom that comes from democracy, and we aren't likely to give that away to America's whiners. We like workers.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> We have freedom that comes from democracy, and we aren't likely to give that away to America's whiners. We like workers.



Your definition of freedom, is my definition of slavery.  Of course you like workers, slave masters like their slaves to work real hard don't they? 

Whiners?  ROFL your the one shaking in your boots that someone's gonna turn off your money spigot.  Sucking the blood of your grandchildren by force of the mob, yeah that's "democracy."


----------



## thereisnospoon

Polk said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sales taxes with no deductions would, even under the most favorable estimates, have to be north of 30% to be revenue neutral.
Click to expand...

Your came from?


----------



## kaz

thereisnospoon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sales taxes with no deductions would, even under the most favorable estimates, have to be north of 30% to be revenue neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your came from?
Click to expand...


It's irrelevant anyway because those taxes are already baked into the price of the product.  If the actual amount is 30%, it's just an admission that taxes are higher than the left admit.  Whatever the rate is, if it's revenue neutral, the price of products won't go up.

And they will go down over time as waste and the infrastructure to collect all the different taxes, counter incentives, disincentives and  the rest of the monstrous infrastructure to tax the same money over and over are dismantled.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, I'm not dumb. There is a chance that you are not either. Just misinformed, and therefore ignorant. Of course, that's your choice.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If not for SS and Medicare, more people would outlive their money. Fact. What would you do with them. Shoot them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does this post mean? are you suggesting Americans are to stupid to invest their money with out being forced to pay into S.S.? just a question how come I didnt get my wifes contribution into S.S. when she died? all I got was $250 bucks, and a thank you for playing that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously your joke doesn't have anything to do with the difference between republicans and democrats. It has to do with what you've fallen for. The difference as described by 24/7/365 republican media campaign advertising. Have you also fallen for the Mercedes ads? The Infomercials? The Viagra ads?
Click to expand...

Typical. You libs are faithless people. You see the word 'investment' and you spontaneously combust.
You people look to government to take care of you. Rubbish.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work as there isn't enough left of those funds to support those who are already near or at retirement age.  They have been severely depleted by inflation over the years.  To be just, the government would have to return every dollar paid in but adjust it for inflation plus a reasonable return had the citizen had that money to save and draw interest or invest.
> 
> We do need to begin now to slowly and carefully privatize all retirement accounts, including those held by employers to ensure that there won't be another Enron or Madoff scandal.  And we have to accept that if people fail to save for their old age, it will be the responsibility of family and/or private charities to take care of them.  That sounds cruel and harsh, but it really isn't.  We either have freedom and personal responsibility for our choices or we give government power to assign us the rights we will have.  There is nothing in between those two options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they cant just "print" as much money as they want?  Why not?  What would stop them from having the fed write us all checks?  They do it all the time just like the other 17T they can just borrow more.  Or the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel to "save" the planet from the recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "the 40+Trillion in checks they wrote to the banking cartel"
> 
> It would be good to post some evidence of this.
Click to expand...


Most of which YOUR SIDE supports. 
Stimulus. All three QE's. More stimulus. More taxes. More government intrusion. 
You people adore this stuff. 
You despise the concept of the individual. 
Never mind the so called banking cartels. You look to government to do everything for you. Then you question the methods by which the government does your bidding.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with people who spend all their money at any stage of life.   If your neighbor gambles away all his money and is then hungry, what do you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money? I'm looking for an answer, not a question!
Click to expand...


Asked and answered. Rely on family. 
You go to the taxpayers as a LAST resort.


----------



## thereisnospoon

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, what do you do with the people who outlive their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more I'll answer, again numbered. You'll note that these are the same answers provided above.
> 
> 1) Families used to live together.. I like that better than paying parents to die alone. Folks that run out of money and can't / don't want to work should turn to family. Such as retiring to live with their kids.
> 
> 2) Folks should be given their money back, that they paid into SS and Medicare, so they can invest and spend their money as they wish. For example, give everyone in the USA a cash check to a 401k in payment for every dollar that was paid into SS minus every dollar that was paid to them directly. (just to add, in case they run out of money, see number (1) above, folks can get a job to earn money, and can seek welfare from charities.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that the people paying for their parents, and the charities that you seem to love to live off, would be any cheaper than SS and Medicare?
Click to expand...


That is not the point. 
SS and Medicare are TAXES. Governments make laws that allow government to confiscate the earnings of individuals to pay for these programs. Captive marketplace.
Giving to charity is a CHOICE. 
Once again the liberal idea of compassion begins in the bank accounts of others.


----------



## Polk

thereisnospoon said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sales taxes with no deductions would, even under the most favorable estimates, have to be north of 30% to be revenue neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your came from?
Click to expand...


The "FairTax" organization's headline number is 30%. Other studies (such as Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform) found higher rates, and even that assumed no evasion.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sales taxes with no deductions would, even under the most favorable estimates, have to be north of 30% to be revenue neutral.
> 
> 
> 
> Your came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant anyway because those taxes are already baked into the price of the product.  If the actual amount is 30%, it's just an admission that taxes are higher than the left admit.  Whatever the rate is, if it's revenue neutral, the price of products won't go up.
> 
> And they will go down over time as waste and the infrastructure to collect all the different taxes, counter incentives, disincentives and  the rest of the monstrous infrastructure to tax the same money over and over are dismantled.
Click to expand...


Sales tax proponents always make that argument, but basic math doesn't support it. If the cost of the tax were already baked in to goods, revenue would be significantly higher than it actually is.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Polk said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sales taxes with no deductions would, even under the most favorable estimates, have to be north of 30% to be revenue neutral.
> 
> 
> 
> Your came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "FairTax" organization's headline number is 30%. Other studies (such as Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform) found higher rates, and even that assumed no evasion.
Click to expand...


Ok...How about a link. 
Never mind...factcheck.org is a wonderful thing!
FactCheck.org: Unspinning the FairTax


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your came from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant anyway because those taxes are already baked into the price of the product.  If the actual amount is 30%, it's just an admission that taxes are higher than the left admit.  Whatever the rate is, if it's revenue neutral, the price of products won't go up.
> 
> And they will go down over time as waste and the infrastructure to collect all the different taxes, counter incentives, disincentives and  the rest of the monstrous infrastructure to tax the same money over and over are dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sales tax proponents always make that argument, but basic math doesn't support it. If the cost of the tax were already baked in to goods, revenue would be significantly higher than it actually is.
Click to expand...


Basic math DOES support it.  I spent four hard-working hours, calculator in hand, in with Fair Tax proponents explained how it worked.  And starting out it indeed would be far simpler and less oppressive than the income tax.  And the top rate paid by anybody would be less than 30%.

The downside is that those teaching the workshop could not explain, to my satisfaction, concepts of value added to products during their development on the way to market, the problem with determining who was eligible for what prebate, and dickering with the system by Congress that could eventually create a tax code more nightmarish than the one we have or worse.








> 14.Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax prebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?
> 
> Let&#8217;s look at a billionaire under the FairTax -- if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.
> 
> Now, let&#8217;s look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax -- if they spend $50,000, they pay $6,803 net of their prebate for an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!
> Frequently Asked Questions Answers - Americans For Fair Taxation



After looking at it I have not completely dismissed the Fair Tax concept, but I am still leaning toward a truly flat income tax with everybody having some skin in the game and nobody being exempt.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your came from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant anyway because those taxes are already baked into the price of the product.  If the actual amount is 30%, it's just an admission that taxes are higher than the left admit.  Whatever the rate is, if it's revenue neutral, the price of products won't go up.
> 
> And they will go down over time as waste and the infrastructure to collect all the different taxes, counter incentives, disincentives and  the rest of the monstrous infrastructure to tax the same money over and over are dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sales tax proponents always make that argument, but basic math doesn't support it. If the cost of the tax were already baked in to goods, revenue would be significantly higher than it actually is.
Click to expand...


As an undergraduate math major and an MBA, I don't have any idea what you just said.  What does that mean "revenue would be significantly higher?"

As for the Fair Tax, basic logic supports it.  All taxes are already baked into the price of products we buy today other than the death tax.  For a revenue neutral level, if you remove a bucket of water from a pool and put a bucket of water into the pool, you end up with the same amount of water in the pool.

BTW, the difference in your discussion on the tax rates is really perspective.  According to the fair tax analysis, you can look at the sales tax either as 23% or 30%, it's how you measure it, it's the same.

If you measure it like a sales tax (meaning added to the price of a product), it's 30%.  If you measure it like an income tax (taken out of the price of the product), it's 23%.  But the $ amount of the tax taken for the item doesn't change which ever way you look at it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant anyway because those taxes are already baked into the price of the product.  If the actual amount is 30%, it's just an admission that taxes are higher than the left admit.  Whatever the rate is, if it's revenue neutral, the price of products won't go up.
> 
> And they will go down over time as waste and the infrastructure to collect all the different taxes, counter incentives, disincentives and  the rest of the monstrous infrastructure to tax the same money over and over are dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sales tax proponents always make that argument, but basic math doesn't support it. If the cost of the tax were already baked in to goods, revenue would be significantly higher than it actually is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basic math DOES support it.  I spent four hard-working hours, calculator in hand, in with Fair Tax proponents explained how it worked.  And starting out it indeed would be far simpler and less oppressive than the income tax.  And the top rate paid by anybody would be less than 30%.
> 
> The downside is that those teaching the workshop could not explain, to my satisfaction, concepts of value added to products during their development on the way to market, the problem with determining who was eligible for what prebate, and dickering with the system by Congress that could eventually create a tax code more nightmarish than the one we have or worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14.Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax prebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America?
> 
> Lets look at a billionaire under the FairTax -- if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent.
> 
> Now, lets look at a middle-income married couple with no children under the FairTax -- if they spend $50,000, they pay $6,803 net of their prebate for an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. The effective tax rate increases as spending increases, but never exceeds 23 percent!
> Frequently Asked Questions Answers - Americans For Fair Taxation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After looking at it I have not completely dismissed the Fair Tax concept, but I am still leaning toward a truly flat income tax with everybody having some skin in the game and nobody being exempt.
Click to expand...


I'm still leaning sales and property tax collected by the states with additional import/export duties per any measured trade imbalance.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> After looking at it I have not completely dismissed the Fair Tax concept, but I am still leaning toward a truly flat income tax with everybody having some skin in the game and nobody being exempt.



A flat tax still provides the IRS with their gestapo powers over the people and their tool for endless invasion into our privacy to ensure we are paying our "fair" share.

Also, since other than the death tax, all prices are baked into the price of products we buy anyway, it's directly taxing that which is taxed, which is clearly the most efficient.  Why measure "income" and then tax it when in the end, it's all the same and you could have just taxed the transaction directly?  The flat tax may be flat for consumers, but you're still taxing economic transactions arbitrarily.  The Fair Tax is the flat tax further flattened.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Polk said:


> The "FairTax" organization's headline number is 30%. Other studies (such as Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform) found higher rates, and even that assumed no evasion.



The Fair Tax is not a sales tax; you are mixing apples and machine screws. Further, sales tax is difficult to the point of nearly impossible, to evade. This is why the left opposes such a measure - impossible to use the tax code to favor cronies with a sales and use tax.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> After looking at it I have not completely dismissed the Fair Tax concept, but I am still leaning toward a truly flat income tax with everybody having some skin in the game and nobody being exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flat tax still provides the IRS with their gestapo powers over the people and their tool for endless invasion into our privacy to ensure we are paying our "fair" share.
> 
> Also, since other than the death tax, all prices are baked into the price of products we buy anyway, it's directly taxing that which is taxed, which is clearly the most efficient.  Why measure "income" and then tax it when in the end, it's all the same and you could have just taxed the transaction directly?  The flat tax may be flat for consumers, but you're still taxing economic transactions arbitrarily.  The Fair Tax is the flat tax further flattened.
Click to expand...


I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.

The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> After looking at it I have not completely dismissed the Fair Tax concept, but I am still leaning toward a truly flat income tax with everybody having some skin in the game and nobody being exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A flat tax still provides the IRS with their gestapo powers over the people and their tool for endless invasion into our privacy to ensure we are paying our "fair" share.
> 
> Also, since other than the death tax, all prices are baked into the price of products we buy anyway, it's directly taxing that which is taxed, which is clearly the most efficient.  Why measure "income" and then tax it when in the end, it's all the same and you could have just taxed the transaction directly?  The flat tax may be flat for consumers, but you're still taxing economic transactions arbitrarily.  The Fair Tax is the flat tax further flattened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense to me.  With my P&L, which is what feeds my business tax forms, I have endless options to do the things you're saying.  With the sales tax, which would be the same way the Fair Tax would be calculated, I have almost none.  I can move invoices or payments a bit between months, but that's only a slight delay in paying taxes and doesn't change the amount I pay.  That's about it.

As for the income tax, the only people what you are saying would be true for are W-2 employees.  Everyone else would have endless opportunities.  And cash employees would be able to skirt taxes just like they do now. The Fair Tax makes all of them as well as illegal aliens taxpayers.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> A flat tax still provides the IRS with their gestapo powers over the people and their tool for endless invasion into our privacy to ensure we are paying our "fair" share.
> 
> Also, since other than the death tax, all prices are baked into the price of products we buy anyway, it's directly taxing that which is taxed, which is clearly the most efficient.  Why measure "income" and then tax it when in the end, it's all the same and you could have just taxed the transaction directly?  The flat tax may be flat for consumers, but you're still taxing economic transactions arbitrarily.  The Fair Tax is the flat tax further flattened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense to me.  With my P&L, which is what feeds my business tax forms, I have endless options to do the things you're saying.  With the sales tax, which would be the same way the Fair Tax would be calculated, I have almost none.  I can move invoices or payments a bit between months, but that's only a slight delay in paying taxes and doesn't change the amount I pay.  That's about it.
> 
> As for the income tax, the only people what you are saying would be true for are W-2 employees.  Everyone else would have endless opportunities.  And cash employees would be able to skirt taxes just like they do now. The Fair Tax makes all of them as well as illegal aliens taxpayers.
Click to expand...


Really I'm not arguing with you, or that is not my intent.  I want the flattest, fairest, simplest, and most difficult to manipulate tax system.  And I'm not dogmatic on the best way to get there.  I just don't want us to not consider ALL the possible drawbacks, pitfalls, and unintended consequences before we change the system.  Right now I see far more unintended consequences, and much more opportunity for politicians to manipulate the system with a Fair Tax than a flat income tax.

And as for consequences, it's those folks getting those W-2s who most need to be educated and made aware.  Those of us who are independent contractors or otherwise self employed, already ARE aware.   The dishonest among us are always figuring out ways to screw with the system.  The honest among us do the best we can to minimize the damage.

The one other consequence of going to a Fair Tax system that I haven't been able to get anybody to answer--not Huckabee, not the FairTax.org folks, not anybody--is how to do the transition.   Mr. Foxfyre and I are recently retired and are living almost exclusively on money we have already paid tax on when we earned it.  How does the Fair Tax get around taxing it again when we now spend it?


----------



## Skull Pilot

t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent &#8212; the top rate during the 1990s &#8212; annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress



When the top rate was in the 90% range the bottom rate was also much higher.

In 1951 those earning 20K a year were in the 39% bracket so be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Foxfyre

There is one other aspect of the Fair Tax I wonder if its advocates have thought through.

If you live in a border state - Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Washington, Idaho, Montana,  Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, you have a whole lot of folks living within driving distance of countries who might offer lower taxes.  And in this internet driven world, I could see a large upsurge in ordering a lot of merchandise from other places when the shipping would be less than the taxes if the stuff was bought at home.

Perhaps not really a problem.  Just something I have been thinking about as I try to find a system that makes most sense to me.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> The one other consequence of going to a Fair Tax system that I haven't been able to get anybody to answer--not Huckabee, not the FairTax.org folks, not anybody--is how to do the transition.   Mr. Foxfyre and I are recently retired and are living almost exclusively on money we have already paid tax on when we earned it.  How does the Fair Tax get around taxing it again when we now spend it?



I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.

As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.  

The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant anyway because those taxes are already baked into the price of the product.  If the actual amount is 30%, it's just an admission that taxes are higher than the left admit.  Whatever the rate is, if it's revenue neutral, the price of products won't go up.
> 
> And they will go down over time as waste and the infrastructure to collect all the different taxes, counter incentives, disincentives and  the rest of the monstrous infrastructure to tax the same money over and over are dismantled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sales tax proponents always make that argument, but basic math doesn't support it. If the cost of the tax were already baked in to goods, revenue would be significantly higher than it actually is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As an undergraduate math major and an MBA, I don't have any idea what you just said.  What does that mean "revenue would be significantly higher?"
> 
> As for the Fair Tax, basic logic supports it.  All taxes are already baked into the price of products we buy today other than the death tax.  For a revenue neutral level, if you remove a bucket of water from a pool and put a bucket of water into the pool, you end up with the same amount of water in the pool.
> 
> BTW, the difference in your discussion on the tax rates is really perspective.  According to the fair tax analysis, you can look at the sales tax either as 23% or 30%, it's how you measure it, it's the same.
> 
> If you measure it like a sales tax (meaning added to the price of a product), it's 30%.  If you measure it like an income tax (taken out of the price of the product), it's 23%.  But the $ amount of the tax taken for the item doesn't change which ever way you look at it.
Click to expand...


I really don't get which part was so challenging for you. If what you were saying was true, revenues would be higher than they are today. Since you were a "math major", we'll put it in equation form.

If what you claimed was true, revenues today would be X + Y, where X = current revenues and Y > 0.

If you take the claims of the "FairTaxers" at face value, they're claiming everyone gets a tax cut, but that revenue would remain the same. That's simply not possible with a big magical asterisk.

As a conceptual matter, the rate is a matter of "how you look at it", but 30% is the only honest way to frame. The public thinks of sales taxes as the percentage added, not the percentage of the total. Quoting the rate as 23% is a bit of sophistry designed to mislead the public. Then again, that's the whole point.


----------



## Polk

Uncensored2008 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "FairTax" organization's headline number is 30%. Other studies (such as Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform) found higher rates, and even that assumed no evasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fair Tax is not a sales tax; you are mixing apples and machine screws. Further, sales tax is difficult to the point of nearly impossible, to evade. This is why the left opposes such a measure - impossible to use the tax code to favor cronies with a sales and use tax.
Click to expand...


Someone should tell the "FairTax" people then, since they don't agree.



> What is taxed?
> 
> *The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once*, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive.
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions Answers - Americans For Fair Taxation


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense to me.  With my P&L, which is what feeds my business tax forms, I have endless options to do the things you're saying.  With the sales tax, which would be the same way the Fair Tax would be calculated, I have almost none.  I can move invoices or payments a bit between months, but that's only a slight delay in paying taxes and doesn't change the amount I pay.  That's about it.
> 
> As for the income tax, the only people what you are saying would be true for are W-2 employees.  Everyone else would have endless opportunities.  And cash employees would be able to skirt taxes just like they do now. The Fair Tax makes all of them as well as illegal aliens taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really I'm not arguing with you, or that is not my intent.  I want the flattest, fairest, simplest, and most difficult to manipulate tax system.  And I'm not dogmatic on the best way to get there.  I just don't want us to not consider ALL the possible drawbacks, pitfalls, and unintended consequences before we change the system.  Right now I see far more unintended consequences, and much more opportunity for politicians to manipulate the system with a Fair Tax than a flat income tax.
> 
> And as for consequences, it's those folks getting those W-2s who most need to be educated and made aware.  Those of us who are independent contractors or otherwise self employed, already ARE aware.   The dishonest among us are always figuring out ways to screw with the system.  The honest among us do the best we can to minimize the damage.
> 
> The one other consequence of going to a Fair Tax system that I haven't been able to get anybody to answer--not Huckabee, not the FairTax.org folks, not anybody--is how to do the transition.   Mr. Foxfyre and I are recently retired and are living almost exclusively on money we have already paid tax on when we earned it.  How does the Fair Tax get around taxing it again when we now spend it?
Click to expand...


When you say you want a flat income tax, do you mean a flat rate on wages or on all income?


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> There is one other aspect of the Fair Tax I wonder if its advocates have thought through.
> 
> If you live in a border state - Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Washington, Idaho, Montana,  Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, you have a whole lot of folks living within driving distance of countries who might offer lower taxes.  And in this internet driven world, I could see a large upsurge in ordering a lot of merchandise from other places when the shipping would be less than the taxes if the stuff was bought at home.
> 
> Perhaps not really a problem.  Just something I have been thinking about as I try to find a system that makes most sense to me.



It's pretty clear I'm not in favor of a "FairTax", but that's a pretty easy problem to fix. It would just be part of the border crossing/customs process.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one other consequence of going to a Fair Tax system that I haven't been able to get anybody to answer--not Huckabee, not the FairTax.org folks, not anybody--is how to do the transition.   Mr. Foxfyre and I are recently retired and are living almost exclusively on money we have already paid tax on when we earned it.  How does the Fair Tax get around taxing it again when we now spend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.
> 
> As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.
> 
> The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.
Click to expand...


Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.

Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.

$1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?

Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one other consequence of going to a Fair Tax system that I haven't been able to get anybody to answer--not Huckabee, not the FairTax.org folks, not anybody--is how to do the transition.   Mr. Foxfyre and I are recently retired and are living almost exclusively on money we have already paid tax on when we earned it.  How does the Fair Tax get around taxing it again when we now spend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.
> 
> As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.
> 
> The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's exactly what he's telling you. And you're right to be skeptical, but it's complete rubbish.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.



This assumes no exemptions, deductions, or write offs. I highly doubt that such a flat tax could exist in this society.

A flat tax can still be targeted to social engineering. Exemptions for solar power, write offs for education, etc. It can, thus will be abused.

A national sales tax is indirect. Indirect taxes cannot be targeted. If one buys, one pays tax - no way out of it. I don't like VAT, because it seeks to hide tax, make it out in the open. Total the goods, add 20% - let people know how much they are paying and they might find that suddenly they don't see the need for IRS junkets. Exempt food, exempt medicine - other than that - all retail sales get taxed - at the same rate, no exemption, no exception.


----------



## DiamondDave

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This assumes no exemptions, deductions, or write offs. I highly doubt that such a flat tax could exist in this society.
> 
> A flat tax can still be targeted to social engineering. Exemptions for solar power, write offs for education, etc. It can, thus will be abused.
> 
> A national sales tax is indirect. Indirect taxes cannot be targeted. If one buys, one pays tax - no way out of it. I don't like VAT, because it seeks to hide tax, make it out in the open. Total the goods, add 20% - let people know how much they are paying and they might find that suddenly they don't see the need for IRS junkets. Exempt food, exempt medicine - other than that - all retail sales get taxed - at the same rate, no exemption, no exception.
Click to expand...



Exemptions, deductions, and exceptions lead to... the need for a large government entity to regulate, oversee, and monitor... a true flax tax does not.. when you add all those things into a flat tax, you get: a disguised progressive tax that is subjective in nature... otherwise, what we have now, which is what got us to this fucked up situation to begin with


----------



## RKMBrown

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sales tax proponents always make that argument, but basic math doesn't support it. If the cost of the tax were already baked in to goods, revenue would be significantly higher than it actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an undergraduate math major and an MBA, I don't have any idea what you just said.  What does that mean "revenue would be significantly higher?"
> 
> As for the Fair Tax, basic logic supports it.  All taxes are already baked into the price of products we buy today other than the death tax.  For a revenue neutral level, if you remove a bucket of water from a pool and put a bucket of water into the pool, you end up with the same amount of water in the pool.
> 
> BTW, the difference in your discussion on the tax rates is really perspective.  According to the fair tax analysis, you can look at the sales tax either as 23% or 30%, it's how you measure it, it's the same.
> 
> If you measure it like a sales tax (meaning added to the price of a product), it's 30%.  If you measure it like an income tax (taken out of the price of the product), it's 23%.  But the $ amount of the tax taken for the item doesn't change which ever way you look at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't get which part was so challenging for you. If what you were saying was true, revenues would be higher than they are today. Since you were a "math major", we'll put it in equation form.
> 
> If what you claimed was true, revenues today would be X + Y, where X = current revenues and Y > 0.
> 
> If you take the claims of the "FairTaxers" at face value, they're claiming everyone gets a tax cut, but that revenue would remain the same. That's simply not possible with a big magical asterisk.
> 
> As a conceptual matter, the rate is a matter of "how you look at it", but 30% is the only honest way to frame. The public thinks of sales taxes as the percentage added, not the percentage of the total. Quoting the rate as 23% is a bit of sophistry designed to mislead the public. Then again, that's the whole point.
Click to expand...


Your mistake is in believing that the economy is something that can be described by using the fixed contents of a pool of water.  The moral equivalence of someone that still believes the earth is flat.

Time, market and work efficiency, human incentives and detractors, all come into play.

A socialist society will fail by every measure, every time. 

A more efficient tax system that promotes work and provides incentives for growth based investments is more likely to result in a bigger pool at points in time in the future than a tax system that punishes work and provides dis-incentives for growth based investments.

What you have to decide is do you want to punish workers and long term investments, or punish sloth and short term profit taken at the expense of growth.


----------



## Polk

A more efficient tax system would promote more growth, but there is no evidence to suggest it would produce so much growth that it would more than pay for itself.


----------



## Foxfyre

DiamondDave said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's the argument.  But I have just enough accounting, auditing, and tax skills to know how books are cooked and how cheaters rig things and get around thngs.  And a Fair Tax gives us no more protection against government gerrymandering the system or practicing gestapo tactics than does an income tax.  And it is way too easy to hide little manipulations of the system and for little manipulations to not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The beauty of the flat income tax is that everybody will pay it with no way to 'help' or 'benefit' one group without helping or benefitting all - at least without being completely obvious.   And any changes or extortionary tactics also affect those the government depends on to vote for them or keep them in power and will be immediately noticable on their pay stubs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This assumes no exemptions, deductions, or write offs. I highly doubt that such a flat tax could exist in this society.
> 
> A flat tax can still be targeted to social engineering. Exemptions for solar power, write offs for education, etc. It can, thus will be abused.
> 
> A national sales tax is indirect. Indirect taxes cannot be targeted. If one buys, one pays tax - no way out of it. I don't like VAT, because it seeks to hide tax, make it out in the open. Total the goods, add 20% - let people know how much they are paying and they might find that suddenly they don't see the need for IRS junkets. Exempt food, exempt medicine - other than that - all retail sales get taxed - at the same rate, no exemption, no exception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exemptions, deductions, and exceptions lead to... the need for a large government entity to regulate, oversee, and monitor... a true flax tax does not.. when you add all those things into a flat tax, you get: a disguised progressive tax that is subjective in nature... otherwise, what we have now, which is what got us to this fucked up situation to begin with
Click to expand...


If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.

Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> There is one other aspect of the Fair Tax I wonder if its advocates have thought through.
> 
> If you live in a border state - Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Washington, Idaho, Montana,  Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, you have a whole lot of folks living within driving distance of countries who might offer lower taxes.  And in this internet driven world, I could see a large upsurge in ordering a lot of merchandise from other places when the shipping would be less than the taxes if the stuff was bought at home.
> 
> Perhaps not really a problem.  Just something I have been thinking about as I try to find a system that makes most sense to me.



Perhaps the reason why retailers are lobbying Washington to institute a federal internet sales tax. Or a regulation mandating internet retailers collect sales tax for the state in which the buyer of the merchandise resides.


----------



## RKMBrown

Polk said:


> A more efficient tax system would promote more growth, but there is no evidence to suggest it would produce so much growth that it would more than pay for itself.



People who focus only on short term profits fail in a market that has long term investment competition. Governments that over regulate and over tax kill growth.  Governments that under regulate and under tax kill infrastructure and promote infrastructure decay. 

I would suggest you read The Art of War by Sun Tzu, it's a short read about strategy. Then take a look at the long term investments that are being made in third world countries that are resulting in MASSIVE GROWTH in these countries.  These are the types of investments we used to make here.  

Yes you are correct in so far as taxation is not the only driver of growth and prosperity, it's also good regulatory practice, and readily available resources, such as human resources and infrastructure resources.

That said I don't get your argument that growth would not fix our government revenue problem.  If we have enough growth why do we need government revenue increases?  If we have 100% employment for example due to excessive growth... then why do we need welfare?  There are two ways to fix the government's balance sheet. You are focused on revenue, the other is cutting government spending.


----------



## RKMBrown

The democrats may think it funny that they spent all of the stimulus money on shovel ready crap. To me it is the best example of why we can't afford to send any money to this federal government.  We should let our States be responsible for our general welfare, apparently the feds, only care about spending our money to line their own pockets.


----------



## Uncensored2008

DiamondDave said:


> Exemptions, deductions, and exceptions lead to... the need for a large government entity to regulate, oversee, and monitor... a true flax tax does not.. when you add all those things into a flat tax, you get: a disguised progressive tax that is subjective in nature... otherwise, what we have now, which is what got us to this fucked up situation to begin with



Agreed.

And any direct tax WILL have exemptions. Further, a direct tax must have an auditing agency to verify the income of those taxed. This why the founding fathers allowed only indirect taxes. Transactional taxes are the only truly fair taxes, because they are completely blind.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.



This still requires that income be reported to the government. The corruption is inherent. First in the motivation to lie about income - then in the definition of "income." Are investment returns income? Will you be taxed on money you already paid taxes on just because you invested it? Quite the disincentive to invest. And what of capital gains? Are they treated differently? Are scholastic grants "income?" Even with a flat tax, we end up right back in the mess of corruption  we have now.

Abolish all direct taxation, let the federal government raise revenue needed through fees, tariffs, and national sales tax.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> The democrats may think it funny that they spent all of the stimulus money on shovel ready crap. To me it is the best example of why we can't afford to send any money to this federal government.  We should let our States be responsible for our general welfare, apparently the feds, only care about spending our money to line their own pockets.



I live in California; the Federal government almost looks competent compared to my state....


----------



## Pheonixops

A flat or consumption tax.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This still requires that income be reported to the government. The corruption is inherent. First in the motivation to lie about income - then in the definition of "income." Are investment returns income? Will you be taxed on money you already paid taxes on just because you invested it? Quite the disincentive to invest. And what of capital gains? Are they treated differently? Are scholastic grants "income?" Even with a flat tax, we end up right back in the mess of corruption  we have now.
> 
> Abolish all direct taxation, let the federal government raise revenue needed through fees, tariffs, and national sales tax.
Click to expand...


Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This still requires that income be reported to the government. The corruption is inherent. First in the motivation to lie about income - then in the definition of "income." Are investment returns income? Will you be taxed on money you already paid taxes on just because you invested it? Quite the disincentive to invest. And what of capital gains? Are they treated differently? Are scholastic grants "income?" Even with a flat tax, we end up right back in the mess of corruption  we have now.
> 
> Abolish all direct taxation, let the federal government raise revenue needed through fees, tariffs, and national sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?
Click to expand...


In texas and florida, your home, your food products and production tools, production land etc. are pretty much the only things that are not applicable to sales tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx96_280.pdf  IOW they don't put a sales tax your right to life.  They do put a sales tax on the extras.  For land we have a smallish annual property tax.   It seems to work to me and seems to be a fair system to all. I rarely find people complaining hard about the state taxes.  Though I can say that some of the retired communities balk when there are property tax or sales tax increases in a city to pay for school bonds and such.  Course they are ok with increases that pay for improvements they use.  This is understandable and keeps the stuff we get closer to the middle than over the top like in california.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This still requires that income be reported to the government. The corruption is inherent. First in the motivation to lie about income - then in the definition of "income." Are investment returns income? Will you be taxed on money you already paid taxes on just because you invested it? Quite the disincentive to invest. And what of capital gains? Are they treated differently? Are scholastic grants "income?" Even with a flat tax, we end up right back in the mess of corruption  we have now.
> 
> Abolish all direct taxation, let the federal government raise revenue needed through fees, tariffs, and national sales tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In texas and florida, your home, your food products and production tools, production land etc. are pretty much the only things that are not applicable to sales tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx96_280.pdf  IOW they don't put a sales tax your right to life.  They do put a sales tax on the extras.  For land we have a smallish annual property tax.   It seems to work to me and seems to be a fair system to all. I rarely find people complaining hard about the state taxes.  Though I can say that some of the retired communities balk when there are property tax or sales tax increases in a city to pay for school bonds and such.
Click to expand...


And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.

Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.

This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This still requires that income be reported to the government. The corruption is inherent. First in the motivation to lie about income - then in the definition of "income." Are investment returns income? Will you be taxed on money you already paid taxes on just because you invested it? Quite the disincentive to invest. And what of capital gains? Are they treated differently? Are scholastic grants "income?" Even with a flat tax, we end up right back in the mess of corruption  we have now.
> 
> Abolish all direct taxation, let the federal government raise revenue needed through fees, tariffs, and national sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?
Click to expand...

Good question...If national sales taxes are applied to all purchases at the same rate at every step of the production to end user purchase process, the end user would bear the majority of the tax burden. I say this because most likely the taxes paid by the producer(s) would simply be passed along to the next step in the process. 
Assuming this would be the case, the sales tax would have to be a very low rate.
Now, with everyone along the line paying, the revenue stream would be tremendous. Provided they all pay.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In texas and florida, your home, your food products and production tools, production land etc. are pretty much the only things that are not applicable to sales tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx96_280.pdf  IOW they don't put a sales tax your right to life.  They do put a sales tax on the extras.  For land we have a smallish annual property tax.   It seems to work to me and seems to be a fair system to all. I rarely find people complaining hard about the state taxes.  Though I can say that some of the retired communities balk when there are property tax or sales tax increases in a city to pay for school bonds and such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.
> 
> Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.
> 
> This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.
Click to expand...

In New Jersey 'necessities' are exempt from sales taxes. 
These would be clothing, footwear( not athletic) food( unprepared) paper products for school purposes and some other items.
Shoppers from border communities in New York and Pennsylvania, shop in New Jersey.
Foe example, the mall parking lots in Bergen county are loaded with cars bearing NY license plates.


----------



## Foxfyre

thereisnospoon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> In texas and florida, your home, your food products and production tools, production land etc. are pretty much the only things that are not applicable to sales tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx96_280.pdf  IOW they don't put a sales tax your right to life.  They do put a sales tax on the extras.  For land we have a smallish annual property tax.   It seems to work to me and seems to be a fair system to all. I rarely find people complaining hard about the state taxes.  Though I can say that some of the retired communities balk when there are property tax or sales tax increases in a city to pay for school bonds and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.
> 
> Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.
> 
> This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In New Jersey 'necessities' are exempt from sales taxes.
> These would be clothing, footwear( not athletic) food( unprepared) paper products for school purposes and some other items.
> Shoppers from border communities in New York and Pennsylvania, shop in New Jersey.
> Foe example, the mall parking lots in Bergen county are loaded with cars bearing NY license plates.
Click to expand...


And as I previously posted, if we make our 'sales tax' significantly expensive, Canada or Mexico might look like a much more attractive place to shop for those in the border states.  And there is the problem of how to handle internet sales when we buy from companies outside the USA.

I'm still not saying any of these are not a good idea, but a lot of these questions simply cannot be ignored.  We either think it through before we act, or we could easily wind up with a far worse mess than what we already have.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In texas and florida, your home, your food products and production tools, production land etc. are pretty much the only things that are not applicable to sales tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx96_280.pdf  IOW they don't put a sales tax your right to life.  They do put a sales tax on the extras.  For land we have a smallish annual property tax.   It seems to work to me and seems to be a fair system to all. I rarely find people complaining hard about the state taxes.  Though I can say that some of the retired communities balk when there are property tax or sales tax increases in a city to pay for school bonds and such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.
> 
> Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.
> 
> This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.
Click to expand...


Are you sure you paid income tax on your SS deposits?  My SS deposits come off the top of my gross.  The income taxes are calculated after SS tax not before. Or am I missing something?  I understand that SS checks are taxed, with the exception of people for whom SS check is their only income?   

What am I missing?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an undergraduate math major and an MBA, I don't have any idea what you just said.  What does that mean "revenue would be significantly higher?"
> 
> As for the Fair Tax, basic logic supports it.  All taxes are already baked into the price of products we buy today other than the death tax.  For a revenue neutral level, if you remove a bucket of water from a pool and put a bucket of water into the pool, you end up with the same amount of water in the pool.
> 
> BTW, the difference in your discussion on the tax rates is really perspective.  According to the fair tax analysis, you can look at the sales tax either as 23% or 30%, it's how you measure it, it's the same.
> 
> If you measure it like a sales tax (meaning added to the price of a product), it's 30%.  If you measure it like an income tax (taken out of the price of the product), it's 23%.  But the $ amount of the tax taken for the item doesn't change which ever way you look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't get which part was so challenging for you. If what you were saying was true, revenues would be higher than they are today. Since you were a "math major", we'll put it in equation form.
> 
> If what you claimed was true, revenues today would be X + Y, where X = current revenues and Y > 0.
> 
> If you take the claims of the "FairTaxers" at face value, they're claiming everyone gets a tax cut, but that revenue would remain the same. That's simply not possible with a big magical asterisk.
> 
> As a conceptual matter, the rate is a matter of "how you look at it", but 30% is the only honest way to frame. The public thinks of sales taxes as the percentage added, not the percentage of the total. Quoting the rate as 23% is a bit of sophistry designed to mislead the public. Then again, that's the whole point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your mistake is in believing that the economy is something that can be described by using the fixed contents of a pool of water.  The moral equivalence of someone that still believes the earth is flat.
> 
> Time, market and work efficiency, human incentives and detractors, all come into play.
> 
> A socialist society will fail by every measure, every time.
> 
> A more efficient tax system that promotes work and provides incentives for growth based investments is more likely to result in a bigger pool at points in time in the future than a tax system that punishes work and provides dis-incentives for growth based investments.
> 
> What you have to decide is do you want to punish workers and long term investments, or punish sloth and short term profit taken at the expense of growth.
Click to expand...


"A socialist society will fail by every measure, every time."

What do you define as "a socialist society"?


----------



## PMZ

I think there is a great deal of confusion here. The method that is used to collect taxes has nothing to do with the amount collected. That's determined by what the goverment requires for revenue. 

The biggest variable in how taxes are collected is the degree of progressiveness. If that were to be changed it would undoubtably result in advantaging some income levels at the expense of others compared to the present. Every alternative that I've heard for changing to advantages the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. That's an economic downer.

Unless you believe in supply side economics which has failed every time it's been tried.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Foxfyre said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.
> 
> Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.
> 
> This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> In New Jersey 'necessities' are exempt from sales taxes.
> These would be clothing, footwear( not athletic) food( unprepared) paper products for school purposes and some other items.
> Shoppers from border communities in New York and Pennsylvania, shop in New Jersey.
> Foe example, the mall parking lots in Bergen county are loaded with cars bearing NY license plates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I previously posted, if we make our 'sales tax' significantly expensive, Canada or Mexico might look like a much more attractive place to shop for those in the border states.  And there is the problem of how to handle internet sales when we buy from companies outside the USA.
> 
> I'm still not saying any of these are not a good idea, but a lot of these questions simply cannot be ignored.  We either think it through before we act, or we could easily wind up with a far worse mess than what we already have.
Click to expand...

"good intentions pave the way to Hell".


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> In texas and florida, your home, your food products and production tools, production land etc. are pretty much the only things that are not applicable to sales tax. http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxpubs/tx96_280.pdf  IOW they don't put a sales tax your right to life.  They do put a sales tax on the extras.  For land we have a smallish annual property tax.   It seems to work to me and seems to be a fair system to all. I rarely find people complaining hard about the state taxes.  Though I can say that some of the retired communities balk when there are property tax or sales tax increases in a city to pay for school bonds and such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.
> 
> Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.
> 
> This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure you paid income tax on your SS deposits?  My SS deposits come off the top of my gross.  The income taxes are calculated after SS tax not before. Or am I missing something?  I understand that SS checks are taxed, with the exception of people for whom SS check is their only income?
> 
> What am I missing?
Click to expand...


If you live in the United States your income tax is on the same gross that your Social Security taxes are on.  Social security taxes are not deductible.  So you do pay income taxes on your gross income and the social security taxes are figured on that same gross income.   And though you have already been taxed on the income your social security contributions are taken from, once you start drawing social security, if your other adjusted gross income is above a certain amount, you are taxed on 80% of your social security benefits again when you receive them.

So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in New Mexico we don't really have a sales tax but rather pay a gross receipts tax on almost all goods and services that we buy.  The formula of what is taxed and what is not is complicated and often difficult to understand.  Essentially distributorships with pass through products are not taxed on money received for those products but almost everything else is.   But property taxes aren't the issue when it comes to a Fair tax or flat tax or whatever means of funding the Federal government is concerned.
> 
> Again we have already paid hefty federal taxes on the money we earned prior to retirement.  And we saved what we could for our retirement and almost everything we have has been subjected to those hefty taxes already.   So if we have to pay federal sales taxes now when we spend that money, most especially if it substantially raises the cost of the products we buy, we are being double taxed in a very cruel way.  And if the Fair Tax is assessed as a value added tax all along the way, it will substantially raise the cost of goods and services that we buy.
> 
> This is something that I think really does have to be addressed in the process of choosing the most fair method of raising revenues for the Federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you paid income tax on your SS deposits?  My SS deposits come off the top of my gross.  The income taxes are calculated after SS tax not before. Or am I missing something?  I understand that SS checks are taxed, with the exception of people for whom SS check is their only income?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you live in the United States your income tax is on the same gross that your Social Security taxes are on.  Social security taxes are not deductible.  So you do pay income taxes on your gross income and the social security taxes are figured on that same gross income.   And though you have already been taxed on the income your social security contributions are taken from, once you start drawing social security, if your other adjusted gross income is above a certain amount, you are taxed on 80% of your social security benefits again when you receive them.
> 
> So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.
Click to expand...


Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.

So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one other consequence of going to a Fair Tax system that I haven't been able to get anybody to answer--not Huckabee, not the FairTax.org folks, not anybody--is how to do the transition.   Mr. Foxfyre and I are recently retired and are living almost exclusively on money we have already paid tax on when we earned it.  How does the Fair Tax get around taxing it again when we now spend it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.
> 
> As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.
> 
> The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
Click to expand...


Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them.  So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:

$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.

Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...

Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue.  Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ...  Those costs go away too.

Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.

Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.

And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.

The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25.  There is no transition to be made.  On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax.   Initially prices are stable, then they fall.

And you know what octopi those things are.  Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.

And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.
> 
> As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.
> 
> The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what he's telling you. And you're right to be skeptical, but it's complete rubbish.
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind.  Fyrefox has both, you have neither.  Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate.  I'm determined to learn to fight through that.

I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.

So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away.  Why in your numbers do prices not go down?

Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money.  My answer is the marketplace will prevent that.  So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> As a conceptual matter, the rate is a matter of "how you look at it", but 30% is the only honest way to frame. The public thinks of sales taxes as the percentage added, not the percentage of the total. Quoting the rate as 23% is a bit of sophistry designed to mislead the public. Then again, that's the whole point.



To Fyrefox on this point.

On the 23% versus 30%.  Sales tax is added on to the price of an item.  Income tax is taken from the whole.  There is no inherent way to do it, it's done both ways.

The reason the Fair Tax chose to look at it like income tax is because all the taxes that it's replacing are calculated that way.  They are all taken from the price of an item.  If it's replacing a 10% income tax, but the percent was put in sales tax terms, the left would say we're replacing a 10% tax (taken from the total price) with an 11% tax (added to the total price).  That would be mathematically correct, but that is what would be misleading.

The irony I find in this argument is like Polk saying it's a 30% tax, the Fair Taxers are liars.  Well, since it's the revenue neutral number, first of all what difference does it make, and second of all, that means our current system is taking a 30% tax not a 23% tax as well.  Why does he get to use the "bad" number for his opponent and the "good" number for himself?  It's a typical liberal argument.  Vacuous, misleading, and directed to the masses who don't know better.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you paid income tax on your SS deposits?  My SS deposits come off the top of my gross.  The income taxes are calculated after SS tax not before. Or am I missing something?  I understand that SS checks are taxed, with the exception of people for whom SS check is their only income?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the United States your income tax is on the same gross that your Social Security taxes are on.  Social security taxes are not deductible.  So you do pay income taxes on your gross income and the social security taxes are figured on that same gross income.   And though you have already been taxed on the income your social security contributions are taken from, once you start drawing social security, if your other adjusted gross income is above a certain amount, you are taxed on 80% of your social security benefits again when you receive them.
> 
> So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
> 
> *So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?*
Click to expand...


I think you somewhat missed the point that fox is getting at here.  If I read her correctly, one of the problems that she is running into with that is the fact that all the savings that Mr. and Miss. Fox have acquired throughout the years has been subject to an income tax and NOT a sales tax.  IOW, she has ALREADY paid for the government. By instituting a national sales tax and no income tax you have essentially shifted that burden BACK to her and are requiring her to pay taxes essentially twice  once on the income as it was earned and already paid and now a second time when she uses it.  Such would essentially be a punishment for anyone that actually bothered to do the right thing and save some money for retirement.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.



I understand how you feel when you say this.  You're thinking that you are retired, you finally don't have to pay a lot of the taxes you did, it's someone else's turn.  However, there are a couple of things that you have to remember.

1)  Your generation paid social security tax, but they didn't save any money.  They "lent" it to themselves, the government, and then spent it.  Taxes come from taxpayers, so does what they pay you in social security.  Whether you think of taxpayers paying you directly or taxpayers paying back social security and social security paying you, the money is coming from the same taxpayers, right?

2)  Those taxpayers aren't paying it out of their savings either, they are paying it out of their earnings.  Companies don't pay payroll and business taxes, they incorporate it in the price of their products.  Employees need to earn enough to live AFTER taxes.  In the end, whether the taxes are embedded and "hidden" or overt like the Fair Tax, they are coming from the same place.

In the end for your logic to work that you already paid the taxes and now you deserve a break, someone would have had to saved the money.  Either government would have had to save the money or people would have to be paying their taxes going forward from saved money.  If it's not saved, it's in the end being taken from the sales of products.  So the best we can do is tax sales "flat" to minimize taxes driving inefficiency.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> I think there is a great deal of confusion here. The method that is used to collect taxes has nothing to do with the amount collected. That's determined by what the goverment requires for revenue.
> 
> The biggest variable in how taxes are collected is the degree of progressiveness. If that were to be changed it would undoubtably result in advantaging some income levels at the expense of others compared to the present. Every alternative that I've heard for changing to advantages the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. That's an economic downer.
> 
> Unless you believe in supply side economics which has failed every time it's been tried.


The left likes a simple claim that I believe you have argued for before:
That the rich pay a far lesser percentage of their income than the middle class.  

It is simply NOT possible for the middle class to pick up a larger share of that burden with a flat tax if they are already paying a greater percentage of their income.  Mathematically, that is completely impossible.  You cannot shift the tax burden from someone paying 13% to another that is currently paying 30% by making the percentages the same.  For that matter, it is even less likely that many of the poor will pay a greater percentage either as payroll taxes are a HUGE hidden tax against the poor, among other hidden taxes, and is something that would simply cease to exist in a flat tax scenario.  

Beyond that, it is the rich that are essentially the sole benefactors of the complex and convoluted deductions that are allowed in this nation.  That going away will hit the rich pretty hard.  In reality, the poor that get massive kickbacks and the rich are the two that will be taking the burden OFF the middle class, not the other way around.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the United States your income tax is on the same gross that your Social Security taxes are on.  Social security taxes are not deductible.  So you do pay income taxes on your gross income and the social security taxes are figured on that same gross income.   And though you have already been taxed on the income your social security contributions are taken from, once you start drawing social security, if your other adjusted gross income is above a certain amount, you are taxed on 80% of your social security benefits again when you receive them.
> 
> So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
> 
> *So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you somewhat missed the point that fox is getting at here.  If I read her correctly, one of the problems that she is running into with that is the fact that all the savings that Mr. and Miss. Fox have acquired throughout the years has been subject to an income tax and NOT a sales tax.  IOW, she has ALREADY paid for the government. By instituting a national sales tax and no income tax you have essentially shifted that burden BACK to her and are requiring her to pay taxes essentially twice &#8211; once on the income as it was earned and already paid and now a second time when she uses it.  Such would essentially be a punishment for anyone that actually bothered to do the right thing and save some money for retirement.
Click to expand...


With regard to SS income, that is going to be taxed via income tax anyway and only half was taxed as the corp side of SS deposits is pretax, so if the sales tax replaced personal income tax, that change should be a wash.

With regard to savings... my 401k is pretax money, I believe IRAs are also pretax money, so in theory pretax savings that become income would be taxed as income anyway no?  Thus the income tax from the pretax savings systems would also be a wash in the change to sales tax.  

I suppose for people that have after tax savings, that are not taxed as income then yeah for that money, such as Certificates of Deposit and Inherited money that has already gone through probate, yeah I suppose for already taxed assets, such as my home, my car, my savings etc. when those are taxed again as sales then I loose out by being taxed again.

That said most "large" investments have a return on investment.  Most large savings eventually grow to a size where it starts earning a return on investment that is significant.  Those returns on investment are typically taxed as capital gains.  So again if that is converted to sales tax it should be a wash. 

Thus one would have to argue that they have a large nest egg that has already been taxed, and for which there is no short or long term capital gain taxes or further personal income taxes and/or penalties to be applied on withdrawl (aka capital basis).  Such as that may be the case, in that circumstance I could see the system for changing over from income to a sales tax system that would allow that particular money that was void of income tax, when spent, to be void of the federal portion of sales tax since it is an asset that is apparently void of federal taxes.

Note: This is the rough equivalent of deciding not to tax the rich for the assets they already have when they spend them, because they already paid taxes once on that money.  I'm good with that but I doubt you'll find any democrats who agree to not tax the rich. The argument will simply move from current tax rates in which the rich get a discount (because its not personal income its capital gains) to sales tax rates that the rich get a discount for because they are using money that was previously taxed.

For me half my 401k is currently gain, not basis.  I hope by the time I retire, 2/3-3/4 of my 401k will be gain not basis.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you paid income tax on your SS deposits?  My SS deposits come off the top of my gross.  The income taxes are calculated after SS tax not before. Or am I missing something?  I understand that SS checks are taxed, with the exception of people for whom SS check is their only income?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the United States your income tax is on the same gross that your Social Security taxes are on.  Social security taxes are not deductible.  So you do pay income taxes on your gross income and the social security taxes are figured on that same gross income.   And though you have already been taxed on the income your social security contributions are taken from, once you start drawing social security, if your other adjusted gross income is above a certain amount, you are taxed on 80% of your social security benefits again when you receive them.
> 
> So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
> 
> So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?
Click to expand...


Yes, the self employed pay ALL the social security contribution - the employee's part and and employer's part.  And the employer's l/2 of that is deductible.

The formula is 1/2 of your social security benefits added to any taxable income you receive during the year.  If the combined amounts exceed $32k for a married couple or $25k for a single person or zero for married couples filing separately, up to 80% of your social security benefits are taxable.  But social security benefits under those caps are not subject to income tax.

With a sales tax you pay tax on everything you spend.

Seriously, given how pitiful the social security checks usually are, that isn't really a biggie.  But we have already paid taxes on almost all of our retirement savings and investments.  And to have to pay tax again via a sales tax when we spend that money just seems extra burdensome.

It would be a wash only for those who used the tax deferred plans for their IRAs etc.--we do have some money in those and yes, that would likely be a wash--but the Roth IRA's and similar vehicles are not tax deferred and many went that route simply to avoid higher taxes on their retirement income by pre-paying those taxes at the time the income was received.  And believe me we are nowhere near rich.


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.


I used to agree with this but another poster in a thread long ago dead gave me an argument that changed my mind.  No exemptions can exist, ever.  Not even a small one that all get on the first X dollars.  It SEEMS like a good idea at first but the problem is that is what gives the politicians leverage and influence through tax code.  Even something simple like a deduction on the first couple of thousand allows the politicians to essentially start the class warfare over again.  This will create the same situation that we have now with large numbers of people paying nothing in taxes voting to continue that trend or even rising tax rates that will never touch them.  If the first 50K ends up nontaxable and people want a new expensive and extravagant perk, those that are not taxed really do not have a reason not to vote to raise the taxes on everyone else another 10 percent to get it.  ANY exemptions remove the term flat right out of that concept and all of them must be avoided.  ALL income, no matter the source and no matter the amount, needs to be taxes at exactly the same rate.  Simplicity and the complete removal of governmental powers in sucking up to special interest groups is the purpose of a flat tax.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
> 
> *So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you somewhat missed the point that fox is getting at here.  If I read her correctly, one of the problems that she is running into with that is the fact that all the savings that Mr. and Miss. Fox have acquired throughout the years has been subject to an income tax and NOT a sales tax.  IOW, she has ALREADY paid for the government. By instituting a national sales tax and no income tax you have essentially shifted that burden BACK to her and are requiring her to pay taxes essentially twice &#8211; once on the income as it was earned and already paid and now a second time when she uses it.  Such would essentially be a punishment for anyone that actually bothered to do the right thing and save some money for retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With regard to SS income, that is going to be taxed via income tax anyway, so if the sales tax replaced personal income tax, that change should be a wash.
> 
> With regard to savings... my 401k is pretax money, I believe IRAs are also pretax money, so in theory pretax savings that become income would be taxed as income anyway no?  Thus the income tax from the pretax savings systems would also be a wash in the change to sales tax.
> 
> I suppose for people that have after tax savings, that are not taxed as income then yeah for that money, such as Certificates of Deposit and Inherited money that has already gone through probate, yeah I suppose for already taxed assets, such as my home, my car, my savings etc. when those are taxed again as sales then I loose out by being taxed again.
> 
> That said most "large" investments have a return on investment.  Most large savings eventually grow to a size where it starts earning a return on investment that is significant.  Those returns on investment are typically taxed as capital gains.  So again if that is converted to sales tax it should be a wash.
> 
> Thus one would have to argue that they have a large nest egg that has already been taxed, and for which there is no short or long term capital gain taxes or further personal income taxes and/or penalties to be applied on withdrawl (aka capital basis).  Such as that may be the case, in that circumstance I could see the system for changing over from income to a sales tax system that would allow that particular money that was void of income tax, when spent, to be void of the federal portion of sales tax since it is an asset that is apparently void of federal taxes.
> 
> Note: This is the rough equivalent of deciding not to tax the rich for the assets they already have when they spend them, because they already paid taxes once on that money.  I'm good with that but I doubt you'll find any democrats who agree to not tax the rich. The argument will simply move from current tax rates in which the rich get a discount (because its not personal income its capital gains) to sales tax rates that the rich get a discount for because they are using money that was previously taxed.
> 
> For me half my 401k is currently gain, not basis.  I hope by the time I retire, 2/3-3/4 of my 401k will be gain not basis.
Click to expand...


Certainly all true but this is one of the reasons that I am put off on the idea of a national sales tax.  It is also quite regressive as well as being complex in many respects.  I personally believe that an income tax would be far simpler and effective and have not seen an effective argument here that makes a sales tax any better or less corruptible than an income tax.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you live in the United States your income tax is on the same gross that your Social Security taxes are on.  Social security taxes are not deductible.  So you do pay income taxes on your gross income and the social security taxes are figured on that same gross income.   And though you have already been taxed on the income your social security contributions are taken from, once you start drawing social security, if your other adjusted gross income is above a certain amount, you are taxed on 80% of your social security benefits again when you receive them.
> 
> So that is why it is not acceptable to me to pay taxes via a national sales tax when I spend to support myself out of my retirement income and/or savings that have already been taxed once and sometimes twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
> 
> So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the self employed pay ALL the social security contribution - the employee's part and and employer's part.  And the employer's l/2 of that is deductible.
> 
> The formula is 1/2 of your social security benefits added to any taxable income you receive during the year.  If the combined amounts exceed $32k for a married couple or $25k for a single person or zero for married couples filing separately, up to 80% of your social security benefits are taxable.  But social security benefits under those caps are not subject to income tax.
> 
> With a sales tax you pay tax on everything you spend.
> 
> Seriously, given how pitiful the social security checks usually are, that isn't really a biggie.  But we have already paid taxes on almost all of our retirement savings and investments.  And to have to pay tax again via a sales tax when we spend that money just seems extra burdensome.
> 
> It would be a wash only for those who used the tax deferred plans for their IRAs etc.--we do have some money in those and yes, that would likely be a wash--but the Roth IRA's and similar vehicles are not tax deferred and many went that route simply to avoid higher taxes on their retirement income by pre-paying those taxes at the time the income was received.  And believe me we are nowhere near rich.
Click to expand...


Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:

By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate?  Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid.  Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to agree with this but another poster in a thread long ago dead gave me an argument that changed my mind.  No exemptions can exist, ever.  Not even a small one that all get on the first X dollars.  It SEEMS like a good idea at first but the problem is that is what gives the politicians leverage and influence through tax code.  Even something simple like a deduction on the first couple of thousand allows the politicians to essentially start the class warfare over again.  This will create the same situation that we have now with large numbers of people paying nothing in taxes voting to continue that trend or even rising tax rates that will never touch them.  If the first 50K ends up nontaxable and people want a new expensive and extravagant perk, those that are not taxed really do not have a reason not to vote to raise the taxes on everyone else another 10 percent to get it.  ANY exemptions remove the term &#8216;flat&#8217; right out of that concept and all of them must be avoided.  ALL income, no matter the source and no matter the amount, needs to be taxes at exactly the same rate.  Simplicity and the complete removal of governmental powers in sucking up to special interest groups is the purpose of a flat tax.
Click to expand...


The simplicity of an income tax is why it appeals to me more than a national sales tax.  A truly flat tax with it written ironclad into the law that it must be kept flat for all socioeconomic groups whether the tax is raised or lowered makes it very difficult to manipulate by politicians and bureaucrats.  And because it puts a lot more skin into the game, it also makes it much more difficult to use the tax code for political advantage. 

As we have already discussed, a national sales tax applied every step of the way from conception of the product until it appears on the store shelves has potential to greatly increase the cost of many products if no exemptions are allowed.  And if exemptions are allowed, that gives the government the opening it needs to dicker constantly with the tax code until it is as nightmarish and impossible for ordinary people to understand as it is now. . . .

AND there is the disparity of the prebates to help offset the burden of the tax for low income families.  A prebate in Mississippi would be huge--in New York state the same prebate not so much.  The cost of living varies by tens of thousands even within some states and certainly across the country.  A flat income tax would not have anywhere near those same kinds of variables.

But if somebody can show me how a sales tax would be less oppressive and more fair, I am all ears.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you somewhat missed the point that fox is getting at here.  If I read her correctly, one of the problems that she is running into with that is the fact that all the savings that Mr. and Miss. Fox have acquired throughout the years has been subject to an income tax and NOT a sales tax.  IOW, she has ALREADY paid for the government. By instituting a national sales tax and no income tax you have essentially shifted that burden BACK to her and are requiring her to pay taxes essentially twice &#8211; once on the income as it was earned and already paid and now a second time when she uses it.  Such would essentially be a punishment for anyone that actually bothered to do the right thing and save some money for retirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regard to SS income, that is going to be taxed via income tax anyway, so if the sales tax replaced personal income tax, that change should be a wash.
> 
> With regard to savings... my 401k is pretax money, I believe IRAs are also pretax money, so in theory pretax savings that become income would be taxed as income anyway no?  Thus the income tax from the pretax savings systems would also be a wash in the change to sales tax.
> 
> I suppose for people that have after tax savings, that are not taxed as income then yeah for that money, such as Certificates of Deposit and Inherited money that has already gone through probate, yeah I suppose for already taxed assets, such as my home, my car, my savings etc. when those are taxed again as sales then I loose out by being taxed again.
> 
> That said most "large" investments have a return on investment.  Most large savings eventually grow to a size where it starts earning a return on investment that is significant.  Those returns on investment are typically taxed as capital gains.  So again if that is converted to sales tax it should be a wash.
> 
> Thus one would have to argue that they have a large nest egg that has already been taxed, and for which there is no short or long term capital gain taxes or further personal income taxes and/or penalties to be applied on withdrawl (aka capital basis).  Such as that may be the case, in that circumstance I could see the system for changing over from income to a sales tax system that would allow that particular money that was void of income tax, when spent, to be void of the federal portion of sales tax since it is an asset that is apparently void of federal taxes.
> 
> Note: This is the rough equivalent of deciding not to tax the rich for the assets they already have when they spend them, because they already paid taxes once on that money.  I'm good with that but I doubt you'll find any democrats who agree to not tax the rich. The argument will simply move from current tax rates in which the rich get a discount (because its not personal income its capital gains) to sales tax rates that the rich get a discount for because they are using money that was previously taxed.
> 
> For me half my 401k is currently gain, not basis.  I hope by the time I retire, 2/3-3/4 of my 401k will be gain not basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly all true but this is one of the reasons that I am put off on the idea of a national sales tax.  It is also quite regressive as well as being complex in many respects.  I personally believe that an income tax would be far simpler and effective and have not seen an effective argument here that makes a sales tax any better or less corruptible than an income tax.
Click to expand...


Income tax has the effect of convincing people to stop working or to work less as the more you work the more you are punished.  Sale taxes encourages more efficient consumption. With more income in our pockets from our labors, we would have more money to invest, resulting in growth.  Think 401k on steroids.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the tax is low enough on a flat income tax, no exemption would be necessary.  Imagine the logstics of mailing out or electronically transmitting all those prebates on a fair tax system.  People moving, their economic circumstances constantly changing, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Compare that to a true flat income tax.  Make it low enough and there would need to be no exemptions at all.  But if you needed a somewhat higher rate than apply a flat exemption of $2,000 or $5,000 or whatever to a person's total earnings.  Everybody gets the same flat exemption.  Everybody pays the same percentage of whatever income they earn over that exemption amount.  If the exemption is $10,000, those earning $10,000 get all the taxes they pay back at the end of the year.    The guy making a million pays taxes on $990,000.  So he gets the same refund as the guy making $10,000 but he pays 99% more in taxes than the guy making $10,000.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to agree with this but another poster in a thread long ago dead gave me an argument that changed my mind.  No exemptions can exist, ever.  Not even a small one that all get on the first X dollars.  It SEEMS like a good idea at first but the problem is that is what gives the politicians leverage and influence through tax code.  Even something simple like a deduction on the first couple of thousand allows the politicians to essentially start the class warfare over again.  This will create the same situation that we have now with large numbers of people paying nothing in taxes voting to continue that trend or even rising tax rates that will never touch them.  If the first 50K ends up nontaxable and people want a new expensive and extravagant perk, those that are not taxed really do not have a reason not to vote to raise the taxes on everyone else another 10 percent to get it.  ANY exemptions remove the term &#8216;flat&#8217; right out of that concept and all of them must be avoided.  ALL income, no matter the source and no matter the amount, needs to be taxes at exactly the same rate.  Simplicity and the complete removal of governmental powers in sucking up to special interest groups is the purpose of a flat tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The simplicity of an income tax is why it appeals to me more than a national sales tax.  A truly flat tax with it written ironclad into the law that it must be kept flat for all socioeconomic groups whether the tax is raised or lowered makes it very difficult to manipulate by politicians and bureaucrats.  And because it puts a lot more skin into the game, it also makes it much more difficult to use the tax code for political advantage.
> 
> As we have already discussed, a national sales tax applied every step of the way from conception of the product until it appears on the store shelves has potential to greatly increase the cost of many products if no exemptions are allowed.  And if exemptions are allowed, that gives the government the opening it needs to dicker constantly with the tax code until it is as nightmarish and impossible for ordinary people to understand as it is now. . . .
> 
> AND there is the disparity of the prebates to help offset the burden of the tax for low income families.  A prebate in Mississippi would be huge--in New York state the same prebate not so much.  The cost of living varies by tens of thousands even within some states and certainly across the country.  A flat income tax would not have anywhere near those same kinds of variables.
> 
> But if somebody can show me how a sales tax would be less oppressive and more fair, I am all ears.
Click to expand...


The simplicity of income tax vs sales tax?  cmon don't start making stuff up.

There are only five states in the nation that do not already have a sales tax. I've never ever heard someone complain that sales taxes are complicated.  

Note: sales taxes do not apply to food products or drugs or the roof over your head.  

Sales taxes are for things like a kitchenware, TVs, toys, cars, etc.  If you don't live in a sales tax state, you may not know how sales taxes are typically applied.  Thus you may be worried about something that you don't need to worry about.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> Income tax has the effect of convincing people to stop working or to work less as the more you work the more you are punished.  Sale taxes encourages more efficient consumption. With more income in our pockets from our labors, we would have more money to invest, resulting in growth.  Think 401k on steroids.


That is absolutely false.  I have no idea where you get that idea.  A progressive system might cause that where one income is taxes at a different level than another but a flat tax applied to all dollars evenly across the board does no such thing.  There is difference in incentive to create that first 80c than there is to create the millionth 80c as that is what you are going to earn every time you create a dollar.  Sales tax does the exact same thing btw as it drives up the cost of the product that you are taxing and therefore reduces the demand in that product.  In reality, such is already built in as you pointed out and reduces incentives to create weather or not it is applied to incomes or products.  The only changes are how that money is collected.  As I stated before, an income tax is simpler in that regard and is not regressive like a sales tax would be.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> The simplicity of income tax vs sales tax?  cmon don't start making stuff up.
> 
> There are only five states in the nation that do not already have a sales tax. I've never ever heard someone complain that sales taxes are complicated.
> 
> Note: sales taxes do not apply to food products or drugs or the roof over your head.
> 
> Sales taxes are for things like a kitchenware, TVs, toys, cars, etc.  If you don't live in a sales tax state, you may not know how sales taxes are typically applied.  Thus you may be worried about something that you don't need to worry about.



Except that even in declaring its simplicity you have already removed the flat in your tax.  You have broken that by declaring something different, not included.  Food, I believe, was included because it is a necessity.  Nice, in theory, but the beginning of the complete failure in that system.  What avout McDonalds?  That is technically food.  I can guarantee that if you are not including them, you will soon as their lobby gets ahold of congress.  Before long we are going to be looking at special interest lobbies stating that gas is required for life.  We all know you cant get by without energy.  What about a vehicle?  That is a requirement.  Possibly diapers too.  Then we can get into other special interests that want a piece of the pie like green energy and the like.  

No exemptions at no time or a flat tax is pointless.  If you are going down that road, you might as well just stick with what we have.

Then, with a sales tax, you have another whole problem.  Are you going to tax services as well?  Are you going to tax the sale of the wood to the furniture manufacturer as well as the sale of the couch they build to Wal-Mart before the sale to the customer?  At what point do you apply this sales tax?  Just the end user? 

You see, it can get very complex very fast.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income tax has the effect of convincing people to stop working or to work less as the more you work the more you are punished.  Sale taxes encourages more efficient consumption. With more income in our pockets from our labors, we would have more money to invest, resulting in growth.  Think 401k on steroids.
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  I have no idea where you get that idea.  A progressive system might cause that where one income is taxes at a different level than another but a flat tax applied to all dollars evenly across the board does no such thing.  There is difference in incentive to create that first 80c than there is to create the millionth 80c as that is what you are going to earn every time you create a dollar.  Sales tax does the exact same thing btw as it drives up the cost of the product that you are taxing and therefore reduces the demand in that product.  In reality, such is already built in as you pointed out and reduces incentives to create weather or not it is applied to incomes or products.  The only changes are how that money is collected.  As I stated before, an income tax is simpler in that regard and is not regressive like a sales tax would be.
Click to expand...


No it's true.  While you are correct that progressive taxes make the issue of working harder even more ridiculous, similarly forcing me to pay more for the same government services than my neighbor simply because I work more hours than my neighbor is ridiculous. Why work more hours when the government is gonna get a portion of the extra work?  

You are ignoring the part I mentioned about people deciding to invest their income vs spend their income.  The ability to take most of my earned income and put it into savings would be a tremendous incentive to work more hours for the single purpose of building a nest egg.  You see I already have all the income I need to live, what's the point of working harder than I have to.  Income tax is socialist, in this regard. From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his needs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> Okay so we go with a sales tax.  What is it applied to?  On the seed that is sold to the farmer to grow wheat?  On the wheat that is sold to General Mills to be ground into flour?  On the flour that is sold to the baker?  On the cake the baker sells to the grocery store?  And again on the cake the grocery store sells to me?  Or only the retail sales involved?



Sales taxes apply to retail sales. Most states have a sales tax - and the laws are consistent among the states. Sales taxes do not apply to wholesale. Essentially, if a product will be transformed into another product, it is not taxed. If a product is purchased to be resold without consumption, it is not taxed. 

My view, consistent with those established by Ronald Reagan and still in place in California, is anything sold retail, except medicine and non-prepared food, is taxed. Reagan did away with all the exceptions and exemptions when he was Governor, and while it's too high, California has a fair and equitable sales tax system - virtually free of corruption.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.
> 
> As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.
> 
> The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them.  So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:
> 
> $1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.
> 
> Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...
> 
> Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue.  Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ...  Those costs go away too.
> 
> Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.
> 
> Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.
> 
> And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.
> 
> The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25.  There is no transition to be made.  On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax.   Initially prices are stable, then they fall.
> 
> And you know what octopi those things are.  Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.
> 
> And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.
Click to expand...


But the business WILL be paying the fair tax on everything it buys, yes?  And it won't be able to deduct that from its revenues as it can all the payroll and other taxes that he now pays before he pays that business tax on its actual profits.  So there won't be as much of a wash there as you present here.

Until you can show me the impact of a fair tax on say a gallon of milk--does it factor into the cost of the cow?  The feed and vet bills?  The milking machine and sterlization equipment?  Selling it to a processing company?  Transportation to get it to a processing center?  The carton?  The wholesaler?  And of course the retaler?

Again, I am not saying that I am opposed to the so-called "Fair Tax".  But until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I won't support one either.  I no longer trust private, professional, or political promoters who give us all these glowing images and promises of how wonderful it will be.  As Ross Perot often said:  "The devil is in the details."    It's time we take off all rose colored glasses and think through the ENTIRE process before foisting this stuff off on the American people.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> But until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I won't support one either.  ...    It's time we take off all rose colored glasses and think through the ENTIRE process before foisting this stuff off on the American people.


Are you sure you want to take off your rose colored glasses?  Can you? 

Most folks view most issues from their own personal situation.  For example, they decide which system will benefit themselves personally.  For example, retired folks that have a large nest egg of post taxed money are going to naturally prefer a system that penalizes pre-tax based nest eggs, and vice versa. 

What people rarely focus on is what system would result in a better future for America. It would seem it's all to easy to fall into a what's best for me and mine mentality.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I won't support one either.  ...    It's time we take off all rose colored glasses and think through the ENTIRE process before foisting this stuff off on the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you want to take off your rose colored glasses?  Can you?
> 
> Most folks view most issues from their own personal situation.  For example, they decide which system will benefit themselves personally.  For example, retired folks that have a large nest egg of post taxed money are going to naturally prefer a system that penalizes pre-tax based nest eggs, and vice versa.
> 
> What people rarely focus on is what system would result in a better future for America. It would seem it's all to easy to fall into a what's best for me and mine mentality.
Click to expand...


While you may be right that most folks look at it from the perspective of how it will affect them personally, and maybe many if not most folks look at it from a what is best for me and mine point of view, I have to point out that the questions I raise are NOT looking at it through rose colored glasses.  They are reasonable questions that ALL Americans who will be paying those taxes should ask and have answered before they sign onto a major revision of the tax policy.

The present system is pretty good for me and mine right now without going into a lot of boring detail, but I am one who has railed against it for most of my adult life and continue to do so for the benefit of my children, grand children, and the well being of the American people.  

But it could be concluded that somebody who favored a Fair Tax system but refused to look at, consider, think about, and discuss the questions I posed IS somebody who is looking at it through rose colored glasses.  Yes?


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take it as "arguing," just responding to your points.  I'm more "passionate' in my arguments then you, but in the end we both are focused on the points made, which is what i like about debating you.  I find it sad but can't solve that most of the debates on this and every political site are mostly bickering with idiotic liberals making the same inane points when there are far more interesting issues to delve into.
> 
> As for your question, you have to go back to that you're paying it now anyway.  There is no transition to be done.  All the company's business taxes you bought from, the income tax for all their employees, employer and employee payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on debt payments and all the rest except for the death taxes are built into the price of what you are buying already just like the price of the steel and bricks they are made out of.
> 
> The price of products will not go up to be revenue neutral.  And they will actually drop as all the tax inefficiencies are eliminated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them.  So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:
> 
> *$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.
> *
> Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...
> 
> Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue.  Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ...  Those costs go away too.
> 
> Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.
> 
> Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.
> 
> And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.
> 
> The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25.  There is no transition to be made.  On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax.   Initially prices are stable, then they fall.
> 
> And you know what octopi those things are.  Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.
> 
> And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.
Click to expand...


The bolded portion literally claims he's thought of a tax system that can generate free money.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what he's telling you. And you're right to be skeptical, but it's complete rubbish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind.  Fyrefox has both, you have neither.  Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate.  I'm determined to learn to fight through that.
> 
> I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.
> 
> So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away.  Why in your numbers do prices not go down?
> 
> Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money.  My answer is the marketplace will prevent that.  So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.
Click to expand...


Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue. 

Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like 1/2 of SS taxes are deductible for the self-employed. I confused my 401k pre-tax deductions for the SS deduction.  Even more reason SS is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
> 
> So back to the sales tax.  How would a sales tax be worse than income tax on your SS checks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the self employed pay ALL the social security contribution - the employee's part and and employer's part.  And the employer's l/2 of that is deductible.
> 
> The formula is 1/2 of your social security benefits added to any taxable income you receive during the year.  If the combined amounts exceed $32k for a married couple or $25k for a single person or zero for married couples filing separately, up to 80% of your social security benefits are taxable.  But social security benefits under those caps are not subject to income tax.
> 
> With a sales tax you pay tax on everything you spend.
> 
> Seriously, given how pitiful the social security checks usually are, that isn't really a biggie.  But we have already paid taxes on almost all of our retirement savings and investments.  And to have to pay tax again via a sales tax when we spend that money just seems extra burdensome.
> 
> It would be a wash only for those who used the tax deferred plans for their IRAs etc.--we do have some money in those and yes, that would likely be a wash--but the Roth IRA's and similar vehicles are not tax deferred and many went that route simply to avoid higher taxes on their retirement income by pre-paying those taxes at the time the income was received.  And believe me we are nowhere near rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:
> 
> By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate?  Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid.  Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I am saying.  Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes.  If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else.  The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.

A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.

You don't have any earned income from any source?  You won't owe any taxes.  You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what he's telling you. And you're right to be skeptical, but it's complete rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind.  Fyrefox has both, you have neither.  Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate.  I'm determined to learn to fight through that.
> 
> I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.
> 
> So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away.  Why in your numbers do prices not go down?
> 
> Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money.  My answer is the marketplace will prevent that.  So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.
> 
> Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.
Click to expand...


That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions.  If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity.  Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly happy to debate liberals, anarchists or anyone else, but I require a critical, open mind.  Fyrefox has both, you have neither.  Sadly that's the objective of the left on non-left boards, to fill boards with their rubbish and block any real debate.  I'm determined to learn to fight through that.
> 
> I will give you a chance to prove me right or you wrong by asking a question.
> 
> So if companies now pay payroll, business taxes and they have to pay all their employees enough to pay their taxes, and those costs for the business go away.  Why in your numbers do prices not go down?
> 
> Your answer is companies are greedy and will keep the money.  My answer is the marketplace will prevent that.  So here's your chance, I'm not hopeful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.
> 
> Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions.  If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity.  Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.
Click to expand...


No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real debate of what? You're claiming that you can eliminate all taxes and still raise the same amount of revenue.
> 
> Your question is dishonest. It could possibly be true if that's what you were proposing, but it's not. You're not only getting rid of those taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions.  If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity.  Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.
Click to expand...


That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's assuming the government needs the same amount of revenue to perform its constitutionally assigned fuctions.  If it wants that much money it dang sure would have to look at regulatory inhibitors to economic growth, etc. etc. etc. and get busy encouraging robust economic activity.  Otherwise it just might not be able to fund that study to see if pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans and it might decide that the IRS doesn't need $50 million to make funny videos at expensive resorts, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
Click to expand...


That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.

For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.


----------



## bornright

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a fair share  or some specific number.
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of trickle-down economics, where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


You are confusing the capital gains tax with federal income tax.  Even the capital gains tax is higher than the low income earner's income tax.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
Click to expand...


Is that what they've said, or has the argument been that the Fair Tax would not reduce our buying power or significantly raise the cost of goods and services?  I don't think I've seen an argument that a Fair Tax would be revenue neutral for the federal government.  If that is an argument they are making, that could be another reason I would likely oppose a Fair Tax.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the self employed pay ALL the social security contribution - the employee's part and and employer's part.  And the employer's l/2 of that is deductible.
> 
> The formula is 1/2 of your social security benefits added to any taxable income you receive during the year.  If the combined amounts exceed $32k for a married couple or $25k for a single person or zero for married couples filing separately, up to 80% of your social security benefits are taxable.  But social security benefits under those caps are not subject to income tax.
> 
> With a sales tax you pay tax on everything you spend.
> 
> Seriously, given how pitiful the social security checks usually are, that isn't really a biggie.  But we have already paid taxes on almost all of our retirement savings and investments.  And to have to pay tax again via a sales tax when we spend that money just seems extra burdensome.
> 
> It would be a wash only for those who used the tax deferred plans for their IRAs etc.--we do have some money in those and yes, that would likely be a wash--but the Roth IRA's and similar vehicles are not tax deferred and many went that route simply to avoid higher taxes on their retirement income by pre-paying those taxes at the time the income was received.  And believe me we are nowhere near rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:
> 
> By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate?  Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid.  Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I am saying.  Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes.  If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else.  The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.
> 
> A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.
> 
> You don't have any earned income from any source?  You won't owe any taxes.  You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.
Click to expand...


A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive.  I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income.  I get that.  I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them. 

I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets.  For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets.  Can't pay it?  Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage.   We all need to share the pain together.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they've said, or has the argument been that the Fair Tax would not reduce our buying power or significantly raise the cost of goods and services?  I don't think I've seen an argument that a Fair Tax would be revenue neutral for the federal government.  If that is an argument they are making, that could be another reason I would likely oppose a Fair Tax.
Click to expand...


I get the idea of less revenue for Govco and limit them to spending only what they have.  But most of the spending is for "benefit" checks. So after you cut out defense we'd still be short money.  The problem is the benefit system.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, don't get mad this is a fair and serious question:
> 
> By your tax fairness doctrine of making sure everyone pays the same tax rates, each time we raise tax rates, for example by raising SS taxes to save SS, we should go back and charge everyone that got the earlier discounted tax rate additional back taxes to make up for the SS taxes that we did not take from your salary when you were paying SS taxes at the discounted rate?  Same with income tax rates and deductibles, all tax rates should be retroactively calculated to account for previous income and previous taxes paid.  Or is your fairness doctrine a one way street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I am saying.  Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes.  If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else.  The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.
> 
> A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.
> 
> You don't have any earned income from any source?  You won't owe any taxes.  You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive.  I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income.  I get that.  I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.
> 
> I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets.  For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets.  Can't pay it?  Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage.   We all need to share the pain together.
Click to expand...


Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults.  I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people.  And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.

Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain.   Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I am saying.  Anyway a flat income tax would do away with social security taxes.  If it is retained as a federal program, it would be funded from the flat tax just like everything else.  The federal government would have to give up the criminally irresponsible baseline budgeting they currently do and start making real budgets and pick and choose what will get funded and what won't from available funds.
> 
> A flat tax would start forward on new income and not be retroactive.
> 
> You don't have any earned income from any source?  You won't owe any taxes.  You do have earned income from any source, you will owe whatever percent--I like the 10 percent idea best--just like everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive.  I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income.  I get that.  I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.
> 
> I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets.  For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets.  Can't pay it?  Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage.   We all need to share the pain together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults.  I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people.  And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.
> 
> Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain.   Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult.  I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are *not* ok "with any amount of pain" and are also *not* ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.

Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question  re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain."  The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists.  In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production.  The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.  

Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay.  Voila... fair tax.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute.  Currently the gross receipts tax on a loaf of bread in Albuquerque is 7%.  The bread retails for about $1.25 plus tax or $1.34 at check out.
> 
> Now then, if all things remain the same, a flat tax would impose a 13% tax on that loaf of bread.
> 
> $1.25 plus 9 cents local gross receipts tax plus 17 cents fair tax = $1.51 for that same loaf of bread.  You're telling me that the base cost of that loaf of bread will be reduced by at least 17 cents because of tax savings in the production, wholesale, and retail process?
> 
> Otherwise I will be taxed again on the money I use that was already taxed--quite heavily I might add--when I earned it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them.  So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:
> 
> *$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.
> *
> Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...
> 
> Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue.  Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ...  Those costs go away too.
> 
> Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.
> 
> Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.
> 
> And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.
> 
> The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25.  There is no transition to be made.  On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax.   Initially prices are stable, then they fall.
> 
> And you know what octopi those things are.  Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.
> 
> And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bolded portion literally claims he's thought of a tax system that can generate free money.
Click to expand...


Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sales or fair tax would also start forward on new sales and not be retroactive.  I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income.  I get that.  I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.
> 
> I suppose maybe we should just go and do what the socialists are doing in Europe, enact an confiscatory tax on assets.  For example, take 5% of everyone's liquid accounts, 401k, etc. and charge another 5% for existing physical assets.  Can't pay it?  Start selling off your stocks and home get a reverse mortgage.   We all need to share the pain together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults.  I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people.  And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.
> 
> Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain.   Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult.  I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are *not* ok "with any amount of pain" and are also *not* ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.
> 
> Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question  re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain."  The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists.  In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production.  The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.
> 
> Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay.  Voila... fair tax.
Click to expand...


Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
*I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.*   Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it.  And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.

But okay.  So you want to assess tax at the retail level only.  What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?

And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed?  And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you just went from debating to ad hominem insults.  I have at no time suggested that I am okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation, and it is highly insulting to accuse me of that after I went into some detail earlier to explain how a sales tax could be more painful to the low income people than higher income people.  And so far none of you Fair Tax people have been able to give me a good rebuttal for that concern.
> 
> Nor have you addressed the questions I have raised re what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain.   Unless you are willing to at least look at these concerns, it still won't be me but it might be somebody who is willing to inflict a lot of unnecessary pain on people purely because they were unwilling to connect all the dots.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult.  I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are *not* ok "with any amount of pain" and are also *not* ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.
> 
> Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question  re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain."  The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists.  In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production.  The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.
> 
> Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay.  Voila... fair tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
> *I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.*   Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it.  And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.
> 
> But okay.  So you want to assess tax at the retail level only.  What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?
> 
> And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed?  And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?
Click to expand...


to the point of contention... My knee jerk is from your earlier post that said you prefer income tax over sales tax cause you already paid income tax and don't want to be double taxed.  Being that I've been double, triple, and quadruple taxed most of my life I understand where you are coming from.  I understood you to mean that you prefer a system of income tax over sales tax because you are already invested disproportionately in the current system of pain. My jerkish comments were meant to provide you with poison pills associated with the current system in the hopes to argue/nudge you to consider that the current system is about to be changed one way or another.  I added the word pain.. cause that's what I see taxes as.. pain.   <smiley face so you know I sound grumpy but I'm smiling and pls don't take me seriously when I pick on the greatest generation (who should have known better than to support pyramid schemes)>

Anyhow   To your very good question on sales tax avoidance... we also have states that don't charge sales tax, and the states that do have varying sales tax per region.  The answer to that paradox is that the sales tax is due to the state/region where your primary homestead is.  Voila.. problem solved.  Minor items like the number 1 from McDonalds yeah you can get away with not sending that sales tax to TX when you are visiting GA.  Even amazon now charges you sales tax based on your home address. 

Thus if you buy a TV in mexico, but live in TX you owe the sales tax in TX.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's assuming the FairTax does what it's supporters claim it does, which is produce the same amount of revenue as the current tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
Click to expand...


Other than the death tax, which is a small portion of Federal revenues, name a tax that is not baked into the cost of products we buy.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the death tax, which is a small portion of Federal revenues, name a tax that is not baked into the cost of products we buy.
Click to expand...


What does "baked in" really mean.  I assume you mean to view taxes as a component of the consumer producer economy in which government taxation is one of the principle elements that affect the cost of products.  From that perspective all existing and expected taxes are currently "baked in" even death taxes.  

Why would one argue that the cost of death tax isn't baked in?  If you are going to take half the assets of a family does that family not have to raise prices to pay the tax?  The money taken represents an amount of supply, thus take a tax, even death tax, and you are affecting the system.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what they've said, or has the argument been that the Fair Tax would not reduce our buying power or significantly raise the cost of goods and services?  I don't think I've seen an argument that a Fair Tax would be revenue neutral for the federal government.  If that is an argument they are making, that could be another reason I would likely oppose a Fair Tax.
Click to expand...


Those first two statements are the same. And yes, they do claim it is revenue neutral.



> Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?
> 
> The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out;* 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system*, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org.
> 
> What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Answers on Tax Reform - Americans For Fair Taxation


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the fair tax replaces all other taxes, it's not added onto them.  So, for the loaf of bread and your numbers:
> 
> *$1.25 + 9 (local sales tax) + 17 (revenue neutral Fair Tax) - 17 (eliminated taxes that were included in the price) = $1.34.
> *
> Remember the business is no longer paying business tax, payroll taxes, unemployment tax, ...
> 
> Now here's the first kicker, think of all the money businesses spend on taxes that don't generate government revenue.  Tax accountants, tax lawyers, time to fill in forms, tax disincentives to make economically decisions, ...  Those costs go away too.
> 
> Now here's the second kicker, everyone who does cash work now and aren't paying taxes are going to be taxpayers because they pay tax when they buy things.
> 
> Now here's the third kicker, everyone selling goods in our economy (domestic and foreign companies) are paying the same taxes, which helps US firms compete.
> 
> And here's the biggest kicker of all, instead of driving out US companies, we're a tax haven and companies will actually come here.
> 
> The cost of the loaf of bread will quickly go down to less than $1.25.  There is no transition to be made.  On 12/31 we have our current crocked system, on 1/1 we go to the Fair Tax.   Initially prices are stable, then they fall.
> 
> And you know what octopi those things are.  Companies will get creative like they do now and find more advantages, only now they do it with a tax code that drives inefficiency and then they will do it with a market that drives efficiency.
> 
> And that doesn't even cover the liberty and privacy aspects of businesses and individuals reporting every piece of their financial data to government and politicians using the code to amass power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded portion literally claims he's thought of a tax system that can generate free money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...
Click to expand...


You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has never been my goal since I think the government is wasting more money than it spends for the benefit of anybody.  My goal is to level the playing field of the tax code, make it far more difficult to manipulate to increase the power, prestige, and personal wealth of those in government, and to produce sufficient money to cover what the government needs to do rather than all the things opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than the death tax, which is a small portion of Federal revenues, name a tax that is not baked into the cost of products we buy.
Click to expand...


Individual income tax.


----------



## Polk

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the death tax, which is a small portion of Federal revenues, name a tax that is not baked into the cost of products we buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "baked in" really mean.  I assume you mean to view taxes as a component of the consumer producer economy in which government taxation is one of the principle elements that affect the cost of products.  From that perspective all existing and expected taxes are currently "baked in" even death taxes.
> 
> Why would one argue that the cost of death tax isn't baked in?  If you are going to take half the assets of a family does that family not have to raise prices to pay the tax?  The money taken represents an amount of supply, thus take a tax, even death tax, and you are affecting the system.
Click to expand...


If you take that broad a view, yes, all taxes are "baked in", but that's stretching to the point of being meaningless.


----------



## Polk

To put the claims in layman's terms:

- The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
- The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
- The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code

It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that a desire for less pain is a normal human trait is not an insult.  I never said that you are "okay with any amount of pain with any form of taxation." Quite the contrary, I merely pointed out the opposite, which is that I fully understand that you are *not* ok "with any amount of pain" and are also *not* ok "with any form of taxation" and that this is a normal human trait to reject pain.
> 
> Not sure how you missed the many direct answers to your often repeated question  re "what products the Fair tax would be assessed on at at what points of the production chain."  The many answers even included links to explicit explanations and lists.  In summary the fair tax would be like the current sales taxes collected by the states. It would be assessed basically at the retail side of production.  The products affected would include things like toys, cars, most of the stuff you get at Walmart in the non food sections,... The products not affected would include basic necessities such as prescription drugs, flour, milk, fruit, the roof over your head, etc.
> 
> Yes the poor would have to pay the same sales tax on a flat panel tv that anyone else would have to pay.  Voila... fair tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
> *I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.*   Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it.  And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.
> 
> But okay.  So you want to assess tax at the retail level only.  What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?
> 
> And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed?  And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to the point of contention... My knee jerk is from your earlier post that said you prefer income tax over sales tax cause you already paid income tax and don't want to be double taxed.  Being that I've been double, triple, and quadruple taxed most of my life I understand where you are coming from.  I understood you to mean that you prefer a system of income tax over sales tax because you are already invested disproportionately in the current system of pain. My jerkish comments were meant to provide you with poison pills associated with the current system in the hopes to argue/nudge you to consider that the current system is about to be changed one way or another.  I added the word pain.. cause that's what I see taxes as.. pain.   <smiley face so you know I sound grumpy but I'm smiling and pls don't take me seriously when I pick on the greatest generation (who should have known better than to support pyramid schemes)>
> 
> Anyhow   To your very good question on sales tax avoidance... we also have states that don't charge sales tax, and the states that do have varying sales tax per region.  The answer to that paradox is that the sales tax is due to the state/region where your primary homestead is.  Voila.. problem solved.  Minor items like the number 1 from McDonalds yeah you can get away with not sending that sales tax to TX when you are visiting GA.  Even amazon now charges you sales tax based on your home address.
> 
> Thus if you buy a TV in mexico, but live in TX you owe the sales tax in TX.
Click to expand...


So, if I buy stuff all over the country or several other countries, and live in Texas, I pay the tax for everything I bought to somebody in Texas?  Who is going to collect it there?  Who do I pay it to?  Who determines whether I have paid what I owe?  How do they determine what I owe?  Will we need to keep receipts showing tax paid on everything we own in case somebody questions whether we paid the tax or not?

I'm really not trying to be facetious or difficult here.  But everything I have read on the Fair Tax has been exalted as some great fix for the problem by the proponents, and a whole bunch of potential problems have been spelled out by the critics and skeptics, none of which I have heard anybody address to my satisfaction yet.  '

So I remain among the skeptics and I'm willing to be persuaded.  But you haven't done it so far.  Nor has anybody else.   And none of the proponents seem to be able to see the complexities tht actually exist.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
> *I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.*   Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it.  And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.
> 
> But okay.  So you want to assess tax at the retail level only.  What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?
> 
> And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed?  And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to the point of contention... My knee jerk is from your earlier post that said you prefer income tax over sales tax cause you already paid income tax and don't want to be double taxed.  Being that I've been double, triple, and quadruple taxed most of my life I understand where you are coming from.  I understood you to mean that you prefer a system of income tax over sales tax because you are already invested disproportionately in the current system of pain. My jerkish comments were meant to provide you with poison pills associated with the current system in the hopes to argue/nudge you to consider that the current system is about to be changed one way or another.  I added the word pain.. cause that's what I see taxes as.. pain.   <smiley face so you know I sound grumpy but I'm smiling and pls don't take me seriously when I pick on the greatest generation (who should have known better than to support pyramid schemes)>
> 
> Anyhow   To your very good question on sales tax avoidance... we also have states that don't charge sales tax, and the states that do have varying sales tax per region.  The answer to that paradox is that the sales tax is due to the state/region where your primary homestead is.  Voila.. problem solved.  Minor items like the number 1 from McDonalds yeah you can get away with not sending that sales tax to TX when you are visiting GA.  Even amazon now charges you sales tax based on your home address.
> 
> Thus if you buy a TV in mexico, but live in TX you owe the sales tax in TX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I buy stuff all over the country or several other countries, and live in Texas, I pay the tax for everything I bought to somebody in Texas?  Who is going to collect it there?  Who do I pay it to?  Who determines whether I have paid what I owe?  How do they determine what I owe?  Will we need to keep receipts showing tax paid on everything we own in case somebody questions whether we paid the tax or not?
> 
> I'm really not trying to be facetious or difficult here.  But everything I have read on the Fair Tax has been exalted as some great fix for the problem by the proponents, and a whole bunch of potential problems have been spelled out by the critics and skeptics, none of which I have heard anybody address to my satisfaction yet.  '
> 
> So I remain among the skeptics and I'm willing to be persuaded.  But you haven't done it so far.  Nor has anybody else.   And none of the proponents seem to be able to see the complexities tht actually exist.
Click to expand...


You're supposed to report it annually, but no one actually does.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpting your specific line that I objected to:
> *I understand that your income is currently less than it used to be, so of course you are ok increasing and/or putting any amount of pain of taxation on income. I get that. I'm sure most people would agree to system of taxation that did not affect them.*   Now I may be getting old, and I can accept your explanation that you didn't intend to say that, but I am still sharp enough to read that you said it.  And it sure wasn't qualified by anything that preceded or followed it.
> 
> But okay.  So you want to assess tax at the retail level only.  What happens if I buy my flat screen TV in Mexico?
> 
> And all those other purchases by those who make and assemble all the components of that flat screen TV are not taxed?  And you don't see all sorts of ways to wheel and deal like crazy at home, tax free, but wholesale the product to Mexico or Canada or Grand Cayman or wherever to sell back to us retail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to the point of contention... My knee jerk is from your earlier post that said you prefer income tax over sales tax cause you already paid income tax and don't want to be double taxed.  Being that I've been double, triple, and quadruple taxed most of my life I understand where you are coming from.  I understood you to mean that you prefer a system of income tax over sales tax because you are already invested disproportionately in the current system of pain. My jerkish comments were meant to provide you with poison pills associated with the current system in the hopes to argue/nudge you to consider that the current system is about to be changed one way or another.  I added the word pain.. cause that's what I see taxes as.. pain.   <smiley face so you know I sound grumpy but I'm smiling and pls don't take me seriously when I pick on the greatest generation (who should have known better than to support pyramid schemes)>
> 
> Anyhow   To your very good question on sales tax avoidance... we also have states that don't charge sales tax, and the states that do have varying sales tax per region.  The answer to that paradox is that the sales tax is due to the state/region where your primary homestead is.  Voila.. problem solved.  Minor items like the number 1 from McDonalds yeah you can get away with not sending that sales tax to TX when you are visiting GA.  Even amazon now charges you sales tax based on your home address.
> 
> Thus if you buy a TV in mexico, but live in TX you owe the sales tax in TX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if I buy stuff all over the country or several other countries, and live in Texas, I pay the tax for everything I bought to somebody in Texas?  Who is going to collect it there?  Who do I pay it to?  Who determines whether I have paid what I owe?  How do they determine what I owe?  Will we need to keep receipts showing tax paid on everything we own in case somebody questions whether we paid the tax or not?
> 
> I'm really not trying to be facetious or difficult here.  But everything I have read on the Fair Tax has been exalted as some great fix for the problem by the proponents, and a whole bunch of potential problems have been spelled out by the critics and skeptics, none of which I have heard anybody address to my satisfaction yet.  '
> 
> So I remain among the skeptics and I'm willing to be persuaded.  But you haven't done it so far.  Nor has anybody else.   And none of the proponents seem to be able to see the complexities tht actually exist.
Click to expand...


Gez.. how many different ways can you possibly come up with to ask the same question 

>> So, if I buy stuff all over the country or several other countries, and live in Texas, I pay the tax for everything I bought to somebody in Texas?  

No.  as I explained above, the store that collects payment typically collects the sales tax.  In the example I provided Amazon knows your address and uses it to charge sales tax for your area.  They charge the sales tax and pay your state for you.  It's automatic.  The same happens when you buy a car.  It's just a thing that the retailer is supposed to do. It's not complicated you don't do anything.  They get your address as you are paying. Use a card? They have your address.  Use a check?  They have your address.  Use cash?  Ok is it a big item that has to be registered like a car?  They will ask for your address.  Their computer system will look up the tax rate.  In the old days you would just tell them what your tax rate is.  Yeah that was a bit odd.  Computers make it much easier to do sales tax calculations.  It's all automatic.  Now, if you find a retailer that does not charge you the tax... yeah you can probably "forget" about it.   That just does not happen very often.  The ones that don't collect for you start to stick out like a sort thumb because folks like you are spending money there and there's no sales tax payments coming in for the the sales.  It's pretty much a self policing thing.  Some folks will even report obvious sales tax fraud. 

Theoretically you could try to circumvent the law by finding a place to pay cash and hoping no one ever cares buy something that does not charge you sales tax and you could then pretend you forgot about it.  This is pretty much impossible to get away with if it's something big like a car or big screen TV as you would stand out like a sore thumb in their computer system when you registered the car.

>> Who is going to collect it there?  Who do I pay it to? Who determines whether I have paid what I owe?  How do they determine what I owe?

They collect sales tax at the cash register.  It's a part of the total that you pay for.  Your receipt will read: item $10; fair tax $2.30; total = $12.30; Thank you for shopping at Walmart. If you don't pay they don't let you out the door with your item.  They calculate sales tax by multiplying the cost of the item by the sales tax rate, in this example 10 x .23 = $2.30

>>> Will we need to keep receipts showing tax paid on everything we own in case somebody questions whether we paid the tax or not?

No. The retailers collect and pay.  You just pay the bill at the point of sale.  The only case where I would guess anyone would be concerned about paying sales tax is when buying a registered used vehicle. Pretty sure they provide instructions for paying the sales tax on the title.  Other than vehicles I don't know anyone that bothers with making a special effort to look for things to pay sales tax on.  It's sort of up to the State to make sure the retailers are collecting.  They don't bother the consumers about it.

>>> I'm really not trying to be facetious or difficult here.  But everything I have read on the Fair Tax has been exalted as some great fix for the problem by the proponents, and a whole bunch of potential problems have been spelled out by the critics and skeptics, none of which I have heard anybody address to my satisfaction yet.  '

The problems are imagined. There are always critics. There's a reason people are running from income tax states.

>> So I remain among the skeptics and I'm willing to be persuaded.  But you haven't done it so far.  Nor has anybody else.   And none of the proponents seem to be able to see the complexities tht actually exist.

You were being honest before when you said why you are against sales taxes... saying you are against them now because they are complex? cmon be honest.  These complexities are things that you are imagining and/or blowing out of proportion. No one in TX even thinks twice about the complexities of sales tax.  It's no more complex that an automatic tip charge at a restaurant.  If paying the amount owed at a retail store is "complex" ... well okay..  To me, paying the total due on my bill is just not that complex. 

You put the item on the counter... they ring it up... you put your card in the card reader.. the thing asks you are you ok with the total that now includes your sales tax.. you say ok.. and it bills your card and prints the receipt.. the clerk hands you the receipt for your goods.  You grumble that you had to pay taxes.  Then you put the item in your car and drive home.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine, but understand that's a different question. The FairTax movement claims their proposal is revenue neutral.
> 
> For prices to remain the same under "FairTax" as they are today, one, by definition, must be believe that not only are all business taxes baked into the cost of goods, but that all individual taxes are as well on top of the individuals paying those taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the death tax, which is a small portion of Federal revenues, name a tax that is not baked into the cost of products we buy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "baked in" really mean.  I assume you mean to view taxes as a component of the consumer producer economy in which government taxation is one of the principle elements that affect the cost of products.  From that perspective all existing and expected taxes are currently "baked in" even death taxes.
Click to expand...


Yes, baked in means it's incorporated in the price of a product.   A toaster company doesn't charge for steel directly, they charge a base price that incorporates the cost of steel as a component.  Just like the cost of employees, and employee related taxes.  They have to pay interest on their bonds that is high enough for investors to pay taxes and get a risk adjusted rate of return AFTER taxes.  That interest is a cost and is baked in.  i know you agree with that, just clarifying your question if you understand what I mean by "baked in" or not.  You do.



RKMBrown said:


> Why would one argue that the cost of death tax isn't baked in?  If you are going to take half the assets of a family does that family not have to raise prices to pay the tax?  The money taken represents an amount of supply, thus take a tax, even death tax, and you are affecting the system.



The family who pays the tax doesn't have a product and can't raise prices, so I'm not sure what you mean unless you're referring to a family that owns a business.  I think you could argue this to a degree, but it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bolded portion literally claims he's thought of a tax system that can generate free money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.
Click to expand...


It's an obvious claim.  Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is.  Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills.  If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder.  They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.  

Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes.  As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes.  Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes.  It's a cluster you have going.

But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue.  If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them.  The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the death tax, which is a small portion of Federal revenues, name a tax that is not baked into the cost of products we buy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does "baked in" really mean.  I assume you mean to view taxes as a component of the consumer producer economy in which government taxation is one of the principle elements that affect the cost of products.  From that perspective all existing and expected taxes are currently "baked in" even death taxes.
> 
> Why would one argue that the cost of death tax isn't baked in?  If you are going to take half the assets of a family does that family not have to raise prices to pay the tax?  The money taken represents an amount of supply, thus take a tax, even death tax, and you are affecting the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you take that broad a view, yes, all taxes are "baked in", but that's stretching to the point of being meaningless.
Click to expand...


You're obviously not a business owner.  We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid.  If not, we'd go bust.  We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year.  Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax...   That would never happen.  Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.

Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel.   In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?

We say wow, we pay Joe $80K.  But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K.  We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it.  Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes.  Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.

SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> The family who pays the tax doesn't have a product and can't raise prices, so I'm not sure what you mean unless you're referring to a family that owns a business.  I think you could argue this to a degree, but it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.



Everyone has a product.  At a minimum they have their labor.  Their labor is sold for wages, but also may be intrinsic or hoarded by working for themselves.  Some people work for a living and earn income.  Consumers may spend money that they have in their pockets and may also invest.

Taking money from someone reduces the amount of product they can buy.  It's gone taken from them.  They have to work to replace it.

Yes, I started to refer to family businesses but did not want to get into estate issues.  So I broadened the topic just to cover the taking of money from peter to fund government and redistribute to paul.

>>> it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.

I pooped my pants when I saw the government take the Miami Dolphins away from the Robbie Family.  Taking away a family business to pay death taxes is an overt example, yes.  But really all death taxes are the same.   The money taken represents security, represents a house, represents labor.  

The only reason the death taxes are not as overt at the moment is based on the reforms provided by the republican party. Reforms that the democrats wish to go away.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> to the point of contention... My knee jerk is from your earlier post that said you prefer income tax over sales tax cause you already paid income tax and don't want to be double taxed.  Being that I've been double, triple, and quadruple taxed most of my life I understand where you are coming from.  I understood you to mean that you prefer a system of income tax over sales tax because you are already invested disproportionately in the current system of pain. My jerkish comments were meant to provide you with poison pills associated with the current system in the hopes to argue/nudge you to consider that the current system is about to be changed one way or another.  I added the word pain.. cause that's what I see taxes as.. pain.   <smiley face so you know I sound grumpy but I'm smiling and pls don't take me seriously when I pick on the greatest generation (who should have known better than to support pyramid schemes)>
> 
> Anyhow   To your very good question on sales tax avoidance... we also have states that don't charge sales tax, and the states that do have varying sales tax per region.  The answer to that paradox is that the sales tax is due to the state/region where your primary homestead is.  Voila.. problem solved.  Minor items like the number 1 from McDonalds yeah you can get away with not sending that sales tax to TX when you are visiting GA.  Even amazon now charges you sales tax based on your home address.
> 
> Thus if you buy a TV in mexico, but live in TX you owe the sales tax in TX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I buy stuff all over the country or several other countries, and live in Texas, I pay the tax for everything I bought to somebody in Texas?  Who is going to collect it there?  Who do I pay it to?  Who determines whether I have paid what I owe?  How do they determine what I owe?  Will we need to keep receipts showing tax paid on everything we own in case somebody questions whether we paid the tax or not?
> 
> I'm really not trying to be facetious or difficult here.  But everything I have read on the Fair Tax has been exalted as some great fix for the problem by the proponents, and a whole bunch of potential problems have been spelled out by the critics and skeptics, none of which I have heard anybody address to my satisfaction yet.  '
> 
> So I remain among the skeptics and I'm willing to be persuaded.  But you haven't done it so far.  Nor has anybody else.   And none of the proponents seem to be able to see the complexities tht actually exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gez.. how many different ways can you possibly come up with to ask the same question
> 
> >> So, if I buy stuff all over the country or several other countries, and live in Texas, I pay the tax for everything I bought to somebody in Texas?
> 
> No.  as I explained above, the store that collects payment typically collects the sales tax.  In the example I provided Amazon knows your address and uses it to charge sales tax for your area.  They charge the sales tax and pay your state for you.  It's automatic.  The same happens when you buy a car.  It's just a thing that the retailer is supposed to do. It's not complicated you don't do anything.  They get your address as you are paying. Use a card? They have your address.  Use a check?  They have your address.  Use cash?  Ok is it a big item that has to be registered like a car?  They will ask for your address.  Their computer system will look up the tax rate.  In the old days you would just tell them what your tax rate is.  Yeah that was a bit odd.  Computers make it much easier to do sales tax calculations.  It's all automatic.  Now, if you find a retailer that does not charge you the tax... yeah you can probably "forget" about it.   That just does not happen very often.  The ones that don't collect for you start to stick out like a sort thumb because folks like you are spending money there and there's no sales tax payments coming in for the the sales.  It's pretty much a self policing thing.  Some folks will even report obvious sales tax fraud.
> 
> Theoretically you could try to circumvent the law by finding a place to pay cash and hoping no one ever cares buy something that does not charge you sales tax and you could then pretend you forgot about it.  This is pretty much impossible to get away with if it's something big like a car or big screen TV as you would stand out like a sore thumb in their computer system when you registered the car.
> 
> >> Who is going to collect it there?  Who do I pay it to? Who determines whether I have paid what I owe?  How do they determine what I owe?
> 
> They collect sales tax at the cash register.  It's a part of the total that you pay for.  Your receipt will read: item $10; fair tax $2.30; total = $12.30; Thank you for shopping at Walmart. If you don't pay they don't let you out the door with your item.  They calculate sales tax by multiplying the cost of the item by the sales tax rate, in this example 10 x .23 = $2.30
> 
> >>> Will we need to keep receipts showing tax paid on everything we own in case somebody questions whether we paid the tax or not?
> 
> No. The retailers collect and pay.  You just pay the bill at the point of sale.  The only case where I would guess anyone would be concerned about paying sales tax is when buying a registered used vehicle. Pretty sure they provide instructions for paying the sales tax on the title.  Other than vehicles I don't know anyone that bothers with making a special effort to look for things to pay sales tax on.  It's sort of up to the State to make sure the retailers are collecting.  They don't bother the consumers about it.
> 
> >>> I'm really not trying to be facetious or difficult here.  But everything I have read on the Fair Tax has been exalted as some great fix for the problem by the proponents, and a whole bunch of potential problems have been spelled out by the critics and skeptics, none of which I have heard anybody address to my satisfaction yet.  '
> 
> The problems are imagined. There are always critics. There's a reason people are running from income tax states.
> 
> >> So I remain among the skeptics and I'm willing to be persuaded.  But you haven't done it so far.  Nor has anybody else.   And none of the proponents seem to be able to see the complexities tht actually exist.
> 
> You were being honest before when you said why you are against sales taxes... saying you are against them now because they are complex? cmon be honest.  These complexities are things that you are imagining and/or blowing out of proportion. No one in TX even thinks twice about the complexities of sales tax.  It's no more complex that an automatic tip charge at a restaurant.  If paying the amount owed at a retail store is "complex" ... well okay..  To me, paying the total due on my bill is just not that complex.
> 
> You put the item on the counter... they ring it up... you put your card in the card reader.. the thing asks you are you ok with the total that now includes your sales tax.. you say ok.. and it bills your card and prints the receipt.. the clerk hands you the receipt for your goods.  You grumble that you had to pay taxes.  Then you put the item in your car and drive home.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but the circular argument here is making me dizzy and you inadvertently continue to misrepresent my arguments.  You either can't understand the underlying problems I see in the administration of a Fair Tax or I am asking the questions badly.  I did inadvertently run across this site this morning and, without making any assumptions that they aren't also seeing some things incorrectly here, they seem to have summarized it nicely.

Re the Fair Tax:



> *Pros:*
> 
> 1. Federal income taxes would be completely abolished. According to Fairtax.org, this would include all ancillary taxes on personal income such as estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, Social Security, Medicare, and payroll taxes.
> 
> 2. With the repeal of federal income taxes, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service or Income Robbery Service, depending on one&#8217;s perspective) would have much less power to snoop into the personal and private financial lives of American individuals. Ideally, the IRS would simply cease to exist.
> 
> 3. The Fair Tax would be &#8220;progressive&#8221; in the sense that it would avoid taxing financially challenged (i.e., poor) people for basic necessities. This is accomplished by means of a &#8220;prebate&#8221;, which according to Fairtax.org would be $2,348 per year for a single person or $6,297 per year for a family of four.
> 
> 4. The Fair Tax is calculated to be &#8220;revenue neutral&#8221;, meaning that all current government services would continue to be fully funded because the money that is raised from this national sales tax would be equal to the amount of revenue that is lost due to the repeal of federal income taxes. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. would be unaffected.
> 
> 5. Because this tax system is consumption-based rather than income-based, people could exercise a certain amount of control over how much tax they pay. Since the tax is only applied to new (not used, secondhand, etc.) items at the point of sale, a relatively frugal person could avoid paying taxes on most things, and might even make money because of the &#8220;prebate&#8221;. Meanwhile, wealthy people who choose to live &#8220;high on the hog&#8221; without paying attention to their spending choices would probably pay more tax.
> 
> 6. Since the Fair Tax only taxes consumption, it would not punish businesses for expanding and creating more jobs, investing in research and development, or donating to charity. Also, the individuals who create and maintain those businesses would have more disposable income to expand and compete in international markets (assuming that they make relatively wise choices, see the point above).
> 
> 7. The base price of goods and services (that is, their cost of production before adding any taxes, profits, etc.) would be lower because the embedded costs of the current income tax system would no longer be a factor. This would partially offset the increase in the total price of new products and services that would result from the Fair Tax.
> 
> 8. From the standpoint of government revenue collection, the &#8220;problem&#8221; of tax evasion would be reduced because people who currently resist paying income taxes and/or derive their income from black market sources would be taxed automatically at the point of sale whenever they purchase new goods and services. Moreover, the government would no longer need to spend taxpayer money in order to chase down income tax evaders.
> 
> 9. A national sales tax such as this would be much more transparent than the current tax system. There would be no more loopholes, special exemptions, payroll taxes, embedded costs, or other factors that allow people under the current system to avoid realizing how much tax they are actually paying. With the amount of taxation clearly visible to the general public, people (hopefully) would be less likely to tolerate wasteful spending, corruption, and inefficiency in government, resulting in lower levels of taxation and a stronger economy overall.
> 
> 
> *Cons:*
> 
> 1. The retail price of new goods and services would increase. Although the actual cost of these items would arguably remain the same due to the elimination of embedded income taxes mentioned in Pro #7 above, the initial &#8220;sticker shock&#8221; of apparently higher prices could have a dampening effect on the economy.
> 
> 2. If the income tax is not fully repealed as promised OR a future president and/or Congress decides to re-instate some portion of the income tax code under the guise of a &#8220;national emergency&#8221; or something similar, we could end up with a national sales tax AND an income tax, which would be disastrous for our economic freedom.
> 
> 3. The actual rate of the national sales tax would be 30%, not 23% as the Fair Tax proponents claim. This difference is due to the deceptive language that the proponents use to describe the tax rate calculation. Not only is this deception insulting, but it also makes it easier for the government to raise the tax rate in the future because people will think that the current rate is lower than it actually is.
> 
> 4. Unlike the income tax brackets, this national sales tax proposal is not indexed for inflation, meaning that as inflation increases the base price of goods and services, the amount of sales tax that you pay will also increase.
> 
> 5. People who have paid into the Social Security system and/or private savings accounts for retirement will be effectively double taxed when they begin withdrawing their money and spending it. This is because most of the money that people have managed to save up to this point already has been taxed under the current system.
> 
> 6. Because tax rates would be simplified under the national sales tax system, this could ironically make it easier for the government to raise the tax rate on certain items that it deems &#8220;unhealthy&#8221; or &#8220;dangerous&#8221;. If this occurs, things such as fatty foods, cigarettes, firearms, and an indeterminate number of other politically unpopular items could wind up being taxed at exorbitant rates, which would certainly go against the spirit of a &#8220;fair&#8221; tax system.
> 
> 7. If the Fair Tax is sufficiently high (like 30% or more), this could encourage more people to enter the black market in order to avoid the tax. This could cause crime that is often associated with black markets to escalate and effectively criminalize otherwise ordinary people.
> 
> 8. The &#8220;prebate&#8221; that is built into the Fair Tax system could actually do more harm than good in the long run because it would effectively put all Americans (except those without Social Security numbers) on the government dole, and this could create problems with dependency and the &#8220;free lunch&#8221; mentality as experienced by recipients of current government welfare programs.
> 
> 9. The Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying cause of high taxation, which is excessive government spending. As long as the federal government keeps spending taxpayer dollars on things that it has no business being involved with in the first place, it will continue to require high taxes in order to finance its expenditures, including the increasing cost of the national debt. Simply changing the method of taxation is not going to change the root causes of unfair taxes.
> http://www.karlonia.com/2007/04/16/fair-tax-pros-and-cons/



One of the first laws of management is that you won't fix dishonest or incompetent people by changing the system.  And you won't fix a flawed system by changing the people.

The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.


----------



## Foxfyre

Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.

But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:

1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.

2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.

3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.

The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.
> 
> But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:
> 
> 1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.
> 
> The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.



Bam!  Yes, these are critical.  On #1, this is one thing I disagree with the Fair Tax people on.  They want #1, but they are OK with doing it without a constitutional amendment.  I believe 100% that if we did that congress would simply start adding back all the other taxes and we'd be worse off and not better.  It has to be done with a Constitutional Amendment that covers all three of your points.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The family who pays the tax doesn't have a product and can't raise prices, so I'm not sure what you mean unless you're referring to a family that owns a business.  I think you could argue this to a degree, but it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has a product.  At a minimum they have their labor.  Their labor is sold for wages, but also may be intrinsic or hoarded by working for themselves.  Some people work for a living and earn income.  Consumers may spend money that they have in their pockets and may also invest.
> 
> Taking money from someone reduces the amount of product they can buy.  It's gone taken from them.  They have to work to replace it.
> 
> Yes, I started to refer to family businesses but did not want to get into estate issues.  So I broadened the topic just to cover the taking of money from peter to fund government and redistribute to paul.
> 
> >>> it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.
> 
> I pooped my pants when I saw the government take the Miami Dolphins away from the Robbie Family.  Taking away a family business to pay death taxes is an overt example, yes.  But really all death taxes are the same.   The money taken represents security, represents a house, represents labor.
> 
> The only reason the death taxes are not as overt at the moment is based on the reforms provided by the republican party. Reforms that the democrats wish to go away.
Click to expand...


I'm a bit confused about this argument.  If you think I'm defending the death tax, you're wrong.  I consider it to be the most singularly evil tax inflicted on the American people on our government because it has zero purpose except pure social engineering.  You'll hear me bash Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare the most because they are taxes that make all people dependent on government.  But from a pure evil standpoint, they both pale compared to the death tax.

All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company.  A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die.  I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies.  It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government.  It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians.  It's not an economic tax.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> One of the first laws of management is that you won't fix dishonest or incompetent people by changing the system.  And you won't fix a flawed system by changing the people.
> 
> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.



Yeah well your laws of management are flawed.  A dishonest system can most certainly increase the number of dishonest and incompetent people.  Further, good people can make most flawed systems work in spite of it's flaws.

>>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.

I'm not sure whether or not you see the irony that you start your sentence by bemoaning our system of soft tyranny by the majority, then end your sentence by demanding we increase the benefits that the majority already enjoys in this soft tyranny.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The family who pays the tax doesn't have a product and can't raise prices, so I'm not sure what you mean unless you're referring to a family that owns a business.  I think you could argue this to a degree, but it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has a product.  At a minimum they have their labor.  Their labor is sold for wages, but also may be intrinsic or hoarded by working for themselves.  Some people work for a living and earn income.  Consumers may spend money that they have in their pockets and may also invest.
> 
> Taking money from someone reduces the amount of product they can buy.  It's gone taken from them.  They have to work to replace it.
> 
> Yes, I started to refer to family businesses but did not want to get into estate issues.  So I broadened the topic just to cover the taking of money from peter to fund government and redistribute to paul.
> 
> >>> it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.
> 
> I pooped my pants when I saw the government take the Miami Dolphins away from the Robbie Family.  Taking away a family business to pay death taxes is an overt example, yes.  But really all death taxes are the same.   The money taken represents security, represents a house, represents labor.
> 
> The only reason the death taxes are not as overt at the moment is based on the reforms provided by the republican party. Reforms that the democrats wish to go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused about this argument.  If you think I'm defending the death tax, you're wrong.  I consider it to be the most singularly evil tax inflicted on the American people on our government because it has zero purpose except pure social engineering.  You'll hear me bash Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare the most because they are taxes that make all people dependent on government.  But from a pure evil standpoint, they both pale compared to the death tax.
> 
> All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company.  A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die.  I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies.  It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government.  It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians.  It's not an economic tax.
Click to expand...


My only point was to show how death taxes are in fact baked in.  Not sure what was confusing about my explanation.  I'm not sure why are you insisting that death taxes are not a part of the economy and/or are already thus baked into the economy.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.
> 
> But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:
> 
> 1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.
> 
> The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.


I don't have a problem with these... but I find it odd that retiree post tax assets have more sway than anyone else's post tax assets. Why is the age of a person more important than the ownership of the asset and / or whether it has already been taxed? What about folks that are currently 60 do their assets get double taxed when they turn 65 or is this something that is evenly applied to all when they retire?


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first laws of management is that you won't fix dishonest or incompetent people by changing the system.  And you won't fix a flawed system by changing the people.
> 
> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well your laws of management are flawed.  A dishonest system can most certainly increase the number of dishonest and incompetent people.  Further, good people can make most flawed systems work in spite of it's flaws.
> 
> >>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.
> 
> I'm not sure whether or not you see the irony that you start your sentence by bemoaning our system of soft tyranny by the majority, then end your sentence by demanding we increase the benefits that the majority already enjoys in this soft tyranny.
Click to expand...


And now I'm beginning to think you are seeing things.  You not only misrepresent what I say, but you are accusing me of saying things I have never said.  I better walk away because it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the conversation civil when you insist on making it personally insulting.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first laws of management is that you won't fix dishonest or incompetent people by changing the system.  And you won't fix a flawed system by changing the people.
> 
> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well your laws of management are flawed.  A dishonest system can most certainly increase the number of dishonest and incompetent people.  Further, good people can make most flawed systems work in spite of it's flaws.
> 
> >>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code.
> 
> I'm not sure whether or not you see the irony that you start your sentence by bemoaning our system of soft tyranny by the majority, then end your sentence by demanding we increase the benefits that the majority already enjoys in this soft tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And now I'm beginning to think you are seeing things.  You not only misrepresent what I say, but you are accusing me of saying things I have never said.  I better walk away because it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the conversation civil when you insist on making it personally insulting.
Click to expand...


Irony is an insult? Saying that I insist on personally insulting you, which is untrue, based on my reading of a run on sentence that you wrote as ironic?  Yeah, your insulting me by saying that I insulted you, and that I'm seeing things.  Ironic eh? I would like to thank you for not saying something like I need to check my meds, or see a doctor for some psychosis 

Here I'll paraphrase the irony within your sentence...

>>> The bottom line here as I see it is that the Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying problem of an ever bigger, more expense, more intrusive, more authoritarian government that ever invades more and more of our lives *(bemoaning soft tyranny)*, nor will it be beneficial to most people over the existing tax code (selecting/deciding (read demand/choose/manage) what tax to use based whether or not the tax will be "beneficial" to most people (read majority) over the existing code, IOW basis for selecting is whether or not it benefits the soft tyranny enjoyed by the majority.  Typically selections from a soft tryanny majority are seen by the minority as demands because they have no choice but to accept what is desired by the majority).

You don't see the irony in the juxtaposition of the first and second part of your sentence?  The problem with the system is that the system has been reworked to advantage the majority at the expense of the minority.  There's your irony, from my perspective.  If you don't agree with the statement that we have a soft tyranny, well then you won't see the irony.


----------



## Foxfyre

There is no soft tyranny when it comes to the U.S. government RKM.   It is hard core and there is nothing subtle about it.  And my "most people" was not intended to indicate a majority but rather to acknowledge that the policy would not be beneficial to all.  But again we are talking past each other in a circular argument that is going nowhere.  I choose not to get into a personally directed sparring match and you seem to be determined to go that route.   I want to debate the topic.  So unless you choose to do that, let's just move on, okay?


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has a product.  At a minimum they have their labor.  Their labor is sold for wages, but also may be intrinsic or hoarded by working for themselves.  Some people work for a living and earn income.  Consumers may spend money that they have in their pockets and may also invest.
> 
> Taking money from someone reduces the amount of product they can buy.  It's gone taken from them.  They have to work to replace it.
> 
> Yes, I started to refer to family businesses but did not want to get into estate issues.  So I broadened the topic just to cover the taking of money from peter to fund government and redistribute to paul.
> 
> >>> it's not a clear as a tax paid by a company to do business.
> 
> I pooped my pants when I saw the government take the Miami Dolphins away from the Robbie Family.  Taking away a family business to pay death taxes is an overt example, yes.  But really all death taxes are the same.   The money taken represents security, represents a house, represents labor.
> 
> The only reason the death taxes are not as overt at the moment is based on the reforms provided by the republican party. Reforms that the democrats wish to go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused about this argument.  If you think I'm defending the death tax, you're wrong.  I consider it to be the most singularly evil tax inflicted on the American people on our government because it has zero purpose except pure social engineering.  You'll hear me bash Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare the most because they are taxes that make all people dependent on government.  But from a pure evil standpoint, they both pale compared to the death tax.
> 
> All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company.  A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die.  I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies.  It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government.  It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians.  It's not an economic tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point was to show how death taxes are in fact baked in.  Not sure what was confusing about my explanation.  I'm not sure why are you insisting that death taxes are not a part of the economy and/or are already thus baked into the economy.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean they have literally no economic impact.  What I meant was they have a negligible impact on the overall economy and are a tiny portion of government revenue, that is not the purpose of the death tax.  The purpose of the death tax is specifically to take property from individuals for social reasons.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> There is no soft tyranny when it comes to the U.S. government RKM.   It is hard core and there is nothing subtle about it.  And my "most people" was not intended to indicate a majority but rather to acknowledge that the policy would not be beneficial to all.  But again we are talking past each other in a circular argument that is going nowhere.  I choose not to get into a personally directed sparring match and you seem to be determined to go that route.   I want to debate the topic.  So unless you choose to do that, let's just move on, okay?



Yeah sure. FYI it sort of makes it hard to debate when there is no agreement on the definition of terms used, the state of the current system, and how we got here.  Hard tyranny is Dicatorship/Facism/Commmunism, I don't think we are quite that far gone.  If we were this entire line of discussion would be a moot point.  You and I represent two different groups.  How we got here is an important aspect of this debate.  Otherwise we run the risk of repeating the errors of the past.

Whether the tax system we are debating should benefit all equally, or provide rebates and other advantages to different groups such as the poor, elderly, rich, middle class, etc. is a part of the debate.  I can refrain from directing questions about your group to you if you prefer.. though it is notable that you are in fact inserting into the debate that which would make the tax more palatable to your group, thus opening up for debate whether or not any particular group should have more or less benefit (or pain) than any of the other groups.  Which is why we got to this discussion in the first place. It's only a circular discussion in so far as we debate to create yet another tax system that benefits some more than others.. thus back to square one.


----------



## RKMBrown

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit confused about this argument.  If you think I'm defending the death tax, you're wrong.  I consider it to be the most singularly evil tax inflicted on the American people on our government because it has zero purpose except pure social engineering.  You'll hear me bash Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare the most because they are taxes that make all people dependent on government.  But from a pure evil standpoint, they both pale compared to the death tax.
> 
> All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company.  A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die.  I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies.  It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government.  It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians.  It's not an economic tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point was to show how death taxes are in fact baked in.  Not sure what was confusing about my explanation.  I'm not sure why are you insisting that death taxes are not a part of the economy and/or are already thus baked into the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mean they have literally no economic impact.  What I meant was they have a negligible impact on the overall economy and are a tiny portion of government revenue, that is not the purpose of the death tax.  The purpose of the death tax is specifically to take property from individuals for social reasons.
Click to expand...

Ok then baked in but small cookies from the government's overall budget perspective.  FYI if the reforms and / or estate tax laws go away it's not small cookies.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.
> 
> But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:
> 
> 1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.
> 
> The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Yes, these are critical.  On #1, this is one thing I disagree with the Fair Tax people on.  They want #1, but they are OK with doing it without a constitutional amendment.  I believe 100% that if we did that congress would simply start adding back all the other taxes and we'd be worse off and not better.  It has to be done with a Constitutional Amendment that covers all three of your points.
Click to expand...


And that brings us back to the core problem of who should be in charge of using the money we earn?  Us?  Or the government?   I have long beaten the drum for a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not equally benefit all regardless of their political leanings or socioeconomic circumstances.

If you take away the ability for those in government to use the people's money to increase their power, prestige and personal fortunes, we would get rid of all the professional politicians and bureaucrats and replace them with true public servants again.  And then we would have a shot to have a tax system, no matter how it is structured, that will fund the necessary constitutional functions of government which would cost a fraction of what we now spend.

And if we then put into place those three suggested reforms that should take care of it for the next several generations.  I would add one more stipulation though.  We need to ditch baseline budgeting at all levels of government and return to the zero base budgeting concept that helped keep government expenditures in line prior to 1974.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an obvious claim.  Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is.  Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills.  If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder.  They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.
> 
> Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes.  As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes.  Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes.  It's a cluster you have going.
> 
> But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue.  If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them.  The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.
Click to expand...


You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.


----------



## Polk

Polk said:


> To put the claims in layman's terms:
> 
> - The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
> - The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
> - The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code
> 
> It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.



I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does "baked in" really mean.  I assume you mean to view taxes as a component of the consumer producer economy in which government taxation is one of the principle elements that affect the cost of products.  From that perspective all existing and expected taxes are currently "baked in" even death taxes.
> 
> Why would one argue that the cost of death tax isn't baked in?  If you are going to take half the assets of a family does that family not have to raise prices to pay the tax?  The money taken represents an amount of supply, thus take a tax, even death tax, and you are affecting the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you take that broad a view, yes, all taxes are "baked in", but that's stretching to the point of being meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not a business owner.  We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid.  If not, we'd go bust.  We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year.  Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax...   That would never happen.  Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.
> 
> Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel.   In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?
> 
> We say wow, we pay Joe $80K.  But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K.  We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it.  Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes.  Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.
> 
> SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....
Click to expand...


You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> And that brings us back to the core problem of who should be in charge of using the money we earn?  Us?  Or the government?   I have long beaten the drum for a constitutional amendment that would prevent the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not equally benefit all regardless of their political leanings or socioeconomic circumstances.
> 
> If you take away the ability for those in government to use the people's money to increase their power, prestige and personal fortunes, we would get rid of all the professional politicians and bureaucrats and replace them with true public servants again.  And then we would have a shot to have a tax system, no matter how it is structured, that will fund the necessary constitutional functions of government which would cost a fraction of what we now spend.
> 
> And if we then put into place those three suggested reforms that should take care of it for the next several generations.  I would add one more stipulation though.  We need to ditch baseline budgeting at all levels of government and return to the zero base budgeting concept that helped keep government expenditures in line prior to 1974.



With Fair Taxers, you're certainly targeting a receptive audience for these points.  The Fair Tax proposals though purposely avoid them and focus on a more efficient way to raise the same revenue to focus on one issue.  None of these things are created by the Fair Tax, they already exist.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an obvious claim.  Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is.  Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills.  If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder.  They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.
> 
> Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes.  As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes.  Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes.  It's a cluster you have going.
> 
> But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue.  If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them.  The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.
Click to expand...




I've never argued any such thing.  What you talking about, Willis?


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an obvious claim.  Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is.  Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills.  If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder.  They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.
> 
> Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes.  As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes.  Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes.  It's a cluster you have going.
> 
> But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue.  If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them.  The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued any such thing.  What you talking about, Willis?
Click to expand...


That's exactly what you've been arguing. That's the only way to make the "FairTax" math work. Otherwise, you have to explain how a sales tax will generate the same amount of revenue as the individual income tax while not increasing the cost of goods.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put the claims in layman's terms:
> 
> - The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
> - The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
> - The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code
> 
> It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.
Click to expand...




There is no issue with those being true.  If the amount of taxes embedded in the price of a product is exactly the same, the price of the product will be exactly the same.  If a product cost $100 and $30 in taxes are embedded in the price, and that's replaced by a different tax structure which results in $30 in embedded taxes, the price of the product will still be $100.

Can I have a hit of that bong?  You're smoking some good shit...


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you take that broad a view, yes, all taxes are "baked in", but that's stretching to the point of being meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not a business owner.  We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid.  If not, we'd go bust.  We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year.  Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax...   That would never happen.  Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.
> 
> Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel.   In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?
> 
> We say wow, we pay Joe $80K.  But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K.  We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it.  Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes.  Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.
> 
> SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.
Click to expand...


I already addressed this.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put the claims in layman's terms:
> 
> - The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
> - The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
> - The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code
> 
> It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no issue with those being true.  If the amount of taxes embedded in the price of a product is exactly the same, the price of the product will be exactly the same.  If a product cost $100 and $30 in taxes are embedded in the price, and that's replaced by a different tax structure which results in $30 in embedded taxes, the price of the product will still be $100.
> 
> Can I have a hit of that bong?  You're smoking some good shit...
Click to expand...


That rests of the assumption that all taxes are embedded. If that statement were true, why would the public want to switch to this system, since it would mean they have no tax liability (they are "paying" income tax in your argument, but it's all in additional income extracted from their employers).


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not a business owner.  We are keenly aware of every cost we have to pay and we focus on the bottom line, the amount after ALL expenses, including taxes, are paid.  If not, we'd go bust.  We don't say here's the bottom line, wow, I did OK this year.  Now I'll pay the taxes, and I won't worry about paying my employees enough to pay theirs, oh yeah, and now I'll pay this tax...   That would never happen.  Taxes are clearly and directly baked into the price of our product.
> 
> Everyone realizes that a toaster incorporates steel.   In what possible universe would the same owner of the same company not incorporate the cost of taxes or the higher price we pay for things (loans, employees) so they can pay their taxes?
> 
> We say wow, we pay Joe $80K.  But $20K of that is so he can pay his taxes, so let's count on the books and charge customers for only $60K.  We pay 10% on our bonds, but 2% is for investors to pay taxes and get a market rate of return for the risk level of our bonds, so let's put it on the books as if we pay 8% and eat the extra 2% and not charge customers for it.  Let's not charge customers for the matching payroll taxes we pay for our employees, or business taxes, or business property taxes.  Let's charge customers for the steel, but not all that.
> 
> SSSSUUUURRRRREEEEEEE we do, Virginia .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already addressed this.
Click to expand...


No, you haven't. You've posted long rants that avoid the issue.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're arguing a completely irrelevant point. What you've been arguing isn't that 20k after-tax income is 20k after-tax income, no matter what the rate is. What you've been arguing is that all of the tax collected disappear into aether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued any such thing.  What you talking about, Willis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you've been arguing. That's the only way to make the "FairTax" math work. Otherwise, you have to explain how a sales tax will generate the same amount of revenue as the individual income tax while not increasing the cost of goods.
Click to expand...


So just to be clear, so you don't care what you make after taxes, only before taxes.  You don't incorporate that into your salary needs for your employer.  As I pointed out businesses factor in all their costs, but you don't.  You know what your mortgage is, your car payment, your food bill and you ask your employer for enough to cover that.  You do not ask them to cover your taxes, that's your problem and you don't expect them to pay you anything more to cover for that.  That's what you're telling me.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not someone who can do math. To claim that individual income taxes are "baked in" to the cost of consumer goods, you're not saying "count pre-tax income" you're saying "count pre-tax income then add the amount of the tax paid out of it back to the business costs". Except that doesn't make any sense, because it's the employee's pre-tax income that the money is coming out of. It's not an additional expense for the firm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've posted long rants that avoid the issue.
Click to expand...


You know how you could be reading Shakesphere to a dog and in the middle say their name and they'd hear "blah blah Spot blah blah."  You're like that with socialism.  The only thing that's not blah to you is what you want to hear.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never argued any such thing.  What you talking about, Willis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you've been arguing. That's the only way to make the "FairTax" math work. Otherwise, you have to explain how a sales tax will generate the same amount of revenue as the individual income tax while not increasing the cost of goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, so you don't care what you make after taxes, only before taxes.  You don't incorporate that into your salary needs for your employer.  As I pointed out businesses factor in all their costs, but you don't.  You know what your mortgage is, your car payment, your food bill and you ask your employer for enough to cover that.  You do not ask them to cover your taxes, that's your problem and you don't expect them to pay you anything more to cover for that.  That's what you're telling me.
Click to expand...


You're making two different claims and hoping no one will notice. Of course I care about what my after-tax income is. And, at the margin, that means I will want a higher pre-tax income, ceteris paribus. That does not mean that my employer pays my taxes for me.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've posted long rants that avoid the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know how you could be reading Shakesphere to a dog and in the middle say their name and they'd hear "blah blah Spot blah blah."  You're like that with socialism.  The only thing that's not blah to you is what you want to hear.
Click to expand...


You realize attacking me doesn't fix the problem with your argument, right?


----------



## Foxfyre

Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.

I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.

ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.

And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.

The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.

And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.
> 
> I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.
> 
> ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.
> 
> And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.
> 
> The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.
> 
> And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.



You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.


----------



## RKMBrown

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.
> 
> I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.
> 
> ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.
> 
> And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.
> 
> The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.
> 
> And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.
Click to expand...


Where did the $80 you paid in taxes come from? The corporation right? Ok, where did he get the $80 from the cost of goods right?  Can you explain to me how you think the 80 bucks you got as income from the sale of the goods was not factored into the cost of the goods your comany sold? You think that money just grows on trees?


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what you've been arguing. That's the only way to make the "FairTax" math work. Otherwise, you have to explain how a sales tax will generate the same amount of revenue as the individual income tax while not increasing the cost of goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, so you don't care what you make after taxes, only before taxes.  You don't incorporate that into your salary needs for your employer.  As I pointed out businesses factor in all their costs, but you don't.  You know what your mortgage is, your car payment, your food bill and you ask your employer for enough to cover that.  You do not ask them to cover your taxes, that's your problem and you don't expect them to pay you anything more to cover for that.  That's what you're telling me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making two different claims and hoping no one will notice. Of course I care about what my after-tax income is. And, at the margin, that means I will want a higher pre-tax income, ceteris paribus. That does not mean that my employer pays my taxes for me.
Click to expand...


I didn't say your employer pays your taxes for you, I said your employer has to pay you enough for you to pay your taxes, so your taxes are baked into the price of your employers products.  If you seriously still don't get that, live long and prosper.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't. You've posted long rants that avoid the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how you could be reading Shakesphere to a dog and in the middle say their name and they'd hear "blah blah Spot blah blah."  You're like that with socialism.  The only thing that's not blah to you is what you want to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize attacking me doesn't fix the problem with your argument, right?
Click to expand...


Wrong again, I'm mocking you.  If you consider that an "attack," you're quite the little girly poo.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.
> 
> I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.
> 
> ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.
> 
> And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.
> 
> The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.
> 
> And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.



I'm not positive I understand what you are saying, but let me repeat it back, you can let me know if I went wrong.  You're saying that Polk makes $400 a week, and he actually saves his portion of the payroll taxes as well as his withholdings, not me.

Well, let's say his take home pay is $350, the other $50 he was paying in various taxes.  Here are my observations.

1)  I know the guy, and he isn't worth $400 a week, you're overpaying him.

2)  He was actually willing to work for $350 a week.  Everyone knows when we switch to the fair tax.  His employer is probably going to look at all staff and make some sort of announcement.  Like putting out a memo saying that they are cutting salaries by 20%, which covers things like payroll taxes they never got anyway.  The memo will explain that this amount leaves them take home as well as they were before, but since taxes are now being paid directly by the employer, they can't pay both.  It will also mention that payroll taxes are covered by the fair tax.

3)  The best employees at Polk's company will probably get a better deal, something closer to the whole thing.  Polk won't get that deal.  But they are doing it to retain those employees.  Those employees have the market power, there's nothing wrong with that.

4)  Polk won't quit because he's still making $350 take home, like he did before.

5)  Going forward, take home salaries and job changes will just be calculated on the new method, it's a one time decision every company will have to make.

You have to remember that just like employers are looking at every tax as a cost, employees are looking at take home pay.  An adjustment will have to be made.  Employers will make it, they won't pay Polk his $400 gross and then pay his taxes for him.  And since the change is across the economy everyone will be making it.

You're right that employers can't just absorb it.  They won't.


----------



## Polk

RKMBrown said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.
> 
> I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.
> 
> ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.
> 
> And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.
> 
> The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.
> 
> And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did the $80 you paid in taxes come from? The corporation right? Ok, where did he get the $80 from the cost of goods right?  Can you explain to me how you think the 80 bucks you got as income from the sale of the goods was not factored into the cost of the goods your comany sold? You think that money just grows on trees?
Click to expand...


He pays it to me the first time (as salary). He doesn't pay it again when I pay it in taxes. He's double-counting that money.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, so you don't care what you make after taxes, only before taxes.  You don't incorporate that into your salary needs for your employer.  As I pointed out businesses factor in all their costs, but you don't.  You know what your mortgage is, your car payment, your food bill and you ask your employer for enough to cover that.  You do not ask them to cover your taxes, that's your problem and you don't expect them to pay you anything more to cover for that.  That's what you're telling me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making two different claims and hoping no one will notice. Of course I care about what my after-tax income is. And, at the margin, that means I will want a higher pre-tax income, ceteris paribus. That does not mean that my employer pays my taxes for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say your employer pays your taxes for you, I said your employer has to pay you enough for you to pay your taxes, so your taxes are baked into the price of your employers products.  If you seriously still don't get that, live long and prosper.
Click to expand...


You said both of those things. You may not realize you said both of those things (since one of them is an unstated premise of another claim you make), but you did.


----------



## RKMBrown

Polk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the $80 you paid in taxes come from? The corporation right? Ok, where did he get the $80 from the cost of goods right?  Can you explain to me how you think the 80 bucks you got as income from the sale of the goods was not factored into the cost of the goods your comany sold? You think that money just grows on trees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He pays it to me the first time (as salary). He doesn't pay it again when I pay it in taxes. He's double-counting that money.
Click to expand...


If your company does not bake the cost of the 80bucks into the cost of the goods you don't get the 80bucks, you get a 1099 that is minus the 80 bucks, the 80 bucks stays in the hands of the customer.


----------



## Polk

That's what you don't get. For the "FairTax" math to work, it's not 80 bucks being "baked in". It would 160 "baked in". No one is disputing that the portion of salary that ultimately becomes taxes is "baked in" to the cost of goods. What is being disputed is that the same value is baked into the price again when it goes from the employee to the federal government.


----------



## Toro

kaz said:


> All I'm saying is that income taxes, business taxes and all the rest that derive from companies are clearly in the end directly baked into the price of the products/services sold by that company.  A death tax is actually paid by a person's estate when they die.  I'm not defending it clearly, but when you say the death tax is the same, I don't know what you mean that it's baked into the price of products sold by companies.  It's just purely taxing wealth and is done to remove money from individual people and is not designed to fund the government.  It's a punitive, hateful tax by cynical socialists and politicians.  It's not an economic tax.



I'd scrap the estate tax.

It's 0% in Canada.


----------



## Toro

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence the term ... wait for it ... wait some more ... almost there ... almost ... Revenue Neutral ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an obvious claim.  Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is.  Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills.  If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder.  They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.
> 
> Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes.  As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes.  Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes.  It's a cluster you have going.
> 
> But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue.  If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them.  The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.
Click to expand...


That's true if there is price inelasticity of the product being made.  It's not true if prices have a high degree of price elasticity.


----------



## kaz

Polk said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making two different claims and hoping no one will notice. Of course I care about what my after-tax income is. And, at the margin, that means I will want a higher pre-tax income, ceteris paribus. That does not mean that my employer pays my taxes for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say your employer pays your taxes for you, I said your employer has to pay you enough for you to pay your taxes, so your taxes are baked into the price of your employers products.  If you seriously still don't get that, live long and prosper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said both of those things. You may not realize you said both of those things (since one of them is an unstated premise of another claim you make), but you did.
Click to expand...


A distinction without a difference.  No matter how you slice it, your employer has to charge their customers enough to cover your taxes.  You're just arguing a side.  The content is here.  Care or don't.  I'm not going to explain it to you anymore.


----------



## Toro

> 7. The base price of goods and services (that is, their cost of production before adding any taxes, profits, etc.) would be lower because the embedded costs of the current income tax system would no longer be a factor. This would partially offset the increase in the total price of new products and services that would result from the Fair Tax.



I doubt this would happen.  It might over the long-term, but it certainly wouldn't in the short and probably not intermediate term.  The gains would almost certainly accrue to the owners of capital.

Theory has it that the rate of return on capital should approximate the return on the capital stock, i.e if the real return of the economy is growing at 2% a year, the return on capital should be 2%.  Also, wages should rise with the level of productivity.  However, this has not happened broadly over the past 20 years.  Returns on capital have been well above the real growth of the economy and wages have lagged productivity growth.  These gains have accrued to capital, not labour.  

Prices are sticky.  Because of human biases and how the modern economy is structured, deflation is virtually impossible.  In theory, one would expect that the excess gains not arising from a decline in prices from the so-called "Fair Tax" would be distributed amongst labor and capital relative to productivity and capital formation.  However, given the experience of the past two decades, there is no reason to think this would happen over even the intermediate term.

For a real world example, in Canada, when they implemented the GST to replace a manufacturers' excise tax and was designed to be revenue neutral, the price of products rose substantially and never came back down.


----------



## kaz

Toro said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying all individual income taxes today are baked in to the price of every good. That's a much broader claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an obvious claim.  Employees don't care what their gross pay is, they care what their take home pay is.  Clearly if you hire an IT programmer, they are marketable than someone who is reliable but has no job skills.  If you pay an IT Programmer $80K, and the government takes $60K in taxes, and the latter makes $20K and pays $0 in taxes, the programmer's not going to work harder.  They aren't making any more, you (liberals) are.
> 
> Companies have to pay employees a market rate that is high enough to pay their taxes.  As tax rates go up for higher skilled employees, their pay does as well to pay the higher taxes.  Then liberals cry about the rapidly raising pay for higher skilled ignoring that higher and higher portions are just to pay the higher taxes.  It's a cluster you have going.
> 
> But that the cost of individual taxes is baked into the products sold by their employers is obvious for anyone but a socialist ideologue.  If employers can't pay their employees enough to pay their taxes, they don't work for them.  The total cost of employees is baked into the price of their products just like the cost of steel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true if there is price inelasticity of the product being made.  It's not true if prices have a high degree of price elasticity.
Click to expand...


Price elasticity isn't binary.  And there are a lot more factors then that in the equation.  If gum is 10 cents a stick and the price is elastic, if government drives up the cost of producing a stick of gum to 12 cents a stick, no one is going to produce gum, or they are going to at least greatly reduce production to the point where supply and demand are back in equilibrium.  Are you familiar with the supply and demand curve?

There is truth in what you say, but you way oversimplified it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.
> 
> I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.
> 
> ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.
> 
> And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.
> 
> The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.
> 
> And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.
Click to expand...


The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them.  They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line.   I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever.   And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay  is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as  is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.


----------



## RKMBrown

Polk said:


> That's what you don't get. For the "FairTax" math to work, it's not 80 bucks being "baked in". It would 160 "baked in". No one is disputing that the portion of salary that ultimately becomes taxes is "baked in" to the cost of goods. What is being disputed is that the same value is baked into the price again when it goes from the employee to the federal government.



Wrong.  The example has the 80 in tax moving from income tax to sales tax (80 is baked in to the retail price of the item to cover the sales tax you have to pay for items).  The total price of the item (with the 80 baked in for your paycheck) goes up 80 for sales tax but that sales tax 80 goes to the government as sales tax not your paycheck.  So while the total item plus tax includes 160, your paycheck only has the sales tax 80 amount that was baked into the retail price.  Assuming the company does not change the retail cost of the product he pays you the same and instead of you paying income tax you pay sales tax.  Oversimplified but this example shows how the tax just moves from income to sales.  Everyone is happy except the people that don't have income and thus were benefiting from not having to pay income tax.  Which explains why retired folks prefer income tax over sales, unless we give them some credit for previous income taxes paid (as sales tax credit).

The only way you can reduce the 160 is to have no taxes. I like that, then companies can reduce your paycheck by 80, and reduce the price of the item 80, and does not have to add sales tax... voila item is 160 cheaper.  Course then we have no government services.  But you could buy them on the fly based on what you need.  I suspect that would be about $20, thus the company would have to bake in 20 for the item.  Yeah I'd much prefer -60 for the cost of items -60 for payroll and no involuntary taxes.


----------



## Foxfyre

But the point is, whether the employee pays taxes as income tax or social security tax or medicare tax or whether the employee pays taxes in a Fair Tax system, unless there is an adjustment in gross wages, the employer's cost is the same except that he won't be subject to the employer's half of FICA or the FUTA tax.


----------



## RKMBrown

Debits and Credits... sure can get confusing.


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Debits and Credits... sure can get confusing.



Only for those with no accounting/bookkeeping background.

The bottom line is still Dick & Jane simple.

If I pay you $400 as a week's wages, I reduce my financial assets by $400.   It doesn't matter whether you then pay no dollars or $1 or $400 in taxes, I am still out the same $400 plus whatever other payroll based expenses I am obligated to pay.

If your labor does not produce as much income for my business as that $400 plus my other expenses for having you on the payroll, I take a loss.  If your labor produces $400 plus the amount of those additional expenses plus a reasonable profit, then it was worth my while having you on my payroll.   If not, then you'll be let go or I will go broke in which case neither of us will have income.

Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor.

And the only 'fair tax" is one that everybody pays at the same rate as everybody else and cannot be manipulated for political expediency.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Income tax has the effect of convincing people to stop working or to work less as the more you work the more you are punished.  Sale taxes encourages more efficient consumption. With more income in our pockets from our labors, we would have more money to invest, resulting in growth.  Think 401k on steroids.
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  I have no idea where you get that idea.  A progressive system might cause that where one income is taxes at a different level than another but a flat tax applied to all dollars evenly across the board does no such thing.  There is difference in incentive to create that first 80c than there is to create the millionth 80c as that is what you are going to earn every time you create a dollar.  Sales tax does the exact same thing btw as it drives up the cost of the product that you are taxing and therefore reduces the demand in that product.  In reality, such is already built in as you pointed out and reduces incentives to create weather or not it is applied to incomes or products.  The only changes are how that money is collected.  As I stated before, an income tax is simpler in that regard and is not regressive like a sales tax would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's true.  While you are correct that progressive taxes make the issue of working harder even more ridiculous, similarly forcing me to pay more for the same government services than my neighbor simply because I work more hours than my neighbor is ridiculous. Why work more hours when the government is gonna get a portion of the extra work?
> 
> You are ignoring the part I mentioned about people deciding to invest their income vs spend their income.  The ability to take most of my earned income and put it into savings would be a tremendous incentive to work more hours for the single purpose of building a nest egg.  You see I already have all the income I need to live, what's the point of working harder than I have to.  Income tax is socialist, in this regard. From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his needs.
Click to expand...

Yes it IS true and you have been making that exact claim through this thread on another instance: that the incomes taxes of workers is baked into the cost.  The concept is the same.  Are you trying to say that you are going to avoid consuming goods because that means you are going to pay the government more for the same services?  Of course not, you will still earn more and consume more.  So what is the difference if you pay that as a sales tax or an income tax?  NOTHING!

There is no difference in the effect on production as to where the tax is applied (as you have essentially been pointing out this entire time).  If you tax income, you end up with everyone making a certain percentage less or if you tax goods you STILL end up with those same people making the same amount.  There is no real difference in the end result in production.  

Where the difference lies in the fact that you cannot manipulate a flat income tax.  It is simply not possible as long as we make it FLAT.  You have expressed that your sales tax is NOT like that.  There are exceptions.  You dont tax items made for resale for one.  Well, if I am an avid gum chewer then why would I not buy the resalable item rather than the single pack?  How long before almost all products are sold for resale?  Then what do we do?  Then you provide exceptions to things like food.  I have already brought up why that is a problem in another post, one that you ignored.  I wonder why?

As far as savings or nest eggs, you are STILL ignoring the fact that money is going to be taxed.  The simple truth is that ALL money is meaningless unless spent.  Savings only exist to be spent at a later date, be it by you or one that you bestow that money on once you pass away.  If there is a 20 percent sales tax then 20 cents on every dollar is going to go to the government when you use that money.  If there is a 20 percent income tax then 20 cents of every dollar still goes to the government.  There is no difference there unless you are going to tell me that you are actually working to obtain the paper itself?!?!?


----------



## FA_Q2

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.
> 
> But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:
> 
> 1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.
> 
> 3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.
> 
> The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bam!  Yes, these are critical.  On #1, this is one thing I disagree with the Fair Tax people on.  They want #1, but they are OK with doing it without a constitutional amendment.  I believe 100% that if we did that congress would simply start adding back all the other taxes and we'd be worse off and not better.  It has to be done with a Constitutional Amendment that covers all three of your points.
Click to expand...


A constitutional amendment is obligatory for a flat tax.   There really is no other way to enforce the required flat portion.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.
> 
> But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:
> 
> 1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.
> *
> 2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.*
> 3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.
> 
> The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't have a problem with these... *but I find it odd that retiree post tax assets have more sway than anyone else's post tax assets. Why is the age of a person more important than the ownership of the asset and / or whether it has already been taxed? What about folks that are currently 60 do their assets get double taxed when they turn 65 or is this something that is evenly applied to all when they retire?
Click to expand...


Yes you do.  #2 does not fit into a flat sales tax because you have added qualifiers already like not taxing food and not taxing items that are for resale etc. 

How long do you think it is going to take congress to nudge that definition a little?  How long do you think it is going to take congress to add those that donate to those categories?


----------



## FA_Q2

Polk said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put the claims in layman's terms:
> 
> - The "FairTax" won't increase the total cost of goods and services.
> - The "FairTax" repeals all other federal taxes.
> - The "FairTax" raises the same amount of income as the current tax code
> 
> It is mathematically impossible for all three of those claims to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that Kaz's skipped this post. Probably because it destroys his little game.
Click to expand...


That is nonsense.  It can do all three.  It might just as easily raise the cost of goods while raising income (for those that actually pay taxes that is).  It will do one or the other though, that is a given.  Either you are going to make more because you will not be remitting taxes or you are going to make the same while the price of goods lowers as the company does not need to pay you as much as they did before.

No, not all of this is a given if this happened overnight, it takes time for the fluctuations to happen but as the others have said, people earn what they do because the value of the work and they purchase what they do for the prices that they do because of how they value the product.  Those basics will not change and the market is going to respond to the changes in kind.  You dont think that suddenly everyone is going to be willing to buy Charmaine for twice what it goes for now while making the same do you?  Why would you think that the competition would not respond in kind?


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now then, after laying out the pros and cons of a "Fair Tax" system, l can see how a Fair Tax would stimulate economic growth.  If it truly is assessed only at the retail level, the USA would again become the nation of choice for manufacturing for export.  That is strongly appealing to me.   And for honest people, it would eliminate all the issues of what is a 'fair share' of taxes to pay.
> 
> But we would have to first set some hard rules into place:
> 
> 1.  The government must be prohibited from imposing additional taxes to the Fair Tax.
> *
> 2   The government must be prohibited from picking and choosing what products and services will be subject to the Fair Tax.*
> 3.  The government cannot raise the tax without a national referendum of the people giving their consent.
> 
> The issue of double taxation on retirees could be remedied by increasing the amount of prebate for retirees for a number of years and gradually phase that out over time.
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't have a problem with these... *but I find it odd that retiree post tax assets have more sway than anyone else's post tax assets. Why is the age of a person more important than the ownership of the asset and / or whether it has already been taxed? What about folks that are currently 60 do their assets get double taxed when they turn 65 or is this something that is evenly applied to all when they retire?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do.  #2 does not fit into a flat sales tax because you have added qualifiers already like not taxing food and not taxing items that are for resale etc.
> 
> How long do you think it is going to take congress to &#8216;nudge&#8217; that definition a little?  How long do you think it is going to take congress to add those that donate to those categories?
Click to expand...


His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.

But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.

At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.

Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.
> 
> But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.
> 
> At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.
> 
> Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.



Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.

Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.


----------



## Billy000

This bias and immaturity in the poll choices is so weak, but I will give you credit for asking a legit question. I suppose the closest one I would pick would be that I don't know what is the "fair share". I don't know because I am not qualified to know. I would leave this answer up to an independent, non partisan economist. 

Consider this though. Revenue in this country is at record low levels. The Bush tax cuts were very costly and contributed greatly to our national debt.

Again, I don't know what exactly is the fair share, but I think economists could come to a consensus. And no, I am not suggesting we eliminate the wealthy class. Both poverty and wealth need limitations, however.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debits and Credits... sure can get confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for those with no accounting/bookkeeping background.
> 
> The bottom line is still Dick & Jane simple.
> 
> If I pay you $400 as a week's wages, I reduce my financial assets by $400.   It doesn't matter whether you then pay no dollars or $1 or $400 in taxes, I am still out the same $400 plus whatever other payroll based expenses I am obligated to pay.
> 
> If your labor does not produce as much income for my business as that $400 plus my other expenses for having you on the payroll, I take a loss.  If your labor produces $400 plus the amount of those additional expenses plus a reasonable profit, then it was worth my while having you on my payroll.   If not, then you'll be let go or I will go broke in which case neither of us will have income.
> 
> Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor.
> 
> And the only 'fair tax" is one that everybody pays at the same rate as everybody else and cannot be manipulated for political expediency.
Click to expand...


"Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor."

Do you really believe that the only reason that people work is to profit the person that owns the means of production that they use?

People work to create value, which can be exchanged for tokens, money, that they can use to buy what they need, and can't by their own skills, produce. 

They typically need means to produce. They work for the person that they have to pay the least to for those means. To put it another way, for the person that allows them to net the most from the value that they create.

This idea of yours that businesses own workers has a name. Slavery. It's been illegal for quite a while now.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.
> 
> But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.
> 
> At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.
> 
> Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
Click to expand...


She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement.  I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks.  Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%.  Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme).  Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations.  Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got.   Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.  

To the point about sales tax manipulation.  Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived.  But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks.  We have welfare to cover that stuff.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.
> 
> But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.
> 
> At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.
> 
> Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
Click to expand...


RKW keeps moving those goal posts doesn't he?   

But if we go into it that nothing is fair, then for heaven's sake stop calling it a a "fair tax" because there is nothing fair about it.

But you're right.  I've been doing some form of bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing in some capacity for somebody for most of my adult life, and I know that the fair tax provides far more places the system could be manipulated than, as you say, a flat income tax which is the way I am leaning unless somebody can give me a better argument for the fair tax than what I've seen so far.

Going to a flat income tax would be super annoying to some now exempt from federal income tax, but at least they won't be double taxed.


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.
> 
> But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.
> 
> At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.
> 
> Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RKW keeps moving those goal posts doesn't he?
> 
> *But if we go into it that nothing is fair, then for heaven's sake stop calling it a a "fair tax" because there is nothing fair about it.*
> 
> But you're right.  I've been doing some form of bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing in some capacity for somebody for most of my adult life, and I know that the fair tax provides far more places the system could be manipulated than, as you say, a flat income tax which is the way I am leaning unless somebody can give me a better argument for the fair tax than what I've seen so far.
> 
> Going to a flat income tax would be super annoying to some now exempt from federal income tax, but at least they won't be double taxed.
Click to expand...


Fair tax does not refer to the idea that it is fair to the people trapped by the previous tax structure.  That would be absolutely impossible anyway.  It is also not fair that my nest egg was taxed at a rate that is higher than the next persons nest egg that was built after the fair tax.  What fair refers to is that it is now an even system across the board.  Fair is a valid term here though I still am not to keen on it.  That is why I would refer to it as a flat tax.

The point is not fair anyway; it is getting rid of the corruption.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.
> 
> But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.
> 
> At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.
> 
> Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement.  I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks.  Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%.  Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme).  Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations.  Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got.   Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.
> 
> To the point about sales tax manipulation.  Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived.  But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks.  We have welfare to cover that stuff.
Click to expand...


Sure you have.  There is plenty of abuse in that system as well, you are just choosing to ignore it because it counters your argument.

You think that products are taxes at the same rate at the state?  There is nothing added onto gas for instance?  Perhaps cigarettes?  Alcohol?  Seriously, you cannot say that state tax is any less convoluted, particularly if you run a service in a state with taxes on it.  I can tell you that our state taxes here in Washington are a mess with respect to sales taxes.

The abuse is not as apparent because the focus on federal taxes as the feds actually provide most of the funding for the states anyway.  Even those things that have no federal connection at all end up getting funding from them through the block grants (another travesty that the feds should never have been allowed to do).  So far, there is no real reason that a sales tax would be better than an income tax though there are some real problems with a sales tax.


----------



## AVG-JOE

tooAlive said:


> *Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes*



One rate for all, one deduction for all.

For example:  18% on every dime after $40,000 no matter what the source.

Edit:  On personal income.  Business taxes need to consider the cost of goods in the equation.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> "Labor is only as valuable as what it can produce for the person paying for that labor."
> 
> Do you really believe that the only reason that people work is to profit the person that owns the means of production that they use?
> 
> People work to create value, which can be exchanged for tokens, money, that they can use to buy what they need, and can't by their own skills, produce.
> 
> They typically need means to produce. They work for the person that they have to pay the least to for those means. To put it another way, for the person that allows them to net the most from the value that they create.
> 
> This idea of yours that businesses own workers has a name. Slavery. It's been illegal for quite a while now.


What a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said.  You do not own your labor when you have agreed to sell it in the same way that you do not own your car after you sold that.  Simple as that and that is not a form of slavery.  The difference that you seem to not understand is that you WILLINGLY sell that labor.  That is different from slavery where you are not willing.  

What you sell your labor for is between you and the one that you sell it to.  That is it.  What Fox has been stating is pure truth and from the viewpoint of the business owner who purchased the labor from the worker who sold it.  You might phrase it from the workers prospective by saying this way; People work to create value, which can be exchanged for tokens, money, that they can use to buy what they need, and can't by their own skills, produce but that is in effect stating the EXACT same thing.  Just because Fox used different words does not make that voluntary exchange a state of slavery.


----------



## AVG-JOE

Foxfyre said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> His schtick is actually to accuse me  of wanting an exemption or exception for me because I pointed out that those who have already paid into social security and or socked away savings for retirement or other purposes have already been taxed on that money.  Under a Fair tax system, they would be taxed again when they spent that money.  I used my own circumstances as an example and he therefore thinks my argument is purely selfish and self serving.
> 
> But my kids and grandchild have also have paid into social security and have savings in the bank as do most working Americans walking the Earth.  The ONLY people who will not be double taxed are those who have saved nothing and are starting out on their first job.
> 
> At least one person said that will be okay because the reduction in cost of goods and merchandise will offset the double taxation.
> 
> Nobody has yet been able to show me that would be a fact, however, and I continue to say this is a fair question, among many others, to include in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RKW keeps moving those goal posts doesn't he?
> 
> But if we go into it that nothing is fair, then for heaven's sake stop calling it a a "fair tax" because there is nothing fair about it.
> 
> But you're right.  I've been doing some form of bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing in some capacity for somebody for most of my adult life, and I know that the fair tax provides far more places the system could be manipulated than, as you say, a flat income tax which is the way I am leaning unless somebody can give me a better argument for the fair tax than what I've seen so far.
> 
> Going to a flat income tax would be super annoying to some now exempt from federal income tax, but at least they won't be double taxed.
Click to expand...


Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.

Unfair starts with a 'special interest'.  Nobody should be special in a free market economy.


----------



## FA_Q2

AVG-JOE said:


> Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.
> 
> Unfair starts with a 'special interest'.  Nobody should be special in a free market economy.



The very nature of deductions is not even.  There is no such thing as a deduction for all really.  It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon.  Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further.  Flat rate, no deductions.  That is the only way to bury this once and for all.


----------



## AVG-JOE

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement.  I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks.  Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%.  Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme).  Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations.  Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got.   Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.
> 
> To the point about sales tax manipulation.  Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived.  But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks.  We have welfare to cover that stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you have.  There is plenty of abuse in that system as well, you are just choosing to ignore it because it counters your argument.
> 
> You think that products are taxes at the same rate at the state?  There is nothing added onto gas for instance?  Perhaps cigarettes?  Alcohol?  Seriously, you cannot say that state tax is any less convoluted, particularly if you run a service in a state with taxes on it.  I can tell you that our state taxes here in Washington are a mess with respect to sales taxes.
> 
> The abuse is not as apparent because the focus on federal taxes as the feds actually provide most of the funding for the states anyway.  Even those things that have no federal connection at all end up getting funding from them through the block grants (another travesty that the feds should never have been allowed to do).  So far, there is no real reason that a sales tax would be better than an income tax though there are some real problems with a sales tax.
Click to expand...


I'd kind of like to see the federal government stop taxing businesses all together, with the exception of a small sales tax at one and only one rate on everything.

The states would then be free to encourage or discourage economic activity as the local folks see fit.

This would have the added bonus effect of requiring big corporations to hire 50 lobbyists each, thus creating a LOT of jobs for out of work state employees and diluting the corruption so rampant in DC as we speak.


----------



## AVG-JOE

FA_Q2 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.
> 
> Unfair starts with a 'special interest'.  Nobody should be special in a free market economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very nature of deductions is not even.  There is no such thing as a deduction for all really.  It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon.  Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further.  Flat rate, no deductions.  That is the only way to bury this once and for all.
Click to expand...


The problem with that is that in order to have a high enough rate to actually pay the bills, the folks at the low end of the scale are harmed.  If the rate is low enough to be reasonable for lower incomes, the folks at the high end are subsidized and, either way, the burden once again falls on the middle class.

For it to be fair, the flat tax needs to be accompanied by a single deduction, and a small, single rate sales tax.


----------



## FA_Q2

AVG-JOE said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair is having the same rates and deductions for all.
> 
> Unfair starts with a 'special interest'.  Nobody should be special in a free market economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very nature of deductions is not even.  There is no such thing as a deduction for all really.  It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon.  Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further.  Flat rate, no deductions.  That is the only way to bury this once and for all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that in order to have a high enough rate to actually pay the bills, the folks at the low end of the scale are harmed.  If the rate is low enough to be reasonable for lower incomes, the folks at the high end are subsidized and, either way, the burden once again falls on the middle class.
> 
> For it to be fair, the flat tax needs to be accompanied by a single deduction, and a small, single rate sales tax.
Click to expand...


Incomes will adjust to fit the new tax structure.  That is the only way to do that and that does not shift anything to the middle class.  Making a deduction OTOH does.

Again, the only way to address the fact that we are in a never ending political class war with people continually demanding to tax someone else more to pay for my services is to make EVERYONE pay an equal share.

I hear that argument over and over again where someone thinks that they are taxed plenty but that others are getting off the hook.  It does not matter if we are talking about the Romney that pays 13 percent or the squatter that pays nothing, the thing is that the government has affirmed that they are perfectly capable of taking from others without paying themselves.  This is wrong.  With a flat tax and no deductions, EVERYONE that votes for tax increases does so with the understanding that they themselves are going to have to pay more.  The vote with the understanding that voting for tax decreases means the government is going to have less.  Today people vote to tax others for the government rather than themselves.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is valid, people would be double taxed but I find that as almost irrelevant.  Sure, it is not very fair that one person or another is taxes twice but fair is hardly related with the real world in any shape or form.  If there is something that is not quite fair or just it is due to the fact that we had to deal with such a fucked up system for so long.  There are going to be people get the short end of the stick in a transition this large.
> 
> Rather, I feel that the real problem with his method lies in the reality that it is almost as open to being fooled with as our current system.  Anything that allows for an exception or foggy defifitions is iopen for the congressional hawks to find a profit in.  That is not the point of advocating for the flat tax.  Income is the only real way that I have seen so far as to make something truly without interpretive holes.  Income, period, would be taxed.  All of it from all sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is not quite explaining my schtick... My point to her was similar to your fairness is relative statement.  I've had to pay double by % for her SS checks than she had to pay for her parents checks.  Reagan and crew called it "saving" SS, SS has been saved so many times SS taxes went from 2% to 12-15%.  Yeah it was saved it alright, saved by doubling how much they take from my generation for the same thing that the previous generation got at a 50% discount (iteratively applied all the way back to the start.. yeah that's a pyramid scheme).  Not to mention that they get benefits at a younger age, than later generations.  Thus my point to "fairness" was more that even if her generation was being charged extra, that in some sense it would be making up for the discount they got.   Thus the fairness issues she brought up might be considered somewhat of a wash.
> 
> To the point about sales tax manipulation.  Well it hasn't been an issue in the States I've lived.  But then we have never had sales tax prebate checks.  We have welfare to cover that stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure you have.  There is plenty of abuse in that system as well, you are just choosing to ignore it because it counters your argument.
> 
> You think that products are taxes at the same rate at the state?  There is nothing added onto gas for instance?  Perhaps cigarettes?  Alcohol?  Seriously, you cannot say that state tax is any less convoluted, particularly if you run a service in a state with taxes on it.  I can tell you that our state taxes here in Washington are a mess with respect to sales taxes.
> 
> The abuse is not as apparent because the focus on federal taxes as the feds actually provide most of the funding for the states anyway.  Even those things that have no federal connection at all end up getting funding from them through the block grants (another travesty that the feds should never have been allowed to do).  So far, there is no real reason that a sales tax would be better than an income tax though there are some real problems with a sales tax.
Click to expand...


Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not.  Same with gas taxes.  You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax.  Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery.  The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no?  The states are merely administrating that.


----------



## Polk

kaz said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say your employer pays your taxes for you, I said your employer has to pay you enough for you to pay your taxes, so your taxes are baked into the price of your employers products.  If you seriously still don't get that, live long and prosper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said both of those things. You may not realize you said both of those things (since one of them is an unstated premise of another claim you make), but you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.  No matter how you slice it, your employer has to charge their customers enough to cover your taxes.  You're just arguing a side.  The content is here.  Care or don't.  I'm not going to explain it to you anymore.
Click to expand...


You're making a strawman argument. I've never said the employer don't "cover" you taxes by virtue of their inclusion in your salary. I've only disputed the proposition that they then "cover" the amount again over and beyond it being factored into salary.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's try it Dick & Jane style, Kas.
> 
> I hire Polk for $10/hour on a normal 40 hour week.  That is a gross salary of $400.  I withhold 20% or $80 of his wages that HE is obligated to pay for state and federal income tax, social security, and medicare.  His check is $320 and the amounts I remit to state and federal government is $80.00 PLUS my employers' required FICA contribution for him PLUS SUTA, FUTA, work comp premiums based on his gross salary, general liability premiums based on his salary, and any other required taxes and/or wage-based insurance.
> 
> ALL of that comes out of my gross earnings.   I can deduct some or all of it as business expense which helps reduce the taxes that I owe from my business, but the taxes I do pay are on top of all those other employee expenses.
> 
> And yes, all of that IS baked into the price of my product sold to my customers.
> 
> The only employee based expense I would not have under a Fair Tax system is that I wouldn't pay the employers' share of FICA or FUTA.  The other expenses stay the same.
> 
> And assuming that I would have to pay Fair Tax on anything I buy for the business that is not for resale, I would guess my taxes would go up a bit above and beyond those payroll expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them.  They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line.   I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever.   And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay  is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as  is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.
Click to expand...


You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).


----------



## Polk

RKMBrown said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you don't get. For the "FairTax" math to work, it's not 80 bucks being "baked in". It would 160 "baked in". No one is disputing that the portion of salary that ultimately becomes taxes is "baked in" to the cost of goods. What is being disputed is that the same value is baked into the price again when it goes from the employee to the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The example has the 80 in tax moving from income tax to sales tax (80 is baked in to the retail price of the item to cover the sales tax you have to pay for items).  *The total price of the item (with the 80 baked in for your paycheck) goes up 80 for sales tax but that sales tax 80 goes to the government as sales tax not your paycheck.*  So while the total item plus tax includes 160, your paycheck only has the sales tax 80 amount that was baked into the retail price.  Assuming the company does not change the retail cost of the product he pays you the same and instead of you paying income tax you pay sales tax.  Oversimplified but this example shows how the tax just moves from income to sales.  Everyone is happy except the people that don't have income and thus were benefiting from not having to pay income tax.  Which explains why retired folks prefer income tax over sales, unless we give them some credit for previous income taxes paid (as sales tax credit).
> 
> The only way you can reduce the 160 is to have no taxes. I like that, then companies can reduce your paycheck by 80, and reduce the price of the item 80, and does not have to add sales tax... voila item is 160 cheaper.  Course then we have no government services.  But you could buy them on the fly based on what you need.  I suspect that would be about $20, thus the company would have to bake in 20 for the item.  Yeah I'd much prefer -60 for the cost of items -60 for payroll and no involuntary taxes.
Click to expand...


The problem is the bold part. Your math is fine, but you're missing the point that the FairTaxers argue the final tax-inclusive cost of goods would not increase. You admit in the bold that that claim is false.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing part of his argument. He's not talking about just the expenses you listed. He's also saying the $80 I pay in taxes in your scenario are fully factored into his cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them.  They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line.   I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever.   And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay  is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as  is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).
Click to expand...


I am not sure that is what he is saying.  I'll let him speak to that.  But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product.   They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes.   What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again.  It is the same $80.


----------



## Polk

Foxfyre said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The $80 you remit as your taxes ARE fully factored into my cost because I am the one who furnished you the money to pay them.  They reduce your take home pay, which doesn't directly affect me, but first they also came directly out of my bottom line.   I pay the full $400 dollars whether you pay anything in taxes whatsoever.   And so yes, that full $320 that you keep plus the $80 in taxes you pay  is an expense baked into the cost of the business's products as much as  is the light bill or the raw products I buy to make the product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not sure that is what he is saying.  I'll let him speak to that.  But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product.   They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes.   What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again.  It is the same $80.
Click to expand...


That's not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that it's only a cost to the employer when he pays the money as salary. It's not a cost to him again when the employee pays it in taxes. "FairTaxers", like Kaz, however, state that the entire tax burden is factored in the initial cost of the good, including the payment of that money by the employee OVER AND ABOVE the payment of that income as salary.


----------



## Foxfyre

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that is what he is saying.  I'll let him speak to that.  But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product.   They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes.   What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again.  It is the same $80.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that it's only a cost to the employer when he pays the money as salary. It's not a cost to him again when the employee pays it in taxes. "FairTaxers", like Kaz, however, state that the entire tax burden is factored in the initial cost of the good, including the payment of that money by the employee OVER AND ABOVE the payment of that income as salary.
Click to expand...


Again I am not sure that is what Kaz said at all. That doesn't sound like somethng Kaz, who is usually pretty careful with his facts, would say.  But I'll let him speak to that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Polk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you don't get. For the "FairTax" math to work, it's not 80 bucks being "baked in". It would 160 "baked in". No one is disputing that the portion of salary that ultimately becomes taxes is "baked in" to the cost of goods. What is being disputed is that the same value is baked into the price again when it goes from the employee to the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The example has the 80 in tax moving from income tax to sales tax (80 is baked in to the retail price of the item to cover the sales tax you have to pay for items).  *The total price of the item (with the 80 baked in for your paycheck) goes up 80 for sales tax but that sales tax 80 goes to the government as sales tax not your paycheck.*  So while the total item plus tax includes 160, your paycheck only has the sales tax 80 amount that was baked into the retail price.  Assuming the company does not change the retail cost of the product he pays you the same and instead of you paying income tax you pay sales tax.  Oversimplified but this example shows how the tax just moves from income to sales.  Everyone is happy except the people that don't have income and thus were benefiting from not having to pay income tax.  Which explains why retired folks prefer income tax over sales, unless we give them some credit for previous income taxes paid (as sales tax credit).
> 
> The only way you can reduce the 160 is to have no taxes. I like that, then companies can reduce your paycheck by 80, and reduce the price of the item 80, and does not have to add sales tax... voila item is 160 cheaper.  Course then we have no government services.  But you could buy them on the fly based on what you need.  I suspect that would be about $20, thus the company would have to bake in 20 for the item.  Yeah I'd much prefer -60 for the cost of items -60 for payroll and no involuntary taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the bold part. Your math is fine, but you're missing the point that the FairTaxers argue the final tax-inclusive cost of goods would not increase. You admit in the bold that that claim is false.
Click to expand...


Yeah I just assume they mean, would not increase for the folks that have the increased income due to the eliminated income tax, or catch one of the rebate checks.

Its one of those chicken egg descriptions.  You appear to be saying you can't have the egg without the chicken and they are saying I have the chicken here's my egg.


----------



## Friends

91% - Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off.     

----------

During the Eisenhower administration the top tax rate never got below 91 percent.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income 

The effective top tax rate was 66.4 percent.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

For most Americans those were good years. Only a few cranks in the John Birch Society thought they were living under Communism.


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not.  Same with gas taxes.  You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax.  Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery.  The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no?  The states are merely administrating that.



No, they are not a different issue.  The idea behind a flat tax is that it replaces all other taxes. 

Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that you flat out refuse to acknowledge that taxing the product or the income results in the same reality.  You call income taxes slavery.  WTF is the difference in a sales tax then?  Both taxes take the same amount of cash from you either way.  The sole difference to the one that is being enslaved is WHEN the money is taken.  There is never an if it will be takes.  In that respect, one is no more slavery than the other.  

AGAIN: if I tax the use of that money by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good.  If I tax the earnings by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. (this assumes tax calculated in the same manner  I am aware that 20% of 80 is not the same as 20% of a dollar but I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at here)

No matter where you take that tax you are ending up with the same damn slavery.  The ONLY difference in a sales tax and an income tax is the fact that sales tax allows you to pick and choose what to tax.  What products get taxed and where in the process of using dollars is that tax applied.  IOW, EVERYTHING that is not what a flat tax should be.


----------



## FA_Q2

Polk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing it. He's saying they full factored into his cost over and above what he's paying in salary (which initially includes the amount).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that is what he is saying.  I'll let him speak to that.  But on the other hand, you seemed to be saying that the $80 you pay in taxes are not included in the employers' cost and therefore factor into what the employer charges to the customer for his product.   They are because the employer is the one who furnishes the money to pay those taxes.   What the employee then remits in taxes does not affect the employers' cost again.  It is the same $80.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not at all what I said. What I'm saying is that it's only a cost to the employer when he pays the money as salary. It's not a cost to him again when the employee pays it in taxes. "FairTaxers", like Kaz, however, state that the entire tax burden is factored in the initial cost of the good, including the payment of that money by the employee OVER AND ABOVE the payment of that income as salary.
Click to expand...


Can you link to that claim because I do not believe that was the direction of this conversation at all.

All that is needed for nothing whatsoever to change (revenue neutral AND the cost of goods stay exactly the same) is that the taxes that you would have paid normally simply be removed from your check entirely essentially meaning that you get a pay cut while effectively not changing your actual income at all.  Then those savings would reduce the price by the amount that the tax will take in sales tax.  Effectively, all you have done is change where the tax is paid  at the register rather than in the employees check.

There was even a line of math to demonstrate this.  I cant recall anywhere that a claim the employer double counted the tax was made.  I think that the main problem here is that in order for product price to remain constant, employee pay would need to be reduced by an equal amount of tax that is no longer being taken out of the check.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very nature of deductions is not even.  There is no such thing as a deduction for all really.  It will forever turn into a deduction for those that fit into this category as well as forever be a political weapon.  Even the single example of a deduction for all, not taxing the first X dollars, will accomplish the same thing as the people close to that line will tend to vote to push it up further.  Flat rate, no deductions.  That is the only way to bury this once and for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that in order to have a high enough rate to actually pay the bills, the folks at the low end of the scale are harmed.  If the rate is low enough to be reasonable for lower incomes, the folks at the high end are subsidized and, either way, the burden once again falls on the middle class.
> 
> For it to be fair, the flat tax needs to be accompanied by a single deduction, and a small, single rate sales tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incomes will adjust to fit the new tax structure.  That is the only way to do that and that does not shift anything to the middle class.  Making a deduction OTOH does.
> 
> Again, the only way to address the fact that we are in a never ending political class war with people continually demanding to tax someone else more to pay for my services is to make EVERYONE pay an equal share.
> 
> I hear that argument over and over again where someone thinks that they are taxed plenty but that others are getting off the hook.  It does not matter if we are talking about the Romney that pays 13 percent or the squatter that pays nothing, the thing is that the government has affirmed that they are perfectly capable of taking from others without paying themselves.  This is wrong.  With a flat tax and no deductions, EVERYONE that votes for tax increases does so with the understanding that they themselves are going to have to pay more.  The vote with the understanding that voting for tax decreases means the government is going to have less.  Today people vote to tax others for the government rather than themselves.
Click to expand...


And I simply don't understand this mentality that a flat tax somehow 'subsidizes' the wealthy.   A true flat tax on ALL earned income whether that income is generated via piece work, commissions, hourly wage, salary, business profits, capital gains, interest, royalties, profit on property when it is sold, or whatever, applies equally to the rich as it does to the poor wage earner.  And the rich have a lot more of those types of income to tax.

It would fix the problem Warren Buffet complained about with his secretary paying a higher percentage on her income than he does.  It would tax the investment income that Mitt Romney lives on at the same rate that wage earners pay--right now he benefits from a lower rate on capital gains.

The rate needs to be low across the board to keep from hurting the poor and also to prevent slowing economic growth by excessively taxes investment income.

But with say a 10% flat tax, the guy making $10,000 will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy making $1 million will pay $100,000 in taxes.  And both will feel the pinch if they vote to raise those taxes so both would need a really good reason to do that.  It wouldn't any more be the lower income wanting the rich to pay more and more while they enjoy paying much less.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Friends said:


> 91% - Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off.



Besides, you've never held a job, and never plan to - so you won't be paying any income taxes..


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not.  Same with gas taxes.  You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax.  Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery.  The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no?  The states are merely administrating that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not a different issue.  The idea behind a flat tax is that it replaces all other taxes.
> 
> Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that you flat out refuse to acknowledge that taxing the product or the income results in the same reality.  You call income taxes slavery.  WTF is the difference in a sales tax then?  Both taxes take the same amount of cash from you either way.  The sole difference to the one that is being enslaved is WHEN the money is taken.  There is never an if it will be takes.  In that respect, one is no more slavery than the other.
> 
> AGAIN: if I tax the use of that money by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good.  If I tax the earnings by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. (this assumes tax calculated in the same manner  I am aware that 20% of 80 is not the same as 20% of a dollar but I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at here)
> 
> No matter where you take that tax you are ending up with the same damn slavery.  The ONLY difference in a sales tax and an income tax is the fact that sales tax allows you to pick and choose what to tax.  What products get taxed and where in the process of using dollars is that tax applied.  IOW, EVERYTHING that is not what a flat tax should be.
Click to expand...

The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sin taxes are a wholly different issue, and already exist irregardless of whether we dump income taxes or not.  Same with gas taxes.  You are inventing the idea that these additional taxes prove that sales tax is no better than income tax.  Taxing someone's income against their permission is no different than slavery.  The bulk of the funding for the states that you are talking about is welfare crap that the feds have forced on us, no?  The states are merely administrating that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not a different issue.  The idea behind a flat tax is that it replaces all other taxes.
> 
> Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that you flat out refuse to acknowledge that taxing the product or the income results in the same reality.  You call income taxes slavery.  WTF is the difference in a sales tax then?  Both taxes take the same amount of cash from you either way.  The sole difference to the one that is being &#8216;enslaved&#8217; is WHEN the money is taken.  There is never an &#8216;if&#8217; it will be takes.  In that respect, one is no more slavery than the other.
> 
> AGAIN: if I tax the use of that money by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good.  If I tax the earnings by 20 percent than I can purchase exactly 80 cents on the dollar of good. (this assumes tax calculated in the same manner &#8211; I am aware that 20% of 80 is not the same as 20% of a dollar but I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand what I am getting at here)
> 
> No matter where you take that tax you are ending up with the same damn &#8216;slavery.&#8217;  The ONLY difference in a sales tax and an income tax is the fact that sales tax allows you to pick and choose what to tax.  What products get taxed and where in the process of using dollars is that tax applied.  IOW, EVERYTHING that is not what a flat tax should be.
Click to expand...


Taxes do not, however, make us slaves if we receive value for the taxes paid.  So whatever the tax code we eventually arrive at--I will continue to defend what makes sense to me, but I retain an open mind and am willing to be convinced that there is a tax system more fair and less coercive than an income tax--there need to be some ironclad safeguards in place.  The safest would be a constitutional amendment setting the new policy in granite.

Again some suggested provisions in that amendment:

1.  The tax (whatever it is) will be applied as a uniform percentage to all income or purchases without respect to political persuasions or socioeconomic circumstances.  A prebate or flat exemptions will be uniform also without respect to political persuasions or socioeconomic circumstances.

2.  The tax and the prebate or exemptions percentages cannot be changed without a majority vote of the people.

3.  The government is required to use zero based budgeting, is required to balance the budget based on tax revenues and fees received, and is required to use the people's money only for constitutionally mandated purposes.  Any surplus will be banked and saved for a prescribed period and when surplusses have accrued above an X amount set aside for emergencies for X months, the surplus will be returned to the taxpayers.

4.   Every government agency, including all Congressional offices, will be audited annually to ensure that the people's money is allocated as authorized by law and is being utilized in the most efficient manner that is reasonable.

5.  Those in government, whether elected, appointed, or employed will live under the same laws and regulations they pass for everybody else.  All retirement funds, health care programs, or other benefits will be funded strictly from their own paychecks.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Taxes do not, however, make us slaves if we receive value for the taxes paid.



So as long as your master treats you good by feeding, sheltering, giving you health care that is equal to the value of your labor, then forcing you into labor for zero pay isn't slavery cause you got something back for it?

HUH?


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.


Really?  What are you going to do then, eat it?  I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt.  Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing?  That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though.  Might as well use rocks.

The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you dont have to buy anything.  You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating sales taxed products but that is simply reveling the truth then.  You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.  IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now.  That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a fair tax.  It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying  a tax on others.  

All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter.  As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed.  I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.  You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.


----------



## Foxfyre

That is absurd RKM.  The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states.  It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people.  The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.

The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.

It should be that way now.  We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same.  We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other.   God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding.   That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.

The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.


----------



## FA_Q2

Foxfyre said:


> And I simply don't understand this mentality that a flat tax somehow 'subsidizes' the wealthy.   A true flat tax on ALL earned income whether that income is generated via piece work, commissions, hourly wage, salary, business profits, capital gains, interest, royalties, profit on property when it is sold, or whatever, applies equally to the rich as it does to the poor wage earner.  And the rich have a lot more of those types of income to tax.
> 
> It would fix the problem Warren Buffet complained about with his secretary paying a higher percentage on her income than he does.  It would tax the investment income that Mitt Romney lives on at the same rate that wage earners pay--right now he benefits from a lower rate on capital gains.
> 
> The rate needs to be low across the board to keep from hurting the poor and also to prevent slowing economic growth by excessively taxes investment income.
> 
> But with say a 10% flat tax, the guy making $10,000 will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy making $1 million will pay $100,000 in taxes.  And both will feel the pinch if they vote to raise those taxes so both would need a really good reason to do that.  It wouldn't any more be the lower income wanting the rich to pay more and more while they enjoy paying much less.



It really is not a matter of reality.  Those that demand a flat tax as described somehow subsidizes the wealthy say this because that has been the mime for a very long time.  It is essentially a trained response as the one thing that seems to be ingrained is that the rich are somehow getting the better of everyone else through taxation.  Flat taxes would fix any and all imbalances that they receive but that is not good enough.  Those that buy into the class warfare will not be happy unless the rich are somehow paying a MUCH larger share than they are.  I wont say others because that is not really the goal.  The goal is that those that make more MUST pay a much larger share than they are paying.  You see this in the people that idolize the 91 percent range without any understanding of the realities of the tax code that spawned that rate.


----------



## Foxfyre

FA_Q2 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I simply don't understand this mentality that a flat tax somehow 'subsidizes' the wealthy.   A true flat tax on ALL earned income whether that income is generated via piece work, commissions, hourly wage, salary, business profits, capital gains, interest, royalties, profit on property when it is sold, or whatever, applies equally to the rich as it does to the poor wage earner.  And the rich have a lot more of those types of income to tax.
> 
> It would fix the problem Warren Buffet complained about with his secretary paying a higher percentage on her income than he does.  It would tax the investment income that Mitt Romney lives on at the same rate that wage earners pay--right now he benefits from a lower rate on capital gains.
> 
> The rate needs to be low across the board to keep from hurting the poor and also to prevent slowing economic growth by excessively taxes investment income.
> 
> But with say a 10% flat tax, the guy making $10,000 will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy making $1 million will pay $100,000 in taxes.  And both will feel the pinch if they vote to raise those taxes so both would need a really good reason to do that.  It wouldn't any more be the lower income wanting the rich to pay more and more while they enjoy paying much less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is not a matter of reality.  Those that demand a flat tax as described somehow subsidizes the wealthy say this because that has been the mime for a very long time.  It is essentially a trained response as the one thing that seems to be ingrained is that the rich are somehow getting the better of everyone else through taxation.  Flat taxes would fix any and all imbalances that they receive but that is not good enough.  Those that buy into the class warfare will not be happy unless the rich are somehow paying a MUCH larger share than they are.  I wont say others because that is not really the goal.  The goal is that those that make more MUST pay a much larger share than they are paying.  You see this in the people that idolize the 91 percent range without any understanding of the realities of the tax code that spawned that rate.
Click to expand...


I blame the public school system that indoctrinates with social theory more than it teaches basic math including percentages, calculating profit and loss, and concepts such as supply and demand and the value of labor.  I blame the media that indoctrinates with social theory more than it informs.  And I blame a self serving government that benefits itself (and not much else) by perpetuating skewed concepts of fairness and promotes a sense of entitlement and class envy.  I blame those who worship almost all government and those who reject almost all government; those who think they have the right to dictate how we must live our lives, and those who think freedom means preventing people from organizing for mutual benefit and quality of life.

All of it tears apart the basic spirit of human liberty and potential that the Founders intended that we have. 

And it has resulted in a steady erosion of our individual liberties, a shift to ever more authoritarian government that force us into an increasing role to feed it and keep it growing, and a tax code that has far more pages and words and complexities than that Declaration of Independent, the U.S. Constitution, War and Peace, and the Bible and probably half of most county libraries combined.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What are you going to do then, eat it?  I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt.  Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing?  That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though.  Might as well use rocks.
> 
> The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you don&#8217;t have to buy anything.  You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating &#8216;sales taxed products&#8217; but that is simply reveling the truth then.  You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.  IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now.  That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a &#8216;fair&#8217; tax.  It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying &#8211; a tax on others.
> 
> All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter.  As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed.  I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.  You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.
Click to expand...


You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others. 

The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "don&#8217;t have to buy anything."   Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> That is absurd RKM.  The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states.  It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people.  The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.
> 
> The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.
> 
> It should be that way now.  We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same.  We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other.   God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
> 
> But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding.   That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.
> 
> The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.



Let me get this straight.  You say what I said is "absurd."  Then in your last sentence you say almost exactly what I said "slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all."

Why is your agreeing with my statements absurd?  Did you miss a <sarcasm> smile?


----------



## Foxfyre

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd RKM.  The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states.  It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people.  The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.
> 
> The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.
> 
> It should be that way now.  We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same.  We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other.   God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
> 
> But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding.   That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.
> 
> The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You say what I said is "absurd."  Then in your last sentence you say almost exactly what I said "slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all."
> 
> Why is your agreeing with my statements absurd?  Did you miss a <sarcasm> smile?
Click to expand...


The difference between you and me is that you make no distinction between the necessary functions of government and those that are self serving.  I have made that distinction abundantly clear.   But then I am engaged in this discussion for the purpose of determining what is the best tax system to throw my support behind and to determine the basis on which that system can be made fair and serve the purpose I intend it to have.

You seem to be in this discussion to be as dictatorial and insulting and intransigent as those in government that I oppose.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absurd RKM.  The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states.  It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people.  The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.
> 
> The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.
> 
> It should be that way now.  We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same.  We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other.   God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
> 
> But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding.   That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.
> 
> The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You say what I said is "absurd."  Then in your last sentence you say almost exactly what I said "slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all."
> 
> Why is your agreeing with my statements absurd?  Did you miss a <sarcasm> smile?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and me is that you make no distinction between the necessary functions of government and those that are self serving.  I have made that distinction abundantly clear.   But then I am engaged in this discussion for the purpose of determining what is the best tax system to throw my support behind and to determine the basis on which that system can be made fair and serve the purpose I intend it to have.
> 
> You seem to be in this discussion to be as dictatorial and insulting and intransigent as those in government that I oppose.
Click to expand...


>>> The difference between you and me is that you make no distinction between the necessary functions of government and those that are self serving.

It wasn't a part of the discussion why are you bringing that up, just to make an argument about what I did not talk about?  Is your post just a troll?  Are you trying to be an ass because I disagree with you  on how to tax for the necessary functions of government?  You act like you've never considered that taking someones wages makes them your slave.   Is this your first time considering what income taxes really are?  Why do you believe slavery is ok when government does it?  What does the spending line item have to do with your justification of aspect of slavery of income taxation?  Income taxes are not the only means for funding the necessary constitutional functions of government.

Your accusation about me is an absolute lie, I have nothing against funding the necessary functions of government.  The issue I have is to whether or not that is done involuntarily by force through wage deductions (aka. indentured servitude.)


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What are you going to do then, eat it?  I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt.  Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing?  That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though.  Might as well use rocks.
> 
> The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you dont have to buy anything. * You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating sales taxed products but that is simply reveling the truth then.  You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.*  IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now.  That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a fair tax.  It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying  a tax on others.
> 
> All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter.  As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed.  I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.  You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.
> 
> *The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "dont have to buy anything."*   Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?
Click to expand...


And you complain about MY reading comprehension.

If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then dont bother responding.  Insults do NOT reinforce your argument.  They reinforce mine.

You did not even bother to read my statements.  Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  What are you going to do then, eat it?  I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt.  Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing?  That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though.  Might as well use rocks.
> 
> The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you dont have to buy anything. * You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating sales taxed products but that is simply reveling the truth then.  You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.*  IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now.  That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a fair tax.  It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying  a tax on others.
> 
> All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter.  As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed.  I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place.  You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.
> 
> *The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "dont have to buy anything."*   Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you complain about MY reading comprehension.
> 
> If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then dont bother responding.  Insults do NOT reinforce your argument.  They reinforce mine.
> 
> You did not even bother to read my statements.  Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.
Click to expand...

I'm the "arrogant prick" because I respond to your insults with in-kind insults and that reinforces your argument? sigh  Never understood why some folks feel the need to put themselves on a pedestal. 

>>> You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating sales taxed products but that is simply reveling the truth then. 

Sales taxed products is just one means of taxation that is not based on personal income tax.  Can you not think of more?

>>> You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason. 

Special interest goods? What are those?  In Texas, Florida, and many other states the things that are not taxed through sales taxes are the things used in the production of food, health care, and real estate.  With regard to the special interest "real estate," we have annual real-estate taxes so I guess they figured sales taxes on top would be an unfair form of double taxation.  With regard to food and health care, well those are considered "life" giving things thus sort of evil to tax.  Note: if you go out to eat, the restaurant does collect a sales tax.  The food product they buy is not taxed. 

Again, if don't live in a sales tax state it's likely that you won't understand.  But no one calls these "special interest" exceptions.  The sales tax is the same for everyone, black, white, poor, rich, it does not matter.


----------



## Foxfyre

And to keep the class envy religionists happy, if you have 10 guys making $10,000 paying 10%, they will collectively pay $10,000 in taxes.  The 1 guy making a milliom will pay $100,000 in taxes or roughly 97% of the taxes.

At a flat tax, we will still have roughly the same folks at the top paying the huge lion's share of the taxes, but now if the guys at the bottom push to raise the millionaire's taxes, their taxes go up too.  And that is exactly as it should be.

The primary difference is that the government will HAVE to go on a diet because it can't use the tax code to generate more and more and more money to waste with the blessings of the bottom 50%.

It will also be a huge incentive to govenment to put policy in place that stimulates the economy and generates job creation because having folks on unemployment and welfare will not be in government's interest as much as it is now.  A Fair Tax allows the government to perpetuate itself by giving more and more money to those same people who will then return it in the form of taxes and will keep voting for those who will keep the money flowing to them..


----------



## FA_Q2

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.
> 
> *The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "dont have to buy anything."*   Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you complain about MY reading comprehension.
> 
> If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then dont bother responding.  Insults do NOT reinforce your argument.  They reinforce mine.
> 
> You did not even bother to read my statements.  Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm the "arrogant prick" because I respond to your insults with in-kind insults and that reinforces your argument?* sigh  Never understood why some folks feel the need to put themselves on a pedestal.
> 
> >>> You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating sales taxed products but that is simply reveling the truth then.
> 
> Sales taxed products is just one means of taxation that is not based on personal income tax.  Can you not think of more?
> 
> >>> You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.
> 
> Special interest goods? What are those?  In Texas, Florida, and many other states the things that are not taxed through sales taxes are the things used in the production of food, health care, and real estate.  With regard to the special interest "real estate," we have annual real-estate taxes so I guess they figured sales taxes on top would be an unfair form of double taxation.  With regard to food and health care, well those are considered "life" giving things thus sort of evil to tax.  Note: if you go out to eat, the restaurant does collect a sales tax.  The food product they buy is not taxed.
> 
> Again, if don't live in a sales tax state it's likely that you won't understand.  But no one calls these "special interest" exceptions.  The sales tax is the same for everyone, black, white, poor, rich, it does not matter.
Click to expand...


Sigh away.  I have not insulted you and if you feel insulted, that is on you.  This was the opeining insult:

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.


And where meaningful discussion ends with you.  I am sorry if you are unable to carry on a polite conversation when you get frustrated but it is not my job to deal with your problems.  I have not treated you as a sallow or TM but now you are acting as they do.  I will not debase this good thread by going down that road here.


----------



## Euroconservativ

America is the OECD country where the wealthiest 10% pay a higher share of all taxes: 45% of all taxes. They are the top world payers even compared to the % of total wealth earned by them.

No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S. | Tax Foundation

The American top 10% households pay 1.35. The highest in OECD-24

Paying 1.00 would be the "fair share". It only happens in Sweden, Denmark, Japan and Germany. The Swiss wealthy pay below the fair share but, even if the pay the lowest tax rates in the West (top federal income tax rate= 11.5%), the wealth is much better distributed than in other countries  (share of market income of richest swiss decile=23.5%).

The OECD is not a right-wing, libertarian, anti-worker, anti-women, anti-minorities, etc organization 


And the main difference with other countries is the nonexistence of a national flat sales tax or VAT in America.




t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.
> 
> 
> CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress



I highly doubt they actually paid 91% in those day. Anyway, it was a completely different world: cold war and less open to trade and competition


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you complain about MY reading comprehension.
> 
> If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then don&#8217;t bother responding.  Insults do NOT reinforce your argument.  They reinforce mine.
> 
> You did not even bother to read my statements.  Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm the "arrogant prick" because I respond to your insults with in-kind insults and that reinforces your argument?* sigh  Never understood why some folks feel the need to put themselves on a pedestal.
> 
> >>> You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating &#8216;sales taxed products&#8217; but that is simply reveling the truth then.
> 
> Sales taxed products is just one means of taxation that is not based on personal income tax.  Can you not think of more?
> 
> >>> You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.
> 
> Special interest goods? What are those?  In Texas, Florida, and many other states the things that are not taxed through sales taxes are the things used in the production of food, health care, and real estate.  With regard to the special interest "real estate," we have annual real-estate taxes so I guess they figured sales taxes on top would be an unfair form of double taxation.  With regard to food and health care, well those are considered "life" giving things thus sort of evil to tax.  Note: if you go out to eat, the restaurant does collect a sales tax.  The food product they buy is not taxed.
> 
> Again, if don't live in a sales tax state it's likely that you won't understand.  But no one calls these "special interest" exceptions.  The sales tax is the same for everyone, black, white, poor, rich, it does not matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh away.  I have not insulted you and if you feel insulted, that is on you.  This was the opeining insult:
> 
> You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.
> 
> 
> And where meaningful discussion ends with you.  I am sorry if you are unable to carry on a polite conversation when you get frustrated but it is not my job to deal with your problems.  I have not treated you as a sallow or TM but now you are acting as they do.  I will not debase this good thread by going down that road here.
Click to expand...


IOW you'll only debate/dicuss the topic if you can win your argument by miss-quoting / lying making up shit about what those on the other side of the argument say.  My comment about your reading comprehension was based on your changing my statement to mean the opposite of what I said.  You lied, either because of a reading comprehension problem or outright.  If it wasn't reading comprehension perhaps you can explain why you changed my statement.  FYI: It is most definitely an insult to twist someone's statements and cite/present them as statements that are the complete opposite of what they said.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well one way to destroy or derail a thread is via food fight, ad hominem, and personal insult.   But in real life, in formal debate, and in this weird world of message boarding, he/she who stops making an argument and starts flinging sh*t is out of ammo and has lost the debate.

But I remain hopeful that there are some Fair Tax advocates out there who can convince me through logic, reason, and facts that the Fair Tax would be superior to a flat income tax.  I do understand the psychological satisfaction of having some control over what you spend and therefore what you pay with the Fair Tax.  But, but if at the end of the day, it erodes our buying power and quality of life and does nothing to curb the excesses and encroachment of big government, that control becomes pretty empty in concept.  Again the devil is in the details.

So, come on Fair Tax believers.  Make a believer out of me.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> ...convince me through logic, reason, and facts that the Fair Tax would be superior to a flat income tax.  I do understand the psychological satisfaction of having some control over what you spend and therefore what you pay with the Fair Tax.  But, but if at the end of the day, it erodes our buying power and quality of life and does nothing to curb the excesses and encroachment of big government, that control becomes pretty empty in concept.  Again the devil is in the details.
> 
> So, come on Fair Tax believers.  Make a believer out of me.



Circumstantial evidence:  Texas, does not have state income tax.  Texas has sales tax and property tax.  Texas has a robust and fast growing economy. 

Personal Opinion: When choosing a place to raise a family I choose Texas, been here 20years.  The number one reason I choose Texas is how they tax, and more particularly how they do not tax.  The number two reason I choose Texas was the family oriented focus Texas has.  The schools are exemplary, without over spending.  The folks are friendly  It's not over crowded.  The state is for the most part conservative.  I've had offers to move to NYC, Boston, SF, DC, and many other bastions of liberal life with high state income taxes and a decidedly liberal population.  I told them they could triple my salary and I would still say no.

Personal Observations: Folks here in Texas do not complain about the state taxes with only a few exceptions.  For example, the retired folks typically vote against bonds for new schools.  As another example, no one likes to see their sales or property taxes go up.  Some folks argue to remove the property tax by increasing the sales tax.  But I honestly can't remember ever hearing a complaint about sales tax as a means for paying for government services.   I lived in Florida, for 30years.  While there I honestly don't remember anyone who was a long time resident of the state complaining about sales tax.  I do remember "visitors" and snow birds complaining about sales tax.

Eroding argument:  All taxation erodes buying power.  Sales tax, is at least somewhat avoidable in so far as it does not apply to food products, shelter, and health care. 

Quality of life:  Toys? Is that how you measure quality of life, how many toys you can buy without having to pay any type of tax income or sales?  

Justification:  At some point we have to fund the functions of Government if we are to have one.  Sales tax is, by my argument, the best of the choices.  The primary reason being that Personal Income taxes are a vile theft of a man's labor without his permission.  

Alternatives: If you change these Personal Income taxes by allowing us to pick and choose which government services we will buy, then it's ok (alternative 1).  Forcing someone to fund someone else's idea of an ideal life is ridiculous, vile, despicable, ... hell it makes me so mad, so as to consider preparing for civil war (alternative 2).


----------



## Foxfyre

All taxes do not necessarily erode buying power.  Taxes paid for necessary fire and police services, for water and sewer systems, and other services that keep us from having to provide these for ourselves can give us excellent value for our money.  And despite the savings of not having to have my own well and septic system, etc., they can lower my insurance costs, increase my property values, and attract the kinds of economic growth that allow me to make a better living.

All taxes are not oppressive.  All taxes are not bad.  Only those that are unnecessary, do not deliver as advertised, and/or do not intend to equally benefit all are bad taxes that we need to eliminate.  A flat income tax will not eliminate bad taxes if we do not put serious restraints on government re how much that flat tax will be and what it can be spent on.   Ditto a Fair Tax.

I still see a Fair Tax as less equitable and more inflationary than a flat income tax.   So far nobody has convinced me that it would be better.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> All taxes do not necessarily erode buying power.  Taxes paid for necessary fire and police services, for water and sewer systems, and other services that keep us from having to provide these for ourselves can give us excellent value for our money.  And despite the savings of not having to have my own well and septic system, etc., they can lower my insurance costs, increase my property values, and attract the kinds of economic growth that allow me to make a better living.


Are we talking about which system of taxation is better or coming up with a way to justify federal taxation and spending programs based on state programs for fire, police, and utilities?



Foxfyre said:


> All taxes are not oppressive.  All taxes are not bad.  Only those that are unnecessary, do not deliver as advertised, and/or do not intend to equally benefit all are bad taxes that we need to eliminate.  A flat income tax will not eliminate bad taxes if we do not put serious restraints on government re how much that flat tax will be and what it can be spent on.   Ditto a Fair Tax.


Again you are mixing the issue of federal and state spending programs with the issue of federal taxation means.  Why? Deflection?



Foxfyre said:


> I still see a Fair Tax as less equitable and more inflationary than a flat income tax.


Why? 



Foxfyre said:


> So far nobody has convinced me that it would be better.



You have not addressed a single argument.  Instead you deflect away from the arguments, ignore the evidence presented, then ask the same question.  You admit your mind was made up before the discussion started, then ignore the alternative arguments and evidence, then ask to be convinced you are wrong.  Respectfully, I don't believe you. I believe your mind is set, and you are just deflecting.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well RKM, I hate chopping up posts so I won't respond point by point.  I have done my damndest in this thread to address my concerns with a Fair Tax system, and so far you have shown absolutely no ability to have a conservation about that and you have a strong propensity to be insulting to those who disagree with you.  So I will ask for those who actually wish to discuss the pros and cons of Fair Tax vs Flat Tax to respond here.  And that would not be you.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> Well RKM, I hate chopping up posts so I won't respond point by point.  I have done my damndest in this thread to address my concerns with a Fair Tax system, and so far you have shown absolutely no ability to have a conservation about that and you have a strong propensity to be insulting to those who disagree with you.  So I will ask for those who actually wish to discuss the pros and cons of Fair Tax vs Flat Tax to respond here.  And that would not be you.


As I said. You have no intention of discussing.  Your mind is made up. I respond with insults in kind and you then use that as an excuse to use your deflection tactic. Your mind is made up.  I assume you are intelligent enough to realize you have no basis for your view.  Thus you are left with accusations, personal attacks and deflection as the only means for supporting your view.

However, I will admit that if you are looking for a person to pat you on the back for supporting involuntary federal personal income tax, that is not me.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I see what you're asking now.  That would be primarily because of excess social security payments.  Social security is just a tax, there is no trust fund.  The balance of the debt, government owes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.
> 
> Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.
> 
> But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're a fucking nut.
> 
> When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.
> 
> When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.
> 
> Nice. Real nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a pretty lucid argument for a liberal.  Well done.  I'm repping you for that.  I mean positively of course.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's a budget game both ways that politicians are playing.  While there is no real trust fund, we are on the hook for future payments, so we are actually damned either way.  So yeah, it's negative both times.
> 
> Also, the idea that I'm OK with Republicans doing it is flat out wrong, W sucked, he was a tax and spend liberal.  And I always say so, Obama is still worse.
> 
> Frankly too, you're the first liberal I've seen grasp that.  I wasn't expecting you to get it and that was the basis of your argument until you repeated it.  Again, well done.
Click to expand...


The Bushman was no liberal.  

One of the things that he wanted to do that liberals prevented was to invest the Trust Fund in equities rather than treasuries. That would have been a disaster.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.
> 
> Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.
> 
> But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're a fucking nut.
> 
> When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.
> 
> When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.
> 
> Nice. Real nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a pretty lucid argument for a liberal.  Well done.  I'm repping you for that.  I mean positively of course.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's a budget game both ways that politicians are playing.  While there is no real trust fund, we are on the hook for future payments, so we are actually damned either way.  So yeah, it's negative both times.
> 
> Also, the idea that I'm OK with Republicans doing it is flat out wrong, W sucked, he was a tax and spend liberal.  And I always say so, Obama is still worse.
> 
> Frankly too, you're the first liberal I've seen grasp that.  I wasn't expecting you to get it and that was the basis of your argument until you repeated it.  Again, well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bushman was no liberal.
Click to expand...

I was referring to fiscal policy, so yeah, he was.  What's funny is I bet while saying he wasn't a liberal you'd agree he was a neocon...



PMZ said:


> One of the things that he wanted to do that liberals prevented was to invest the Trust Fund in equities rather than treasuries. That would have been a disaster.



Well, at least it would have made it an actual trust fund instead of an imaginary one.  Though killing Social Security as the Constitutional abomination that it is would be far preferable.


----------



## PMZ

Faun said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> typo -- Perhaps you can explain to the U.S. Treasury then how they're missing more than a trillion dollars for *FY2008* if the federal deficit was only $438tb
> 
> 9/30/2007: $9.00t
> 9/30/2008: $10.02t
> 
> Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
> 
> And how do you figure FY2013 was about [edit: $700*b*]?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I see what you're asking now.  That would be primarily because of excess social security payments.  Social security is just a tax, there is no trust fund.  The balance of the debt, government owes itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.
> 
> Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.
> 
> But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're a fucking nut.
> 
> When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.
> 
> When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.
> 
> Nice. Real nice.
Click to expand...


The money invested by the Trust Fund into Treasuries is no different than money you and I have I'm Treasuries.  It's all part of the National Debt that we are obligated to pay off. Money that we borrowed to pay for Bush's holy wars,  money that he gave to the wealthy in tax cuts,  money that we had to borrow to get the economy back on track. after he derailed it. 

Thanks to Obama we now have an economy that allows us that repayment.  

No thanks to the House that continues to try to derail it again.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Circumstantial evidence:  Texas, does not have state income tax.  Texas has sales tax and property tax.  Texas has a robust and fast growing economy.


Except that most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.



RKMBrown said:


> Personal Opinion: When choosing a place to raise a family I choose Texas, been here 20years.  The number one reason I choose Texas is how they tax, and more particularly how they do not tax.  The number two reason I choose Texas was the family oriented focus Texas has.


"...family oriented focus..."?

They execute more people than any state in the country.



RKMBrown said:


> The schools are exemplary, without over spending.


You can thank government stimulus money for that.



RKMBrown said:


> Personal Observations: Folks here in Texas do not complain about the state taxes with only a few exceptions.  For example, the retired folks typically vote against bonds for new schools.


That explains their stupidity.  Because when they do vote, it's for some idiot like Rick Perry. 




RKMBrown said:


> Justification:  At some point we have to fund the functions of Government if we are to have one.  Sales tax is, by my argument, the best of the choices.  The primary reason being that Personal Income taxes are a vile theft of a man's labor without his permission.


If I gotta pay taxes, then so does everyone else.

We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%.




RKMBrown said:


> Alternatives: If you change these Personal Income taxes by allowing us to pick and choose which government services we will buy, then it's ok (alternative 1).  Forcing someone to fund someone else's idea of an ideal life is ridiculous, vile, despicable, ... hell it makes me so mad, so as to consider preparing for civil war (alternative 2).


You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I see what you're asking now.  That would be primarily because of excess social security payments.  Social security is just a tax, there is no trust fund.  The balance of the debt, government owes itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.
> 
> Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.
> 
> But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you're a fucking nut.
> 
> When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.
> 
> When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.
> 
> Nice. Real nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The money invested by the Trust Fund into Treasuries is no different than money you and I have I'm Treasuries.  It's all part of the National Debt that we are obligated to pay off. Money that we borrowed to pay for Bush's holy wars,  money that he gave to the wealthy in tax cuts,  money that we had to borrow to get the economy back on track. after he derailed it.
> 
> Thanks to Obama we now have an economy that allows us that repayment.
> 
> No thanks to the House that continues to try to derail it again.
Click to expand...


I hear ya man, the kool aid tastes awesome!


----------



## Duped

Everyone needs skin in the game; the expectation of paying their own way - a consumption tax is fair.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circumstantial evidence:  Texas, does not have state income tax.  Texas has sales tax and property tax.  Texas has a robust and fast growing economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personal Opinion: When choosing a place to raise a family I choose Texas, been here 20years.  The number one reason I choose Texas is how they tax, and more particularly how they do not tax.  The number two reason I choose Texas was the family oriented focus Texas has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...family oriented focus..."?
> 
> They execute more people than any state in the country.
> 
> You can thank government stimulus money for that.
> 
> That explains their stupidity.  Because when they do vote, it's for some idiot like Rick Perry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justification:  At some point we have to fund the functions of Government if we are to have one.  Sales tax is, by my argument, the best of the choices.  The primary reason being that Personal Income taxes are a vile theft of a man's labor without his permission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I gotta pay taxes, then so does everyone else.
> 
> We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatives: If you change these Personal Income taxes by allowing us to pick and choose which government services we will buy, then it's ok (alternative 1).  Forcing someone to fund someone else's idea of an ideal life is ridiculous, vile, despicable, ... hell it makes me so mad, so as to consider preparing for civil war (alternative 2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?
Click to expand...


>> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
That is a lie.

>> They execute more people than any state in the country.
Yes, we execute murders instead of electing to the highest office.

>> idiot like Rick Perry. 
Perry, sucks.  He won because he was the republican party's nominee. 

>> We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%
Screw you. Get a job.

>> You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?
Why do you have to make stupid accusations like corporate welfare? WTH is corporate welfare? You mean like all those billions Obama pissed away on "green" companies that moved to China?


----------



## PMZ

Duped said:


> Everyone needs skin in the game; the expectation of paying their own way - a consumption tax is fair.



Some people spend all of their skin surviving.  Aren't you glad that misfortune didn't deal that hand to you? 

The consumption tax hurts those who have to spend their whole income to survive much worse than those who could survive on the change in the cushions of their couch. And those who have to work harder than  average just to survive actually contribute more to the economy than those to whom work is optional. 

No royalty for me.  Everyone has to produce. Real work.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circumstantial evidence:  Texas, does not have state income tax.  Texas has sales tax and property tax.  Texas has a robust and fast growing economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> 
> "...family oriented focus..."?
> 
> They execute more people than any state in the country.
> 
> You can thank government stimulus money for that.
> 
> That explains their stupidity.  Because when they do vote, it's for some idiot like Rick Perry.
> 
> 
> If I gotta pay taxes, then so does everyone else.
> 
> We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alternatives: If you change these Personal Income taxes by allowing us to pick and choose which government services we will buy, then it's ok (alternative 1).  Forcing someone to fund someone else's idea of an ideal life is ridiculous, vile, despicable, ... hell it makes me so mad, so as to consider preparing for civil war (alternative 2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> That is a lie.
> 
> >> They execute more people than any state in the country.
> Yes, we execute murders instead of electing to the highest office.
> 
> >> idiot like Rick Perry.
> Perry, sucks.  He won because he was the republican party's nominee.
> 
> >> We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%
> Screw you. Get a job.
> 
> >> You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?
> Why do you have to make stupid accusations like corporate welfare? WTH is corporate welfare? You mean like all those billions Obama pissed away on "green" companies that moved to China?
Click to expand...


Tell us why income from wealth should not be taxed at a higher rate than income from work.


----------



## Contumacious

tooAlive said:


> Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes
> .



In the Form 1040 for 2014 the "fair share" is clearly defined:

Simplified form 1040 E-Z

Line 1.

   How much money did you make last year?_________________

Line 2.
	   Send it in.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Tell us why income from wealth should not be taxed at a higher rate than income from work.



Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.

What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?

Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us why income from wealth should not be taxed at a higher rate than income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.
> 
> What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?
> 
> Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.
Click to expand...


Making money without work is worthless to the economy.  It should be taxed at a higher rate than work that produces wealth. 

You don't have to pay taxes.  Just move to someplace with no government services. Somalia is as close as the world comes.  

Enjoy your savings.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us why income from wealth should not be taxed at a higher rate than income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.
> 
> What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?
> 
> Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Making money without work is worthless to the economy.  It should be taxed at a higher rate than work that produces wealth.
> 
> You don't have to pay taxes.  Just move to someplace with no government services. Somalia is as close as the world comes.
> 
> Enjoy your savings.
Click to expand...

Only an mental midget would think investment money is worthless to an economy.

Typical rhetoric for you, give me your money or leave the country.  What a jerk.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us why income from wealth should not be taxed at a higher rate than income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.
> 
> What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?
> 
> Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.
Click to expand...


What would be fair is if you could show that your wealth actually created jobs it should be taxed the same as income from work (which does create wealth).  If,  on the other hand,  you are just betting against others on stock prices it,  as well as gambling winnings,  should be taxed at 2X income from work.


----------



## rdean

Why Republicans economic plans will never work.

Taxes are at their lowest levels in decades.  An orgy of tax cuts under Bush and what did it do for the country?  Besides "decay"?

Republicans claim they aren't free to hate in this country and that makes them very unhappy.  They complain they have to pay for stuff.  Clearly, they want to live here for free.  Too bad they don't go to a place where they are welcome.  Like Antarctica.

You can be free in this country, but you can't live here for free.  Freedom costs money.   If you don't want to pay for that freedom, then go.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us why income from wealth should not be taxed at a higher rate than income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.
> 
> What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?
> 
> Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would be fair is if you could show that your wealth actually created jobs it should be taxed the same as income from work (which does create wealth).  If,  on the other hand,  you are just betting against others on stock prices it,  as well as gambling winnings,  should be taxed at 2X income from work.
Click to expand...


So my investment dollars should be taxed three times. The first time I earn them as labor tax. A second time in the form of tax paid by my employee when I spend my money to pay his paycheck, a third time on profit from the product my employee built. ROFL idiots.

Why don't you just get a job and stop trying to come up with ways to screw over people that are building this country?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.
> 
> What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?
> 
> Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making money without work is worthless to the economy.  It should be taxed at a higher rate than work that produces wealth.
> 
> You don't have to pay taxes.  Just move to someplace with no government services. Somalia is as close as the world comes.
> 
> Enjoy your savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only an mental midget would think investment money is worthless to an economy.
> 
> Typical rhetoric for you, give me your money or leave the country.  What a jerk.
Click to expand...


No taxes,  no services.  Eminently fair.  

The vast majority of investment transactions are no different than horse race bets. The winners take from the losers.


----------



## PMZ

The conservative plutocracy is the same package as royalty has been selling for centuries.  We're special.  You're not.  Give us your money.  

Mankind has known for centuries the best answer to that. 

You're not special.  Go to work.


----------



## RKMBrown

rdean said:


> Why Republicans economic plans will never work.
> 
> Taxes are at their lowest levels in decades.  An orgy of tax cuts under Bush and what did it do for the country?  Besides "decay"?
> 
> Republicans claim they aren't free to hate in this country and that makes them very unhappy.  They complain they have to pay for stuff.  Clearly, they want to live here for free.  Too bad they don't go to a place where they are welcome.  Like Antarctica.
> 
> You can be free in this country, but you can't live here for free.  Freedom costs money.   If you don't want to pay for that freedom, then go.



No you are right we should raise taxes on the middle class..


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making money without work is worthless to the economy.  It should be taxed at a higher rate than work that produces wealth.
> 
> You don't have to pay taxes.  Just move to someplace with no government services. Somalia is as close as the world comes.
> 
> Enjoy your savings.
> 
> 
> 
> Only an mental midget would think investment money is worthless to an economy.
> 
> Typical rhetoric for you, give me your money or leave the country.  What a jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No taxes,  no services.  Eminently fair.
> 
> The vast majority of investment transactions are no different than horse race bets. The winners take from the losers.
Click to expand...


I see, so when someone buys a t-bill or buys a city bond it's a horse bet on whether or not they get their money back.  Interesting.  I'm gonna guess you know absolutely nothing about investments.

Where did I say anything about "no taxes?"  I'm a proponent for police, fire, and rescue services at the state and local level and a proponent of some federal services.  What I'm not a proponent of is wealth re-distribution systems disguised as police, fire, and rescue services.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Republicans economic plans will never work.
> 
> Taxes are at their lowest levels in decades.  An orgy of tax cuts under Bush and what did it do for the country?  Besides "decay"?
> 
> Republicans claim they aren't free to hate in this country and that makes them very unhappy.  They complain they have to pay for stuff.  Clearly, they want to live here for free.  Too bad they don't go to a place where they are welcome.  Like Antarctica.
> 
> You can be free in this country, but you can't live here for free.  Freedom costs money.   If you don't want to pay for that freedom, then go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are right we should raise taxes on the middle class..
Click to expand...


Typical conservative knee jerk.  Raise taxes on anybody who's not me.  

Why? 

If you don't want to pay for government services,  fine. Go somewhere that has none. Don't impose your delusion on sensible people.  We know what you get for nothing.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> The conservative plutocracy is the same package as royalty has been selling for centuries.  We're special.  You're not.  Give us your money.
> 
> Mankind has known for centuries the best answer to that.
> 
> You're not special.  Go to work.



I work.  I just choose to not earn much at this time. I'm holding out for a better POTUS and a fairer less progressive tax system.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Income from investments, nor income from labor should be punished with taxes.
> 
> What makes you think you deserve any of my assets or any portion of my labor?
> 
> Taxing investment gain is no different than stealing a portion of someone's assets. And why are we doing this? Oh yeah, because they had the nerve to invest their assets.  Such as by building a company that employs people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would be fair is if you could show that your wealth actually created jobs it should be taxed the same as income from work (which does create wealth).  If,  on the other hand,  you are just betting against others on stock prices it,  as well as gambling winnings,  should be taxed at 2X income from work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So my investment dollars should be taxed three times. The first time I earn them as labor tax. A second time in the form of tax paid by my employee when I spend my money to pay his paycheck, a third time on profit from the product my employee built. ROFL idiots.
> 
> Why don't you just get a job and stop trying to come up with ways to screw over people that are building this country?
Click to expand...


Each dollar that you make gets taxed once for the services that you consume.  If you don't want government services,  go where there are none offered.  It seems so simple to me. Don't go to stores that you can't afford.


----------



## francoHFW

OP- More than they pay now- quadrupling their wealth while the country is ruined...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Republicans economic plans will never work.
> 
> Taxes are at their lowest levels in decades.  An orgy of tax cuts under Bush and what did it do for the country?  Besides "decay"?
> 
> Republicans claim they aren't free to hate in this country and that makes them very unhappy.  They complain they have to pay for stuff.  Clearly, they want to live here for free.  Too bad they don't go to a place where they are welcome.  Like Antarctica.
> 
> You can be free in this country, but you can't live here for free.  Freedom costs money.   If you don't want to pay for that freedom, then go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are right we should raise taxes on the middle class..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative knee jerk.  Raise taxes on anybody who's not me.
> 
> Why?
> 
> If you don't want to pay for government services,  fine. Go somewhere that has none. Don't impose your delusion on sensible people.  We know what you get for nothing.
Click to expand...


You two are really this retarded?  The Bush tax cuts were bigger for the middle class than they were for the rich.  The rich have lost their tax breaks already.  Removing the rest of the Bush tax cuts leaves just the tax cuts for the middle class.  Duh.


----------



## ScienceRocks

How many of you are RICH? 250,000/year??? or more.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would be fair is if you could show that your wealth actually created jobs it should be taxed the same as income from work (which does create wealth).  If,  on the other hand,  you are just betting against others on stock prices it,  as well as gambling winnings,  should be taxed at 2X income from work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So my investment dollars should be taxed three times. The first time I earn them as labor tax. A second time in the form of tax paid by my employee when I spend my money to pay his paycheck, a third time on profit from the product my employee built. ROFL idiots.
> 
> Why don't you just get a job and stop trying to come up with ways to screw over people that are building this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Each dollar that you make gets taxed once for the services that you consume.  If you don't want government services,  go where there are none offered.  It seems so simple to me. Don't go to stores that you can't afford.
Click to expand...


So no one should save for retirement? No one should save money? Saving money and investing are "evil?" WTF is wrong with you retards?


----------



## RKMBrown

francoHFW said:


> OP- More than they pay now- quadrupling their wealth while the country is ruined...



Yeah and the democrats let it happen because?


----------



## PMZ

francoHFW said:


> OP- More than they pay now- quadrupling their wealth while the country is ruined...



We are extreme in the world in terms of wealth distribution.  That has demonstrated to be dysfunctional in many ways.  The Republican solution?  Make it more extreme and see what happens.  

They've never met a problem that they couldn't ignore.


----------



## RKMBrown

Matthew said:


> How many of you are RICH? 250,000/year??? or more.



By that measure I used to be rich but choose to not be rich for now... he he screw Obama.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative plutocracy is the same package as royalty has been selling for centuries.  We're special.  You're not.  Give us your money.
> 
> Mankind has known for centuries the best answer to that.
> 
> You're not special.  Go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work.  I just choose to not earn much at this time. I'm holding out for a better POTUS and a fairer less progressive tax system.
Click to expand...


Your choice.  Enjoy it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conservative plutocracy is the same package as royalty has been selling for centuries.  We're special.  You're not.  Give us your money.
> 
> Mankind has known for centuries the best answer to that.
> 
> You're not special.  Go to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work.  I just choose to not earn much at this time. I'm holding out for a better POTUS and a fairer less progressive tax system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your choice.  Enjoy it.
Click to expand...


Oh I am.


----------



## PMZ

We all work at what we're best at.  At least sensible ones do. We all get a portion of the wealth that we produce. Some want the wealth without the production. Some want free government services. Some think of themselves as entitled.

I think of everyone as equal in the sense that they have to create more wealth than they make. Imagine that?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> We all work at what we're best at.  At least sensible ones do. We all get a portion of the wealth that we produce. Some want the wealth without the production. Some want free government services. Some think of themselves as entitled.
> 
> I think of everyone as equal in the sense that they have to create more wealth than they make. Imagine that?



Have to create more wealth than they make? WTH are you talking about.

Are you one of those people that think the only real jobs are jobs that make products?  That people who build companies are worthless?

News flash: Worker bees are a necessary element to an economy, but they are not the only element of the economy.


----------



## Chris

Tax capital gains as income.

Get rid of the 100K cap on taxable SS income.

Raise the minimum wage.


----------



## RKMBrown

Chris said:


> Tax capital gains as income.
> 
> Get rid of the 100K cap on taxable SS income.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage.



Eliminate the federal minimum wage law.
Replace SS with a 401k system.
Eliminate progressive tax rates replacing them with flat taxes on sales and imports.
Cut discretionary spending of the federal government to Clinton levels / GDP.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> >> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> That is a lie.


No it's not.


> _Texas' economy has been helped by *rising public-sector employment*, federal stimulus money, and regulations that helped shield the state from the housing bubble._





RKMBrown said:


> >> They execute more people than any state in the country.
> Yes, we execute murders instead of electing to the highest office.


You execute the clinically insane.  You execute minorities.  What you don't execute, is rich white people.




RKMBrown said:


> >> We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%
> Screw you. Get a job.


Fuck you, that shit goes up to 25%.

I'm sick of you fuckers getting a free ride off my tax dollar.




RKMBrown said:


> >> You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?
> Why do you have to make stupid accusations like corporate welfare? WTH is corporate welfare? You mean like all those billions Obama pissed away on "green" companies that moved to China?


No. Government subsidies to oil companies.  Tax breaks and loopholes that allow companies to offshore their profits so they don't have to pay taxes.  How does a billion dollar a year company like GE pay no tax?


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Eliminate the federal minimum wage law.
> Replace SS with a 401k system.
> Eliminate progressive tax rates replacing them with flat taxes on sales and imports.
> Cut discretionary spending of the federal government to Clinton levels / GDP.


If the private sector gets their greedy hands on SS, there will be no retirement money for anyone.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the federal minimum wage law.
> Replace SS with a 401k system.
> Eliminate progressive tax rates replacing them with flat taxes on sales and imports.
> Cut discretionary spending of the federal government to Clinton levels / GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> If the private sector gets their greedy hands on SS, there will be no retirement money for anyone.
Click to expand...


lol.. I've put twice as much of my money into SS than my 401k, yet my 401k will give me an order of magnitude more in retirement than I will get out of my SS checks. I'm gonna guess you are not a math or finance guy.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> lol.. I've put twice as much of my money into SS than my 401k, yet my 401k will give me an order of magnitude more in retirement than I will get out of my SS checks. I'm gonna guess you are not a math or finance guy.


Tell that to all the people who lost their 401k when the financial industry decided to go playing with their accounts in the fraudelant derrivitives market.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> _Texas' economy has been helped by *rising public-sector employment*, federal stimulus money, and regulations that helped shield the state from the housing bubble._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You execute the clinically insane.  You execute minorities.  What you don't execute, is rich white people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> We need to increase capital gains and dividend taxes to 25%
> Screw you. Get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you, that shit goes up to 25%.
> 
> I'm sick of you fuckers getting a free ride off my tax dollar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> You wouldn't be talking about corporate welfare, would you?
> Why do you have to make stupid accusations like corporate welfare? WTH is corporate welfare? You mean like all those billions Obama pissed away on "green" companies that moved to China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Government subsidies to oil companies.  Tax breaks and loopholes that allow companies to offshore their profits so they don't have to pay taxes.  How does a billion dollar a year company like GE pay no tax?
Click to expand...


>> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
That is a lie.
>> No it's not.
Yes, it is. Your cite from one month in 2011 right after a one time expansion for education and police is total bull crap. The government isn't even the biggest sector in Texas let alone the majority of all sectors put together.  Put down the bong dude.


>> I'm sick of you fuckers getting a free ride off my tax dollar.

Ah now the truth comes out.  You don't have any savings so you want to fuck your retired neighbor over for a bigger piece of his assets. This because you are to stupid to put some money away for your own investments.

>> How does a billion dollar a year company like GE pay no tax?

Corporate taxes are based on profit.  A company would have to have a moron for a CEO to have a profit that is taxed at the end of the year.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> >> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> That is a lie.
> >> No it's not.
> Yes, it is. Your cite from one month in 2011 right after a one time expansion for education and police is total bull crap. The government isn't even the biggest sector in Texas let alone the majority of all sectors put together.  Put down the bong dude.


Take that condescending attitude and shove it up your big Texas ass!

You're not providing any evidence to back up your claim.  All you're doing is shooting your fuckin' mouth off.  You're not proving anything.  





RKMBrown said:


> Ah now the truth comes out.  You don't have any savings so you want to fuck your retired neighbor over for a bigger piece of his assets. This because you are to stupid to put some money away for your own investments.


A big reason he has those assets in the first place is because he is paying less of a tax rate than I am.

We need to increase the tax rate on capital gains and dividends a full 10%.




RKMBrown said:


> Corporate taxes are based on profit.  A company would have to have a moron for a CEO to have a profit that is taxed at the end of the year.


GE made a billion dollars in profit last year and paid no tax.  How the fuck does that happen?  I thought you were good at math?


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.. I've put twice as much of my money into SS than my 401k, yet my 401k will give me an order of magnitude more in retirement than I will get out of my SS checks. I'm gonna guess you are not a math or finance guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the people who lost their 401k when the financial industry decided to go playing with their accounts in the fraudelant derrivitives market.
Click to expand...

The only people who lost out are the ones that sold out at the bottom.  The market is higher now than it has ever been. Additionally, 401k does not necessarily mean stocks. One can invest conservatively and still beat SS by an order of magnitude.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> Most of those jobs, are public-sector jobs.
> That is a lie.
> >> No it's not.
> Yes, it is. Your cite from one month in 2011 right after a one time expansion for education and police is total bull crap. The government isn't even the biggest sector in Texas let alone the majority of all sectors put together.  Put down the bong dude.
> 
> 
> 
> Take that condescending attitude and shove it up your big Texas ass!
> 
> You're not providing any evidence to back up your claim.  All you're doing is shooting your fuckin' mouth off.  You're not proving anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah now the truth comes out.  You don't have any savings so you want to fuck your retired neighbor over for a bigger piece of his assets. This because you are to stupid to put some money away for your own investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A big reason he has those assets in the first place is because he is paying less of a tax rate than I am.
> 
> We need to increase the tax rate on capital gains and dividends a full 10%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate taxes are based on profit.  A company would have to have a moron for a CEO to have a profit that is taxed at the end of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GE made a billion dollars in profit last year and paid no tax.  How the fuck does that happen?  I thought you were good at math?
Click to expand...


>> You're not providing any evidence to back up your claim.  All you're doing is shooting your fuckin' mouth off.  You're not proving anything.  

You got swindled by a stupid hit piece of an article that was written to embarrass a political candidate.  You don't know anything about Texas, just admit you are wrong and move on. Or do you want to put up a bet on who's right on this?

GE is an international company.  As such they can arrange for the income to be focused in regions with lower tax rates.  You want GE to pay more taxes in the US? Lower your tax rates.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> The only people who lost out are the ones that sold out at the bottom.  The market is higher now than it has ever been. Additionally, 401k does not necessarily mean stocks. One can invest conservatively and still beat SS by an order of magnitude.


WTF do you mean _"...only people who lost out..."?_

When the derrivitives market crashed, if affected the economy's of the entire planet.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> You got swindled by a stupid hit piece of an article that was written to embarrass a political candidate.  You don't know anything about Texas, just admit you are wrong and move on. Or do you want to put up a bet on who's right on this?


Prove it's a "stupid hit piece".

Your personal opinion is not proof.

If you can't prove I'm wrong, why should I admit it?




RKMBrown said:


> GE is an international company.  As such they can arrange for the income to be focused in regions with lower tax rates.


Tax loopholes allow them to offshore those profits, when they should be paying taxes on them. 



RKMBrown said:


> You want GE to pay more taxes in the US? Lower your tax rates.


Fuck you, tax rates are low enough.  How much lower can you go than zero?


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people who lost out are the ones that sold out at the bottom.  The market is higher now than it has ever been. Additionally, 401k does not necessarily mean stocks. One can invest conservatively and still beat SS by an order of magnitude.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do you mean _"...only people who lost out..."?_
> 
> When the derrivitives market crashed, if affected the economy's of the entire planet.
Click to expand...


so? Markets go up and down and up and down.. that's how they work.  The discussion was about 401ks vs SS. Try to keep up.  You were trying to explain to me how SS is a better investment vehicle than self managed 401ks.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> so? Markets go up and down and up and down.. that's how they work.  The discussion was about 401ks vs SS. Try to keep up.  You were trying to explain to me how SS is a better investment vehicle than self managed 401ks.


401k's were affected by the fraudelant credit default swaps.  SS isn't.  SS is fine just the way it is.  There is no reason to privatise it.  Yeah, hand that shit over to corporations who don't give a shit about American's.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got swindled by a stupid hit piece of an article that was written to embarrass a political candidate.  You don't know anything about Texas, just admit you are wrong and move on. Or do you want to put up a bet on who's right on this?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it's a "stupid hit piece".
> 
> Your personal opinion is not proof.
> 
> If you can't prove I'm wrong, why should I admit it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> GE is an international company.  As such they can arrange for the income to be focused in regions with lower tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tax loopholes allow them to offshore those profits, when they should be paying taxes on them.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want GE to pay more taxes in the US? Lower your tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you, tax rates are low enough.  How much lower can you go than zero?
Click to expand...


>> Your personal opinion is not proof.  If you can't prove I'm wrong, why should I admit it?

I know the facts. My opinion is irrelevant. Care to wager or not?

>> Tax loopholes allow them to offshore those profits, when they should be paying taxes on them. 

AYUP that's what I said.

>> Fuck you, tax rates are low enough.  How much lower can you go than zero?

Corporate tax rate is not zero in America. Where do you come up with this retarded bs?


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> so? Markets go up and down and up and down.. that's how they work.  The discussion was about 401ks vs SS. Try to keep up.  You were trying to explain to me how SS is a better investment vehicle than self managed 401ks.
> 
> 
> 
> 401k's were affected by the fraudelant credit default swaps.  SS isn't.  SS is fine just the way it is.  There is no reason to privatise it.  Yeah, hand that shit over to corporations who don't give a shit about American's.
Click to expand...


>> 401k's were affected by the fraudelant credit default swaps.  SS isn't.  SS is fine just the way it is.  There is no reason to privatise it.  Yeah, hand that shit over to corporations who don't give a shit about American's.

Lies. And 401ks are not corporations. Are you retarded?


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> I know the facts. My opinion is irrelevant. Care to wager or not?


Prove you know the facts.  Until you do, it's just your opinion.



RKMBrown said:


> AYUP that's what I said.


You say a lot of things.  In fact, that's all you do, is say shit.



RKMBrown said:


> Corporate tax rate is not zero in America. Where do you come up with this retarded bs?


When GE pays no tax for last year, that is zero.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Lies. And 401ks are not corporations. Are you retarded?


But Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch are.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the facts. My opinion is irrelevant. Care to wager or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Prove you know the facts.  Until you do, it's just your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> AYUP that's what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say a lot of things.  In fact, that's all you do, is say shit.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate tax rate is not zero in America. Where do you come up with this retarded bs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When GE pays no tax for last year, that is zero.
Click to expand...


>> Prove you know the facts.  Until you do, it's just your opinion.
Yes or no, money where your mouth is?

>> When GE pays no tax for last year, that is zero.
GE paid taxes, they just did not pay US corporate taxes, because yes, retard, 35% of zero is zero.


----------



## RKMBrown

Here you go twit.  Texas Economy at a Glance


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Yes or no, money where your mouth is?


Now you're speaking nonsensical jibberish.



RKMBrown said:


> GE paid taxes, they just did not pay US corporate taxes, because yes, retard, 35% of zero is zero.


Yeah, GE didn't make any profit in the US last year.

If you expect people to believe that, you're the one who needs to put down the bong.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes or no, money where your mouth is?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're speaking nonsensical jibberish.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> GE paid taxes, they just did not pay US corporate taxes, because yes, retard, 35% of zero is zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, GE didn't make any profit in the US last year.
> 
> If you expect people to believe that, you're the one who needs to put down the bong.
Click to expand...


>> Now you're speaking nonsensical jibberish.

Yeah I figured you'd run away from that lie.

>> Yeah, GE didn't make any profit in the US last year.  If you expect people to believe that, you're the one who needs to put down the bong.

Then Obama's gonna charge them with tax evasion, yes or no?


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Here you go twit.  Texas Economy at a Glance


The table doesn't break down jobs that are a result of government funding or subsidies.  Everyone of those industry's could have contracts with the government, but the table doesn't list that.

So no, you haven't proven your point.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Yeah I figured you'd run away from that lie.


What lie? It's a nonsensical statement.  Period.




RKMBrown said:


> Then Obama's gonna charge them with tax evasion, yes or no?


That's the IRS's job, not Obama's.


----------



## Rozman

When Libs say "fair share" that everyone pays it's BS...

To them "fair share" means those rich evil Mother Effers that have more then me because they cheated 
poor people need to pay more so the lazy can have stuff.


----------



## Billo_Really

A few facts and figures about the Texas economy myth...




> _Let's start at the point on which Texas economy mythologizers brag. Texas collects less tax revenue per capita than 43 other states. Texas spends less money per capita than 47 other states. Those are facts.
> 
> Now let's look at some other facts: in 2011, 18.5 percent of Texans lived in poverty. That's 4.6 million Texans. Texas has a higher unemployment rate than 35 other states. Texas has more women living in poverty than 46 other states. _


Texans shouldn't be talking about the IQ of others, when they live in a state with the lowest graduation rate in the country.




> _Texas spends less money on education than 42 other states, despite having the most students enrolled in public schools. With that combination, it's no wonder at all that *Texas has the lowest graduation rate in the country*. A huge component of our poor economic status is our dismal school system. Imagine how much worse that problem will be when all 18-35 year olds grew up in this education system. And then all 18-50 year olds. That is a very, very ugly picture. We also spend less than 45 other states on health care, and we have the most uninsured per capita in the nation. See the trend? _


That is a whole state of stupid.

Here's a few more Texas tidbits...

Another thing that's pretty fucked about Texas, is the poorest Texans pay 4 times the the tax rate than the richest Texans do.






And most of the Texas economic growth, is minimum-wage jobs.






 And since Texans like to suck the big corporate dick, they have the worst environment in the country.







Texas is just a fucked up state, with a fucked up idiot population, that couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the 'c' and the 'a'.


The only good thing that ever came out of Texas was Stevie Ray Vaughn and Earl Cambell.


----------



## PMZ

Billo_Really said:


> A few facts and figures about the Texas economy myth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Let's start at the point on which Texas economy mythologizers brag. Texas collects less tax revenue per capita than 43 other states. Texas spends less money per capita than 47 other states. Those are facts.
> 
> Now let's look at some other facts: in 2011, 18.5 percent of Texans lived in poverty. That's 4.6 million Texans. Texas has a higher unemployment rate than 35 other states. Texas has more women living in poverty than 46 other states. _
> 
> 
> 
> Texans shouldn't be talking about the IQ of others, when they live in a state with the lowest graduation rate in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Texas spends less money on education than 42 other states, despite having the most students enrolled in public schools. With that combination, it's no wonder at all that *Texas has the lowest graduation rate in the country*. A huge component of our poor economic status is our dismal school system. Imagine how much worse that problem will be when all 18-35 year olds grew up in this education system. And then all 18-50 year olds. That is a very, very ugly picture. We also spend less than 45 other states on health care, and we have the most uninsured per capita in the nation. See the trend? _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a whole state of stupid.
> 
> Here's a few more Texas tidbits...
> 
> Another thing that's pretty fucked about Texas, is the poorest Texans pay 4 times the the tax rate than the richest Texans do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And most of the Texas economic growth, is minimum-wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since Texans like to suck the big corporate dick, they have the worst environment in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is just a fucked up state, with a fucked up idiot population, that couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the 'c' and the 'a'.
> 
> 
> The only good thing that ever came out of Texas was Stevie Ray Vaughn and Earl Cambell.
Click to expand...


I think that we have to consider paying Mexico whatever it takes for them to take back Mexico and Arizona.


----------



## PMZ

Rozman said:


> When Libs say "fair share" that everyone pays it's BS...
> 
> To them "fair share" means those rich evil Mother Effers that have more then me because they cheated
> poor people need to pay more so the lazy can have stuff.



The worst case for the wealthy would be equal pain taxes.  As they are used to having everything handed to them they wouldn't last one hour having to actually work and earn.


----------



## Billo_Really

PMZ said:


> I think that we have to consider paying Mexico whatever it takes for them to take back Mexico and Arizona.


Yeah, then we could start calling them Texicans.


----------



## Contumacious

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate the federal minimum wage law.
> Replace SS with a 401k system.
> Eliminate progressive tax rates replacing them with flat taxes on sales and imports.
> Cut discretionary spending of the federal government to Clinton levels / GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> If the private sector gets their greedy hands on SS, there will be no retirement money for anyone.
Click to expand...


HUH?







*How Privatized Social Security Works in Galveston*

By BECCA AARONSON

Published: September 17, 2011 

* GALVESTON * Gov. Rick Perry has repeatedly called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and said that people ought to control their own retirement money. But if the social safety net program created in 1935 were eliminated  something President Eisenhower once said would be a politically stupid move  what might take its place? "

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go twit.  Texas Economy at a Glance
> 
> 
> 
> The table doesn't break down jobs that are a result of government funding or subsidies.  Everyone of those industry's could have contracts with the government, but the table doesn't list that.
> 
> So no, you haven't proven your point.
Click to expand...

And where does govco get it's funding? ROFL you make idiots look smart.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> A few facts and figures about the Texas economy myth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Let's start at the point on which Texas economy mythologizers brag. Texas collects less tax revenue per capita than 43 other states. Texas spends less money per capita than 47 other states. Those are facts.
> 
> Now let's look at some other facts: in 2011, 18.5 percent of Texans lived in poverty. That's 4.6 million Texans. Texas has a higher unemployment rate than 35 other states. Texas has more women living in poverty than 46 other states. _
> 
> 
> 
> Texans shouldn't be talking about the IQ of others, when they live in a state with the lowest graduation rate in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Texas spends less money on education than 42 other states, despite having the most students enrolled in public schools. With that combination, it's no wonder at all that *Texas has the lowest graduation rate in the country*. A huge component of our poor economic status is our dismal school system. Imagine how much worse that problem will be when all 18-35 year olds grew up in this education system. And then all 18-50 year olds. That is a very, very ugly picture. We also spend less than 45 other states on health care, and we have the most uninsured per capita in the nation. See the trend? _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a whole state of stupid.
> 
> Here's a few more Texas tidbits...
> 
> Another thing that's pretty fucked about Texas, is the poorest Texans pay 4 times the the tax rate than the richest Texans do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And most of the Texas economic growth, is minimum-wage jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since Texans like to suck the big corporate dick, they have the worst environment in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is just a fucked up state, with a fucked up idiot population, that couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the 'c' and the 'a'.
> 
> 
> The only good thing that ever came out of Texas was Stevie Ray Vaughn and Earl Cambell.
Click to expand...


Yawn.


----------



## AnonymousMD

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.


----------



## RKMBrown

AnonymousMD said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.
Click to expand...


Why would people that you call vile despicable evil rich want to help you?

Why are the democrats refusing to break up the monopolies the 1% have on our economy?  Oh yeah the richest of the 1% are the biggest democrat supporters. LOL


----------



## PMZ

As a strawman,  let's try the concept of equal pain.  A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility,  I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> AnonymousMD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would people that you call vile despicable evil rich want to help you?
> 
> Why are the democrats refusing to break up the monopolies the 1% have on our economy?  Oh yeah the richest of the 1% are the biggest democrat supporters. LOL
Click to expand...


It really doesn't matter who they support.  The fact that wealth is distributed as extremely as it is here and now is dysfunctional at so many levels,  not the least of which is economic. 

Our economy was always grown based on the American dream,  which has now been all but killed by the royalist pursuing plutocracy.


----------



## PMZ

AnonymousMD said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really need a specific number? The whole point in saying that "the rich need to pay their fair share" is that the wealth distribution in this country is completely out of proportion. It's just wrong that the 1% control almost all the country's wealth. I'm not saying that the rich should be forced to give away all their money (they've "worked hard" for it, right?) but they can definitely afford to pay a little more than they currently are. It's understandable that the rich don't see why they should be obligated to help, but the reality is that their help could really go a long way.
Click to expand...


Apparently the parents of conservatives never taught them that life is not fair.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> As a strawman,  let's try the concept of equal pain.  A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility,  I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.



I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a strawman,  let's try the concept of equal pain.  A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility,  I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.
Click to expand...


Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them. 

Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution. 

The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a strawman,  let's try the concept of equal pain.  A little abstract but seeing as how conservatives whine incessantly about the pain of responsibility,  I'm sure that they'll help define when the wealthy feel pain equal to poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
Click to expand...


Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol


----------



## Foxfyre

One of the cruelest and most insidious concepts of modern American leftism aka progressivism aka liberalism is the concept that if the rich just had less, the poor would have more.  Class envy is a viscious and hateful anchor to build a sociopolitical philosophy around, and will invariably be destructive.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
Click to expand...


Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism.  It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone.  Thats the part that Marx was insightful about.  

What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution. 

As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters,  they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income.  The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get. 

Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there,  the middle class.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> One of the cruelest and most insidious concepts of modern American leftism aka progressivism aka liberalism is the concept that if the rich just had less, the poor would have more.  Class envy is a viscious and hateful anchor to build a sociopolitical philosophy around, and will invariably be destructive.



Class envy is a concept that the wealthy promote as it makes them feel accomplished. It has nothing to do with middle class motivation,  the fuel of economic growth.


----------



## Redfish

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism.  It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone.  Thats the part that Marx was inciteful about.
> What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution.
> 
> As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters,  they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income.  The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get.
> 
> Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there,  the middle class.
Click to expand...


your extreme ignorance and your envy of successful people is noted,   now move on.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



*Considering that the richest people in America pay no taxes, I think if they would a least start to pay the legally required 15% that would be a good start.*

*Here's How 35,000 Of America's Wealthiest Households Got Off Tax-Free*
Read more: 35,000 Wealthiest Pay No Income Tax - Business Insider


*Next stupid poll question from the right......*


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
Click to expand...


I know many retired wealthy people who work at things that they're interested in for free.  Anybody who thinks wealth is a motivator,  compared to power,  doesn't know people. 

Capitaliam motivates by the promise of power and control.  Progressive taxes let the wealthy feel superior,  which is their motivation,  but avoid the unstable society that unfettered capitalism surely leads to.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on.  That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros. *


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
Click to expand...


Why do you call taxes punitive? You just said that poverty was painless.


----------



## Contumacious

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on.  That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros. *



Hooooooooooooooly shit.

And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.

.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.  Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.   Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
Click to expand...


*Don't you worry your pretty little head, we're nowhere near a totalitarian socialist government.  A plutocracy, yes.  We are already there and the plutocrats have their hookers carefully placed in Congress to do their bidding while they hide behind the scenes.  

But if the donor's list to Heritage Action ever gets into circulation, you will be able to see who is stealing the future of your little darlings.  *


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know many retired wealthy people who work at things that they're interested in for free.  Anybody who thinks wealth is a motivator,  compared to power,  doesn't know people.
> 
> Capitaliam motivates by the promise of power and control.  Progressive taxes let the wealthy feel superior,  which is their motivation,  but avoid the unstable society that unfettered capitalism surely leads to.
Click to expand...


Make up your mind.  Retired wealthy people are mostly good people who donate their time for free, or are evil rich people who created an unstable society of unfettered capitalism who's motivation is to control people. 

ROFL


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Contumacious said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on.  That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooooooooooooooly shit.
> 
> And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*Interesting interpretation.   I seem to have struck a nerve, however deeply embedded in adipose tissue.  So it's OK with you that the wealthy don't pay taxes?  

Leona Helmsley, if she were still alive, would let you lick her shoes.  But as it stands, the Koch brothers will let you shine theirs.

Oh, and BTW, I've never taken a dime in federal, state, municipal or local charity.  But I've given enough over the last 40 years and paid my fair share of taxes, too.  And you?*


----------



## RKMBrown

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't you worry your pretty little head, we're nowhere near a totalitarian socialist government.  A plutocracy, yes.  We are already there and the plutocrats have their hookers carefully placed in Congress to do their bidding while they hide behind the scenes.
> 
> But if the donor's list to Heritage Action ever gets into circulation, you will be able to see who is stealing the future of your little darlings.  *
Click to expand...


Does using bold text make your words bolder?

Do you really think I'm pretty? lol


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> I was in poverty as measured by govco, I never felt even an ounce of pain.


You can thank your incessant narcissism for that.



RKMBrown said:


> Through my efforts now I'm a 1% er.


That's because you got a free ride on the backs of the working poor, who pay 4 times the tax rate you do.



RKMBrown said:


> Whine?  ROFL your just a looser.


You can't even fuckin' spell the word.  Well, the report did say half of you fuckers don't graduate high school and you just proved it right there.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> And where does govco get it's funding? ROFL you make idiots look smart.


Now you're trying to change the subject before people realize you're pretty stupid.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Yawn.


Translation: You got bitchslapped and have no valid argument.

You can't even act like you have a point.

Well, I proved I wasn't lying.


----------



## Contumacious

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on.  That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooooooooooooooly shit.
> 
> And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Interesting interpretation.   I seem to have struck a nerve, however deeply embedded in adipose tissue.  So it's OK with you that the wealthy don't pay taxes?
> 
> Leona Helmsley, if she were still alive, would let you lick her shoes.  But as it stands, the Koch brothers will let you shine theirs.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, I've never taken a dime in federal, state, municipal or local charity.  But I've given enough over the last 40 years and paid my fair share of taxes, too.  And you?*
Click to expand...


Bullshit motherfucker.

A producer, a taxpayer someone who earns a living , someone who gets out of bed at 6 am. fights the fucking traffic for 1 1/2 hours, and who sweats to eke out a living is not going to vote for a motherfucker who is going to distribute his hard earned money to someone else.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: You got bitchslapped and have no valid argument.
> 
> You can't even act like you have a point.
> 
> Well, I proved I wasn't lying.
Click to expand...


ROFL your post was empty, two meaningless pictures. That you imagine they contained earth shattering information just proves how stupid you are.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> ROFL your post was empty, two meaningless pictures. That you imagine they contained earth shattering information just proves how stupid you are.


They contained information that proved you wrong.

Now, are you going to admit that?


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind going back to poverty.  I know many 1 percenters and they seem more desperate than happy to me.  Maybe you're one of them.
> 
> Every objective study ever done has proven the dysfunction of extreme wealth distribution.  The best thing that government could do to increase gross national happiness is to continue to foster the return to the functional middle of the road, including in wealth distribution.
> 
> The winning from people like you would be loud but temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism.  It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone.  Thats the part that Marx was inciteful about.
> What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution.
> 
> As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters,  they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income.  The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get.
> 
> Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there,  the middle class.
Click to expand...


And yet it is the liberals who continually fight to ensure that any special interest tax system stays on the books.  Do you really think that the likes of GE, Solyndra or a thousand other examples are getting those tax breaks for the poor or are you aware that they are helping the wealthy?  

The right actually supports a flat tax  the ONLY way you can actually start taxing the rich at their share.  The idea that the left is somehow against the rich for the benefit of the poor is absolute bull shit fed to you by the shysters in the government who have pulled the wool over your eyes.  Tax the rich sounds good to the masses but when you get right down to it, the taxes on the rich are not going anywhere.  The same tricks, write offs and shelters are here that have been for decades ensuring that those taxes never actually go anywhere.  

Liberals dont give a damn about whats best for the future.  The only thing that the left in power does is ensure that their friends wealth and positions are well protected and secure.  All the slogans the left bellows are not covering the stench of their actions.


----------



## PMZ

Redfish said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism.  It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone.  Thats the part that Marx was inciteful about.
> What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution.
> 
> As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters,  they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income.  The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get.
> 
> Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there,  the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your extreme ignorance and your envy of successful people is noted,   now move on.
Click to expand...


I am successful.  I do try to learn from those who have done a better job at all aspects of life that are important. Getting wealthy is not one of them. I have found no positive correlation between the wealth that anyone has obtained and anything important. And plenty of negative correlation. 

There are so many wealthy people who are garden variety assholes.  Haven't you noticed that?  It's the mainstay of media nowadays.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on.  That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooooooooooooooly shit.
> 
> And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Equating wealth with accomplishment is the ultimate brand marketing by the weathy trying to feel better about empty lives. That's what makes them so easy to manipulate by the fashionistas.  

Drive this car,  wear these clothes,  smoke a big ceegar,  grab a trophy wife,  build a mcmansion,  and people won't notice as much that you're an asshole. 

Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and the Kardasians are classic examples.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL your post was empty, two meaningless pictures. That you imagine they contained earth shattering information just proves how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> They contained information that proved you wrong.
> 
> Now, are you going to admit that?
Click to expand...


I'll admit that you are a dumb ass. But you just go ahead and keep thinking Texas is going no where. We don't need or want your kind here.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know many retired wealthy people who work at things that they're interested in for free.  Anybody who thinks wealth is a motivator,  compared to power,  doesn't know people.
> 
> Capitaliam motivates by the promise of power and control.  Progressive taxes let the wealthy feel superior,  which is their motivation,  but avoid the unstable society that unfettered capitalism surely leads to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind.  Retired wealthy people are mostly good people who donate their time for free, or are evil rich people who created an unstable society of unfettered capitalism who's motivation is to control people.
> 
> ROFL
Click to expand...


Thats black or white conservative mythology. I said no correlation between wealth and success.  Do you even know what the word means? 

Rich people are made up of the same mix as poor people.  Good and bad,  smart and stupid,  saints and criminals,  tall and short,  male and female,  lazy and hardworking,  educated and dumb as a box of hammers.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is an anchor, poverty a state of mind.  My railing against the dems is not to protect a nest egg, but rather to afford others (my children) the opportunity to live life as they see fit rather than as slaves to the totalitarian socialist government that we are heading toward.  The way to distribute wealth, within our constitution, is to break up the monopolies that afford said wealth distribution.  All punitive taxes do, is divide the country.  Punishing people for success?  lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth redistribution up is a fundamental effect from the cause of capitalism.  It's also unstable and ends badly for everyone.  Thats the part that Marx was inciteful about.
> What keeps capitalism from that fate are progressive taxes to maintain middle of the road wealth distribution.
> 
> As Republicans care only about maintaining wealthy supporters,  they only care about the short term and the effect of extreme wealth distribution on their income.  The more extreme the distribution the fatter the cats get.
> 
> Liberals are not afraid to do what's best for the future and the people who will take us there,  the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet it is the liberals who continually fight to ensure that any special interest tax system stays on the books.  Do you really think that the likes of GE, Solyndra or a thousand other examples are getting those tax breaks for the poor or are you aware that they are helping the wealthy?
> 
> The right actually supports a flat tax  the ONLY way you can actually start taxing the rich at their share.  The idea that the left is somehow against the rich for the benefit of the poor is absolute bull shit fed to you by the shysters in the government who have pulled the wool over your eyes.  Tax the rich sounds good to the masses but when you get right down to it, the taxes on the rich are not going anywhere.  The same tricks, write offs and shelters are here that have been for decades ensuring that those taxes never actually go anywhere.
> 
> Liberals dont give a damn about whats best for the future.  The only thing that the left in power does is ensure that their friends wealth and positions are well protected and secure.  All the slogans the left bellows are not covering the stench of their actions.
Click to expand...


The Flat Tax?  That's the extreme in wealth redistribution up.  It would have us completely out of business in a few years.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The top 14 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans have a total pool of $513,000,000,000 that they are paying NO TAXES on.  That's half a trillion to those who can't count zeros. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooooooooooooooly shit.
> 
> And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equating wealth with accomplishment is the ultimate brand marketing by the weathy trying to feel better about empty lives. That's what makes them so easy to manipulate by the fashionistas.
> 
> Drive this car,  wear these clothes,  smoke a big ceegar,  grab a trophy wife,  build a mcmansion,  and people won't notice as much that you're an asshole.
> 
> Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and the Kardasians are classic examples.
Click to expand...


Look pal , I understand that some folks are unmotivated and do not mind living under a bridge. To each his own.

My problem is with the parasites who believe that they can stay home and believe that the Government, ie, the Donald Trump and the taxpayers owe them a living.

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL your post was empty, two meaningless pictures. That you imagine they contained earth shattering information just proves how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 
> They contained information that proved you wrong.
> 
> Now, are you going to admit that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll admit that you are a dumb ass. But you just go ahead and keep thinking Texas is going no where. We don't need or want your kind here.
Click to expand...


Nor your kind here in the civilized world.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hooooooooooooooly shit.
> 
> And your messiah has you convinced that you are "entitled" to some of the cash. Even though you are a low life scumbag who has no marketable skills.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equating wealth with accomplishment is the ultimate brand marketing by the weathy trying to feel better about empty lives. That's what makes them so easy to manipulate by the fashionistas.
> 
> Drive this car,  wear these clothes,  smoke a big ceegar,  grab a trophy wife,  build a mcmansion,  and people won't notice as much that you're an asshole.
> 
> Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and the Kardasians are classic examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look pal , I understand that some folks are unmotivated and do not mind living under a bridge. To each his own.
> 
> My problem is with the parasites who believe that they can stay home and believe that the Government, ie, the Donald Trump and the taxpayers owe them a living.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There are rich criminals and poor criminals.  I rely on law enforcement and the courts to sort them out and teach them responsibility.  

The poor criminals steal a little to survive.  The wealthy criminals steal lots in search of great power. 

They're the ones that make me nervous. 

Look how much John Boehner has cost us.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> I'll admit that you are a dumb ass. But you just go ahead and keep thinking Texas is going no where. We don't need or want your kind here.


So you're not even man enough to admit when you're wrong.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit that you are a dumb ass. But you just go ahead and keep thinking Texas is going no where. We don't need or want your kind here.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not even man enough to admit when you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No I'm right. You are a dumb ass.  Your pics have nothing to do with anything going on in Texas other than you could argue that a lot of our population includes immigrants from Mexico. Duh.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equating wealth with accomplishment is the ultimate brand marketing by the weathy trying to feel better about empty lives. That's what makes them so easy to manipulate by the fashionistas.
> 
> Drive this car,  wear these clothes,  smoke a big ceegar,  grab a trophy wife,  build a mcmansion,  and people won't notice as much that you're an asshole.
> 
> Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and the Kardasians are classic examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look pal , I understand that some folks are unmotivated and do not mind living under a bridge. To each his own.
> 
> My problem is with the parasites who believe that they can stay home and believe that the Government, ie, the Donald Trump and the taxpayers owe them a living.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are rich criminals and poor criminals.  I rely on law enforcement and the courts to sort them out and teach them responsibility.
> 
> The poor criminals steal a little to survive.  The wealthy criminals steal lots in search of great power.
> 
> They're the ones that make me nervous.
> 
> *Look how much John Boehner has cost us.*
Click to expand...



My understanding is that federal employees will be paid when they return to work.

SO you won't lose a penny.

.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> No I'm right. You are a dumb ass.  Your pics have nothing to do with anything going on in Texas other than you could argue that a lot of our population includes immigrants from Mexico. Duh.


I posted the link to the report.  If you're too pussy to go read it, that's not my problem.

You say you're right, I proved you weren't.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm right. You are a dumb ass.  Your pics have nothing to do with anything going on in Texas other than you could argue that a lot of our population includes immigrants from Mexico. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the link to the report.  If you're too pussy to go read it, that's not my problem.
> 
> You say you're right, I proved you weren't.
Click to expand...


As I stated.  Your link was to a campaign political hit piece that was full of shit.  Yeah we hired some new government employees one month and for that month our growth in employment included new government jobs.   However, as I have pointed out, and you ignored, that was a one time occurrence.  Texas growth is primarily private sector, period.  Texas employment is primarily private employment by a VAST margin.  That you still think different even after I pointed you to the current employment rates in TX, simply shows everyone just how cow shit stupid you are.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> As I stated.  Your link was to a campaign political hit piece that was full of shit.


That was the MM link in another post, not the one with all the pretty pics you're too pussy to address.



RKMBrown said:


> Yeah we hired some new government employees one month and for that month our growth in employment included new government jobs.


I'm not talking about government jobs, I'm talking about government subsidized jobs.  Company's that contract with the government.  Private company's getting paid with public dollars.



RKMBrown said:


> However, as I have pointed out, and you ignored, that was a one time occurrence.  Texas growth is primarily private sector, period.  Texas employment is primarily private employment by a VAST margin.  That you still think different even after I pointed you to the current employment rates in TX, simply shows everyone just how cow shit stupid you are.


You still haven't proven that and the only link you provided doesn't show it.  And I'm willing to wager you don't have the mental chops to explain it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated.  Your link was to a campaign political hit piece that was full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> That was the MM link in another post, not the one with all the pretty pics you're too pussy to address.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah we hired some new government employees one month and for that month our growth in employment included new government jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about government jobs, I'm talking about government subsidized jobs.  Company's that contract with the government.  Private company's getting paid with public dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, as I have pointed out, and you ignored, that was a one time occurrence.  Texas growth is primarily private sector, period.  Texas employment is primarily private employment by a VAST margin.  That you still think different even after I pointed you to the current employment rates in TX, simply shows everyone just how cow shit stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't proven that and the only link you provided doesn't show it.  And I'm willing to wager you don't have the mental chops to explain it.
Click to expand...


Your an idiot I couldn't prove to you that the earth is spinning... how the hell do you expect me to prove to you that your posts about texas are full of shit?  

You post two pics that make dozens of false accusations then ask me to disprove them... ROFL

Pick a topic on the OP dufus.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look pal , I understand that some folks are unmotivated and do not mind living under a bridge. To each his own.
> 
> My problem is with the parasites who believe that they can stay home and believe that the Government, ie, the Donald Trump and the taxpayers owe them a living.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are rich criminals and poor criminals.  I rely on law enforcement and the courts to sort them out and teach them responsibility.
> 
> The poor criminals steal a little to survive.  The wealthy criminals steal lots in search of great power.
> 
> They're the ones that make me nervous.
> 
> *Look how much John Boehner has cost us.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that federal employees will be paid when they return to work.
> 
> SO you won't lose a penny.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'm retired.  Never worked for the government.  But,  if I had,  I would have worked just as hard and well as I did for industry.  People are like that.  Whatever they are,  they are.  They don't become someone else depending on pay.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> Your an idiot I couldn't prove to you that the earth is spinning... how the hell do you expect me to prove to you that your posts about texas are full of shit?


By providing evidence to the contrary that refutes the evidence I provided.  Or by addressing specifically which claims you disagree with and why?  Explaining the reasons behind your position as it relates to a specific claim of mine.

Ad hominems and bullshit innuendo's, doesn't get it done. 


RKMBrown said:


> You post two pics that make dozens of false accusations then ask me to disprove them... ROFL
> 
> Pick a topic on the OP dufus.


Actually, there was 4.  And I had to make them pics because they came from a pdf and I don't have the software to highlight text and paste it into my post.  The fact that it is a pic, doesn't make it false.  The fact that you disagree with what it say's, doesn't make it false.  And the fact that you don't address the specific points they are stating, certainly doesn't make it false.

How can you say they're false accusations when you won't address a single point?


Let me tell you something, if you prove I'm wrong, I'll admit it.  I'm one of the few posters on this board who has done that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your an idiot I couldn't prove to you that the earth is spinning... how the hell do you expect me to prove to you that your posts about texas are full of shit?
> 
> 
> 
> By providing evidence to the contrary that refutes the evidence I provided.  Or by addressing specifically which claims you disagree with and why?  Explaining the reasons behind your position as it relates to a specific claim of mine.
> 
> Ad hominems and bullshit innuendo's, doesn't get it done.
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post two pics that make dozens of false accusations then ask me to disprove them... ROFL
> 
> Pick a topic on the OP dufus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there was 4.  And I had to make them pics because they came from a pdf and I don't have the software to highlight text and paste it into my post.  The fact that it is a pic, doesn't make it false.  The fact that you disagree with what it say's, doesn't make it false.  And the fact that you don't address the specific points they are stating, certainly doesn't make it false.
> 
> How can you say they're false accusations when you won't address a single point?
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something, if you prove I'm wrong, I'll admit it.  I'm one of the few posters on this board who has done that.
Click to expand...


I proved you were wrong on the Texas jobs are mostly government jobs bull carp.  You moved the goal posts by claiming every job is interrelated with government money to some degree.  I countered with the money you are talking about is tax payer funded.  Still waiting for you to admit that one.

Pick one of your four topics cause I saw many more.  I have no desire to blow out dozens of your bs assertions while you move the goal posts in circles.


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> I proved you were wrong on the Texas jobs are mostly government jobs bull carp.  You moved the goal posts by claiming every job is interrelated with government money to some degree.  I countered with the money you are talking about is tax payer funded.  Still waiting for you to admit that one.
> 
> Pick one of your four topics cause I saw many more.  I have no desire to blow out dozens of your bs assertions while you move the goal posts in circles.


You posted one link and cannot explain its relevence to your point.

How could you possibly have a majority of private sector employment, when you have the dumbest population and almost 40% un-employment?  You don't put money into schools, which guarantees your population will remain dumb.

And dumb people, do not create jobs.  Nor do they get jobs.  Maybe minimum wage jobs, but that's about it.


----------



## PMZ

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proved you were wrong on the Texas jobs are mostly government jobs bull carp.  You moved the goal posts by claiming every job is interrelated with government money to some degree.  I countered with the money you are talking about is tax payer funded.  Still waiting for you to admit that one.
> 
> Pick one of your four topics cause I saw many more.  I have no desire to blow out dozens of your bs assertions while you move the goal posts in circles.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted one link and cannot explain its relevence to your point.
> 
> How could you possibly have a majority of private sector employment, when you have the dumbest population and almost 40% un-employment?  You don't put money into schools, which guarantees your population will remain dumb.
> 
> And dumb people, do not create jobs.  Nor do they get jobs.  Maybe minimum wage jobs, but that's about it.
Click to expand...


Conservatives have a very difficult time connecting the dots between our economy,  education,  energy,  the environment,  taxes,  jobs,  work,  and health care. Their one concern for all of those things is: are the wealthy getting wealthier today.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proved you were wrong on the Texas jobs are mostly government jobs bull carp.  You moved the goal posts by claiming every job is interrelated with government money to some degree.  I countered with the money you are talking about is tax payer funded.  Still waiting for you to admit that one.
> 
> Pick one of your four topics cause I saw many more.  I have no desire to blow out dozens of your bs assertions while you move the goal posts in circles.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted one link and cannot explain its relevence to your point.
> 
> How could you possibly have a majority of private sector employment, when you have the dumbest population and almost 40% un-employment?  You don't put money into schools, which guarantees your population will remain dumb.
> 
> And dumb people, do not create jobs.  Nor do they get jobs.  Maybe minimum wage jobs, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

You are just plain stupid. And now we all know why.  You think you can buy an education. ROFL  you just can't teach demolooooooosers.  It's like someone stuck a duntz stick up their ass and it got lodged into their brains.  I have to hand hold you through a web page with employment numbers that includes "government" on it and all the non-government numbers as well so you can understand the VAST majority of jobs in Texas are not GOVERNMENT jobs?  Did your teachers just "pass" you through HS or did you flunk out of elementary school?  Life must be hard when you can't even read a table.

Don't put money into schools?  WTF are you talking about?  Oh you must be comparing TX to CA where the democrats have to spend twice as much in CA to get worse results than TX.  You can't force kids to get an education buy putting them up in fancy government palaces.  Democrats are so damn wasteful.

TX students do just fine.  The fresh immigrants that come here who don't speak English and have little to no education.. yeah they start out with very low (nearly zero) scores.

40% unemployment?  WTF is wrong with you? Are you on acid?


----------



## PMZ

I don't think that the word ever got back to Texas that their Governor has been out demonstrating the quality of Texas politics.  

If I were a Texan (I literally shudder at the thought) I would prevent him both from leaving the state and opening his mouth.  He's an embarrassment to humanity.  Maybe to all primates.


----------



## rdean

The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades; Is Business Paying Its Fair Share? | TIME.com

Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

These Republicans.  Their greed and selfishness has over powered their common sense.  Freedom is expensive.  It costs money.  You have bastards like Mitt Romney saying the reason none of his five sons ever went into the military is because they were doing something more important.  Helping him get elected president.  

Where do most of our soldiers come from?  The middle class and the poor.  The very people Republicans want to screw over in the worst way.  

And they cry about government taking their money.  Fuckers should leave.  Go someplace you can live for "free".

Listen up fucktards.  It's NOT your country if you don't want to help pay for it.


----------



## PMZ

rdean said:


> The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades; Is Business Paying Its Fair Share? | TIME.com
> 
> Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> These Republicans.  Their greed and selfishness has over powered their common sense.  Freedom is expensive.  It costs money.  You have bastards like Mitt Romney saying the reason none of his five sons ever went into the military is because they were doing something more important.  Helping him get elected president.
> 
> Where do most of our soldiers come from?  The middle class and the poor.  The very people Republicans want to screw over in the worst way.
> 
> And they cry about government taking their money.  Fuckers should leave.  Go someplace you can live for "free".
> 
> Listen up fucktards.  It's NOT your country if you don't want to help pay for it.



Responsibility is a tough issue for conservatives.  They like it in others,  but hate it for themselves.


----------



## RKMBrown

rdean said:


> The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades; Is Business Paying Its Fair Share? | TIME.com
> 
> Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> These Republicans.  Their greed and selfishness has over powered their common sense.  Freedom is expensive.  It costs money.  You have bastards like Mitt Romney saying the reason none of his five sons ever went into the military is because they were doing something more important.  Helping him get elected president.
> 
> Where do most of our soldiers come from?  The middle class and the poor.  The very people Republicans want to screw over in the worst way.
> 
> And they cry about government taking their money.  Fuckers should leave.  Go someplace you can live for "free".
> 
> Listen up fucktards.  It's NOT your country if you don't want to help pay for it.



Listen to the whiny little boy complain that the zero percent tax is to much burden for the  51%.


----------



## Chris

Capital gains taxes have been lowered to a such a tiny rate, that it transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to the super rich. 

This is the real redistribution of wealth in America.....welfare for the wealthy.


----------



## Londoner

Who funded and lead the research for satellite technology? 

How crucial is satellite technology to profits in industries like telecom?

How much of the technology that came out of the Cold War Space Program and Pentagon budget has spilled into the insanely profitable consumer electronics industry?

What about aerospace technology? How much do you know about Boeing's relationship to the government? When you get the answer, you will understand how much government has invested in commercial aviation. You will see how the costs were socialized but the profits were privatized. 

The Colorado river and its tributaries furnish irrigation and municipal water supply for almost 40 million. It also supplies an additional 20 million with hydroelectric power. It is the reason the Southwest has a population large enough to support a vibrant economy for profit makers. Where did the technology and funding for this river's conversion originate? 

The United States Tax Payer spends trillions on Exxon, whose oil fields in the Middle East are protected through the defense budget.

The private sector craves patent protection from the nanny government, which intervenes in the market on their behalf to build a monopoly fence around their investments.

One of the primary purposes of lobbying, aside from regulatory favors, is to ensure that government subsidizes the costs of business and socializes the risk (bail out).

Business takes some of the immense profits it enjoys because of government's help and gives it to rightwing media for the purpose of convincing stupid people that taxes are unfair. This way they get the benefits of government aid but at a much lower cost, strapping the resulting debt on future generations. 

Why can't republican voters - I'm talking about the ones who have not had much post high school education - name all the things that the private sector & wealthy get from government? Why don't republican voters know about the massive investment government has made in the advanced industrial infrastructure that makes our profit system work in the first place? 

How is it possible that the Republican Party got away with raising a whole generation of people outside the reality-based universe? 

How can someone have an opinion about this topic without being able to itemize the benefits citizens and business get from government.  

Great Republican Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower put our veterans to work building the highways  needed to bring consumers and goods to market. He was following in FDR's footsteps who put our  citizens to work building water plants and energy grids across rural parts of the south and midwest.  Big government played a major role in building this great nation. How is it possible that Republicans don't know any of this? How is it possible that the we've raised so many Americans to be functionally illiterate when it comes to history. The point of the anti-tax movement is so that business and the wealthy can usurp government resources for free. To achieve electoral success they scare under-educated white people into the voting booth using the "Culture War" and strategically overblown national security threats. The Republican Party doesn't care about Conservatism. To the contrary, they merely use conservative issues as a populism to win elections and get naive people to post things on message boards (-see: useful idiots who are clogging the public debate with propaganda).


----------



## Billo_Really

RKMBrown said:


> You are just plain stupid.


And you're a fake, who's in over his head.



RKMBrown said:


> And now we all know why.


What's this "we" shit?  You don't speak for others.


RKMBrown said:


> You think you can buy an education.


Where did I say that?  Figured you'd be into strawman. If you only had a brain?



RKMBrown said:


> ROFL  you just can't teach demolooooooosers.


You talk like a 10 year old.  Making up your own weird words and terms that mean absolutely nothing and are nothing but emotional jibberish.




RKMBrown said:


> It's like someone stuck a duntz stick up their ass and it got lodged into their brains.


More irrelevent, empty rhetoric.




RKMBrown said:


> I have to hand hold you through a web page with employment numbers that includes "government" on it and all the non-government numbers as well so you can understand the VAST majority of jobs in Texas are not GOVERNMENT jobs?  Did your teachers just "pass" you through HS or did you flunk out of elementary school?  Life must be hard when you can't even read a table.


Is that the only thing your mind can understand?  It says "government", that must be a government job.  If it doesn't say government, then its a private sector job.  Is that the limit of your understanding?  You don't think construction, mining and logging or transportation industries receive government subsidies?

_*The federal government anounces it is accepting bids to build a bridge in Texas as part of an infrastructure project.  A private construction firm is awarded the bid.  Its contract is being paid with public funding.  Is that a private sector job, or a public sector job?​*_
The fact that you cannot explain that table in more detail and how it relates to your point, is prima facia evidence you don't even know what you posted.  And if you don't know what you posted, then you don't know what you're talking about.  You're a fake.  You're a phoney.  You're acting like you know something, but since you can't explain what you know in anything but emotional buzzwords and personal attacks, it's nothing but an act.


RKMBrown said:


> Don't put money into schools?  WTF are you talking about?  Oh you must be comparing TX to CA where the democrats have to spend twice as much in CA to get worse results than TX.  You can't force kids to get an education buy putting them up in fancy government palaces.  Democrats are so damn wasteful.


Now you fly off in an emotional tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion.  But since you don't know what you're talking about, it makes sense to waste time with that.


RKMBrown said:


> TX students do just fine.  The fresh immigrants that come here who don't speak English and have little to no education.. yeah they start out with very low (nearly zero) scores.


You have the lowest graduation rate in the country.


RKMBrown said:


> 40% unemployment?  WTF is wrong with you? Are you on acid?


That one was my bad.  I mispoke on that one.  You're 35th in the nation.  The actual rate is 8.5%.


----------



## RKMBrown

Billo_Really said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just plain stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a fake, who's in over his head.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now we all know why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this "we" shit?  You don't speak for others.
> Where did I say that?  Figured you'd be into strawman. If you only had a brain?
> 
> You talk like a 10 year old.  Making up your own weird words and terms that mean absolutely nothing and are nothing but emotional jibberish.
> 
> 
> More irrelevent, empty rhetoric.
> 
> 
> Is that the only thing your mind can understand?  It says "government", that must be a government job.  If it doesn't say government, then its a private sector job.  Is that the limit of your understanding?  You don't think construction, mining and logging or transportation industries receive government subsidies?
> 
> _*The federal government anounces it is accepting bids to build a bridge in Texas as part of an infrastructure project.  A private construction firm is awarded the bid.  Its contract is being paid with public funding.  Is that a private sector job, or a public sector job?​*_
> The fact that you cannot explain that table in more detail and how it relates to your point, is prima facia evidence you don't even know what you posted.  And if you don't know what you posted, then you don't know what you're talking about.  You're a fake.  You're a phoney.  You're acting like you know something, but since you can't explain what you know in anything but emotional buzzwords and personal attacks, it's nothing but an act.
> Now you fly off in an emotional tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion.  But since you don't know what you're talking about, it makes sense to waste time with that.
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> TX students do just fine.  The fresh immigrants that come here who don't speak English and have little to no education.. yeah they start out with very low (nearly zero) scores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have the lowest graduation rate in the country.
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 40% unemployment?  WTF is wrong with you? Are you on acid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one was my bad.  I mispoke on that one.  You're 35th in the nation.  The actual rate is 8.5%.
Click to expand...

It's a VERY basic table of employment numbers you fool. There is nothing to explain about it other than you were completely wrong by a FRIGGIN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.

Government subsidies are TAX PAYER FUNDS AND TAX BREAKS TO TAXPAYERS YOU IGNORANT PEON.


----------



## PMZ

Mr Brown claims to be wealthy.  He demonstrates an inability to reason,  a lack of knowledge,  and a firm belief in many things provably wrong.  

Proof positive of my position that there is no correlation between wealth and achievement.


----------



## Gadawg73

Chris said:


> Capital gains taxes have been lowered to a such a tiny rate, that it transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to the super rich.
> 
> This is the real redistribution of wealth in America.....welfare for the wealthy.



No dumbass, not one cent has been "transferred from the middle class to the rich"

You are a damn fool.
The tax rate allowed investors to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY.
No one took any money from anyone when producers are allowed to keep THE MONEY THEY EARNED.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Mr Brown claims to be wealthy.  He demonstrates an inability to reason,  a lack of knowledge,  and a firm belief in many things provably wrong.
> 
> Proof positive of my position that there is no correlation between wealth and achievement.



It is those that work hard and save their money become wealthy.
You can call it what you want and achievement is a good name but that is what the definition of wealthy is. Not everyone but everyone I know, including me, that is wealthy worked 60 hours a week for 40+ years, drove old cars, saved their money and did not cry like a milk weak sissy when someone else had more than us.
It is not what you make that makes you wealthy it is how much of a work ethic you have and how much you keep.
Something about not seeking a hand out which would be setting a bad example for the youth.


----------



## Foxfyre

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown claims to be wealthy.  He demonstrates an inability to reason,  a lack of knowledge,  and a firm belief in many things provably wrong.
> 
> Proof positive of my position that there is no correlation between wealth and achievement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is those that work hard and save their money become wealthy.
> You can call it what you want and achievement is a good name but that is what the definition of wealthy is. Not everyone but everyone I know, including me, that is wealthy worked 60 hours a week for 40+ years, drove old cars, saved their money and did not cry like a milk weak sissy when someone else had more than us.
> It is not what you make that makes you wealthy it is how much of a work ethic you have and how much you keep.
> Something about not seeking a hand out which would be setting a bad example for the youth.
Click to expand...


So I educated myself, did the 60-hours (sometimes more) per week, lived mostly within my means, etc. etc. etc. and now I am retired.  I am by no means wealthy by USA standards, but I have all that I need and enough for a few wants so that I do not feel deprived.  And that makes me more wealthy than most people in the world.

But in all honesty, there are some--politicians, sports figures, musicians, inventors, artists, writers, entreprenours who hit on a new marketable concept, exploiters of resources, etc. who are unimaginably wealthy without the intense education and without doing the 60-hours-per-week routine.

And while I sometimes think how neat that would be, I also think good for them.  I didn't have the kind of skills or didn't hit on a formula to become very wealthy, but the fact that they did took absolutely nothing away from me.

The fact that those who earned from hard work, or who were just lucky enough to amass fortunes othewise, costs me nothing.  And the fact that some are wealthy enough to provide opportunity for others to earn a living has served me very well.

You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich.  Every time you try, you will hurt the poor ever so much more than you will hurt the rich.


----------



## rdean

PMZ said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades; Is Business Paying Its Fair Share? | TIME.com
> 
> Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> These Republicans.  Their greed and selfishness has over powered their common sense.  Freedom is expensive.  It costs money.  You have bastards like Mitt Romney saying the reason none of his five sons ever went into the military is because they were doing something more important.  Helping him get elected president.
> 
> Where do most of our soldiers come from?  The middle class and the poor.  The very people Republicans want to screw over in the worst way.
> 
> And they cry about government taking their money.  Fuckers should leave.  Go someplace you can live for "free".
> 
> Listen up fucktards.  It's NOT your country if you don't want to help pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Responsibility is a tough issue for conservatives.  They like it in others,  but hate it for themselves.
Click to expand...


True.  You can't get the right wing to take responsibility for anything except taking out Bin Laden.  The one thing they had nothing to do with.


----------



## Contumacious

Billo_Really said:


> Is that the only thing your mind can understand? It says "government", that must be a government job. If it doesn't say government, then its a private sector job. Is that the limit of your understanding? You don't think construction, mining and logging or transportation industries receive government subsidies?



As you , should, know, our economy is fascistic, ie, heavily regulated and the government has taken upon itself to intervene in economic matters.

So the question should be , what economic activity would exist even if the government was non-interventionist?

If the congress was to nationalize oxygen, we would still need to breath.So you can not accuse me of using subsidized Oxygen  merely because the bastards have intervened.

.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains taxes have been lowered to a such a tiny rate, that it transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to the super rich.
> 
> This is the real redistribution of wealth in America.....welfare for the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass, not one cent has been "transferred from the middle class to the rich"
> 
> You are a damn fool.
> The tax rate allowed investors to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY.
> No one took any money from anyone when producers are allowed to keep THE MONEY THEY EARNED.
Click to expand...


Person A works and is paid $100K per year salary. 

Person B is wealthy and lives off his investments from which he receives $100K income each year. 

Are you saying that you believe that they pay equal Federal taxes?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown claims to be wealthy.  He demonstrates an inability to reason,  a lack of knowledge,  and a firm belief in many things provably wrong.
> 
> Proof positive of my position that there is no correlation between wealth and achievement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is those that work hard and save their money become wealthy.
> You can call it what you want and achievement is a good name but that is what the definition of wealthy is. Not everyone but everyone I know, including me, that is wealthy worked 60 hours a week for 40+ years, drove old cars, saved their money and did not cry like a milk weak sissy when someone else had more than us.
> It is not what you make that makes you wealthy it is how much of a work ethic you have and how much you keep.
> Something about not seeking a hand out which would be setting a bad example for the youth.
Click to expand...


You are describing some wealthy people,  some middle class people and some poor people. 

The difference between the outcomes from those similar work ethics is typically the luck of being in the right place at the right time to seize an opportunity,  plus the luck of being born to the right parents.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains taxes have been lowered to a such a tiny rate, that it transferred trillions of dollars from the middle class to the super rich.
> 
> This is the real redistribution of wealth in America.....welfare for the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass, not one cent has been "transferred from the middle class to the rich"
> 
> You are a damn fool.
> The tax rate allowed investors to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY.
> No one took any money from anyone when producers are allowed to keep THE MONEY THEY EARNED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Person A works and is paid $100K per year salary.
> 
> Person B is wealthy and lives off his investments from which he receives $100K income each year.
> 
> Are you saying that you believe that they pay equal Federal taxes?
Click to expand...


Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.

The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.

A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.

With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.

The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.

The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown claims to be wealthy.  He demonstrates an inability to reason,  a lack of knowledge,  and a firm belief in many things provably wrong.
> 
> Proof positive of my position that there is no correlation between wealth and achievement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is those that work hard and save their money become wealthy.
> You can call it what you want and achievement is a good name but that is what the definition of wealthy is. Not everyone but everyone I know, including me, that is wealthy worked 60 hours a week for 40+ years, drove old cars, saved their money and did not cry like a milk weak sissy when someone else had more than us.
> It is not what you make that makes you wealthy it is how much of a work ethic you have and how much you keep.
> Something about not seeking a hand out which would be setting a bad example for the youth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I educated myself, did the 60-hours (sometimes more) per week, lived mostly within my means, etc. etc. etc. and now I am retired.  I am by no means wealthy by USA standards, but I have all that I need and enough for a few wants so that I do not feel deprived.  And that makes me more wealthy than most people in the world.
> 
> But in all honesty, there are some--politicians, sports figures, musicians, inventors, artists, writers, entreprenours who hit on a new marketable concept, exploiters of resources, etc. who are unimaginably wealthy without the intense education and without doing the 60-hours-per-week routine.
> 
> And while I sometimes think how neat that would be, I also think good for them.  I didn't have the kind of skills or didn't hit on a formula to become very wealthy, but the fact that they did took absolutely nothing away from me.
> 
> The fact that those who earned from hard work, or who were just lucky enough to amass fortunes othewise, costs me nothing.  And the fact that some are wealthy enough to provide opportunity for others to earn a living has served me very well.
> 
> You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich.  Every time you try, you will hurt the poor ever so much more than you will hurt the rich.
Click to expand...


''You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich.''

You can make everyone better off by maintaining a functional wealth distribution.  Extreme wealth distribution,  as we now have in the US,  is socially unstable,  and will end at some point in time bad for everyone. 

And restoring a functional wealth distribution doesn't really hurt anyone.  The wealthy will still have enough to feel and demonstrate what they consider superiority,  the poor will suffer less and have more opportunity,  and the middle class workers will do what they always do.  Create the wealth that supports everyone else.

Smart people like Gates and Buffet do it the efficient way.  Directly.  Some have to be required to do it through taxes. In other words, made to be smart and responsible by government.  They whine a lot but in the end everyone is better off.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown claims to be wealthy.  He demonstrates an inability to reason,  a lack of knowledge,  and a firm belief in many things provably wrong.
> 
> Proof positive of my position that there is no correlation between wealth and achievement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is those that work hard and save their money become wealthy.
> You can call it what you want and achievement is a good name but that is what the definition of wealthy is. Not everyone but everyone I know, including me, that is wealthy worked 60 hours a week for 40+ years, drove old cars, saved their money and did not cry like a milk weak sissy when someone else had more than us.
> It is not what you make that makes you wealthy it is how much of a work ethic you have and how much you keep.
> Something about not seeking a hand out which would be setting a bad example for the youth.
Click to expand...


If only what you want to be,  was the rule rather than the exception.  There are many very wealthy who got that way through legal or illegal stealing,  inheritence,  pure luck,  by entertaining many people a little bit.  A few dollars worth.  

The idea that wealthy people on the average,  work harder than poor or middle class people do,  on the average is unsupportable by fact. 

Simply an urban myth.

I've done very well primarily due to being born to folks who passed on intelligence and were passable parents and instilled an inate curiosity and love of learning. And I always did what I enjoyed and was good at. 

Thats called my good fortune.


----------



## Foxfyre

The poor will NOT have more opportunity if you take wealth away from the wealthy.  The poor will have much LESS opportunity to even earn a living, much less become wealthy themselves, the more you take from the rich in some kind of social nonsense of wealth equalization.

Between the Civil War and 1913, the U.S. economy experienced absolutely explosive growth.  The free market system thrived and the rest of the world looked at us with envy.  The federal government was very limited in size, there was no income tax for most of that time and there was no central bank.  The disparity between rich and poor was every bit as large as it is now, but there was no expectation that the rich should become poorer and that would somehow allow the poor to become richer.  Folks back then didn't worry about how rich somebody else was.  They were just grateful that there were no artificial barriers to them having the opportunity to also become rich.


----------



## oldfart

How about 23% of real GDP?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass, not one cent has been "transferred from the middle class to the rich"
> 
> You are a damn fool.
> The tax rate allowed investors to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY.
> No one took any money from anyone when producers are allowed to keep THE MONEY THEY EARNED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Person A works and is paid $100K per year salary.
> 
> Person B is wealthy and lives off his investments from which he receives $100K income each year.
> 
> Are you saying that you believe that they pay equal Federal taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.
> 
> The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.
> 
> A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.
> 
> With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.
Click to expand...


Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment. 

There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.


----------



## Billo_Really

Foxfyre said:


> You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich.  Every time you try, you will hurt the poor ever so much more than you will hurt the rich.


What about the people getting rich, by tearing down the poor?  The people who have to cook-the-books, to get their dole?  Stack the deck at the expense of others?  People that are rich enough to influence legislatures to favor them and fuck me?

The problem is, most of the rich in this country are not self-made millionaires.  They are born into privilage.  They live their whole life not having to work hard or do the things that their parents and grandparents did to get to that level. The things you had to do to get the things you needed to get done.  Then daddy dies and they get thrusted into a CEO position and the company takes a dive because they just don't know what it takes (or what it took) to get there.

Experience is not something you can bestowe!  There are no shortcuts.  You have to do the work.

Do you know how many 2nd generation companies fail in the US?  A lot!  I've been doing what I've been doing (electrical engineering) for 40 years (since I was 17) and I can tell if someone knows their shit and someone who doesn't, just by how they talk in the office.  And I'm sick of all these little rich kids, coming in with privilage, thinking their shit don't stink, thinking they're entitled to experience, that they should be treated as though they know something and I whind up spending overtime hours fixing all the crap they fuck up!

But when you go higher up the ladder, these preamadonna's can do some real damage to you and the country when they get involved in these phoney economy's like the derrivitives market.  All this speculative crap doesn't create real goods or services.  It is a phoney economy that will destroy the lives of people all over the planet.  And who's fault is that?  These little fuckin' kids who never had to work hard for a dollar.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Person A works and is paid $100K per year salary.
> 
> Person B is wealthy and lives off his investments from which he receives $100K income each year.
> 
> Are you saying that you believe that they pay equal Federal taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.
> 
> The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.
> 
> A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.
> 
> With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## Redfish

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Person A works and is paid $100K per year salary.
> 
> Person B is wealthy and lives off his investments from which he receives $100K income each year.
> 
> Are you saying that you believe that they pay equal Federal taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.
> 
> The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.
> 
> A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.
> 
> With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
Click to expand...


your assumptions are flawed.  you assume that the rich who live off of investments are not paying anything,   investment income should be taxed just like hourly earned income, at the same flat rate.  

If a guy like Warren Buffet makes 100M on his investments he pays the same rate as the guy on minimum wage.   10%.    In case you don't know it 10% of 100M is 10M.


----------



## Redfish

Billo_Really said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich.  Every time you try, you will hurt the poor ever so much more than you will hurt the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the people getting rich, by tearing down the poor?  The people who have to cook-the-books, to get their dole?  Stack the deck at the expense of others?  People that are rich enough to influence legislatures to favor them and fuck me?
> 
> The problem is, most of the rich in this country are not self-made millionaires.  They are born into privilage.  They live their whole life not having to work hard or do the things that their parents and grandparents did to get to that level. The things you had to do to get the things you needed to get done.  Then daddy dies and they get thrusted into a CEO position and the company takes a dive because they just don't know what it takes (or what it took) to get there.
> 
> Experience is not something you can bestowe!  There are no shortcuts.  You have to do the work.
> 
> Do you know how many 2nd generation companies fail in the US?  A lot!  I've been doing what I've been doing (electrical engineering) for 40 years (since I was 17) and I can tell if someone knows their shit and someone who doesn't, just by how they talk in the office.  And I'm sick of all these little rich kids, coming in with privilage, thinking their shit don't stink, thinking they're entitled to experience, that they should be treated as though they know something and I whind up spending overtime hours fixing all the crap they fuck up!
> 
> But when you go higher up the ladder, these preamadonna's can do some real damage to you and the country when they get involved in these phoney economy's like the derrivitives market.  All this speculative crap doesn't create real goods or services.  It is a phoney economy that will destroy the lives of people all over the planet.  And who's fault is that?  These little fuckin' kids who never had to work hard for a dollar.
Click to expand...




You envy and hatred of people like the Kennedys is noted.   other than that, your post is worthless.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> The poor will NOT have more opportunity if you take wealth away from the wealthy.  The poor will have much LESS opportunity to even earn a living, much less become wealthy themselves, the more you take from the rich in some kind of social nonsense of wealth equalization.
> 
> Between the Civil War and 1913, the U.S. economy experienced absolutely explosive growth.  The free market system thrived and the rest of the world looked at us with envy.  The federal government was very limited in size, there was no income tax for most of that time and there was no central bank.  The disparity between rich and poor was every bit as large as it is now, but there was no expectation that the rich should become poorer and that would somehow allow the poor to become richer.  Folks back then didn't worry about how rich somebody else was.  They were just grateful that there were no artificial barriers to them having the opportunity to also become rich.



I suspect that you already know that you are grossly misinformed but prefer your mythology over truth because it's self serving. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States


----------



## Spiderman

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.
> 
> The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.
> 
> A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.
> 
> With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Good question.

The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.

The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.


----------



## RKMBrown

Spiderman said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.
> 
> The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.
Click to expand...


I prefer to believe it would encourage them to work an extra % a week to cover the taxes, give them a true feeling of ownership regarding the spending of the country and a real reason to agree government should be fiscally responsible with OUR money.


----------



## tooAlive

I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.

Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.

It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.

You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.


----------



## Contumacious

tooAlive said:


> I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.
> 
> Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.
> 
> It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.
> 
> You want to end *class warfare* and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.



Supreme Court Justice Field used those very words when he declared the FIRST INCOME TAX Unconstitutional.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

tooAlive said:


> I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.
> 
> Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.
> 
> It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.
> 
> You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.



You realize of course that you are asking a group that thrives on class warfare, so much that they would not exist if it was not for class warfare, if they want to end class warfare?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.
> 
> The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.
> 
> A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.
> 
> With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.  

Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.


----------



## PMZ

Redfish said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Person B is very likely to have paid taxes on the wages that he then invested in order to have investment income.  You have to factor that in there too.  Person A, if he manages and invests his money, will have the same privilege of enjoying lower capital gains taxes.  But the principle of those capital gains has had the highest legal taxes already applied to them.
> 
> The one exception is the tax deferred IRA's and 401K's that are not taxed until you withdraw them and/or the earnings on them.  And we are ALL, without exception, allowed to have those, but we are limited to a modest amount that we can put in them each year.
> 
> A flat tax on ALL forms of income is the only way to go to be fair though.
> 
> With a 10% flat tax, the guy who earns $100,000 pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who wins $100,000 at the casino pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> The guy who nets $100,000 in capital gains pays $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your assumptions are flawed.  you assume that the rich who live off of investments are not paying anything,   investment income should be taxed just like hourly earned income, at the same flat rate.
> 
> If a guy like Warren Buffet makes 100M on his investments he pays the same rate as the guy on minimum wage.   10%.    In case you don't know it 10% of 100M is 10M.
Click to expand...


''investment income should be taxed just like hourly earned incom''

This I totally agree with.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.
> 
> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.
Click to expand...


>> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.  

How?  You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money.  Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.

>> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.

You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing.  What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?


----------



## PMZ

One thing that I'll never understand or accept is all of the conservative whining about having to work. Apparently they were raised to believe that wealth is an entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for. And responsibilities are optional. 

I was taught that work was an entitlement,  table stakes for life,  and responsibility for others a tribute to your good fortune. 

When I was young those values led me to be a Republican.  These new values that the GOP has migrated to though are pure bullshit.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both person A and B pay one federal tax on each dollar of their earnings. The one who works subsidizes the one who doesn't have to. Substantially.  We punish work if you believe that the cost of being a citizen of a successful country is punishment.
> 
> There is no tax tactic more regressive than the flat tax.  It would take about one generation to turn us into a dysfunctional banana republic aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.
> 
> The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.
Click to expand...


Which other countries? Give us a list.


----------



## Billo_Really

Redfish said:


> You envy and hatred of people like the Kennedys is noted.   other than that, your post is worthless.


I love the Kennedy's!


The right has no equivalent to this....


----------



## PMZ

Redfish said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot help the poor by tearing down or hurting the rich.  Every time you try, you will hurt the poor ever so much more than you will hurt the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> What about the people getting rich, by tearing down the poor?  The people who have to cook-the-books, to get their dole?  Stack the deck at the expense of others?  People that are rich enough to influence legislatures to favor them and fuck me?
> 
> The problem is, most of the rich in this country are not self-made millionaires.  They are born into privilage.  They live their whole life not having to work hard or do the things that their parents and grandparents did to get to that level. The things you had to do to get the things you needed to get done.  Then daddy dies and they get thrusted into a CEO position and the company takes a dive because they just don't know what it takes (or what it took) to get there.
> 
> Experience is not something you can bestowe!  There are no shortcuts.  You have to do the work.
> 
> Do you know how many 2nd generation companies fail in the US?  A lot!  I've been doing what I've been doing (electrical engineering) for 40 years (since I was 17) and I can tell if someone knows their shit and someone who doesn't, just by how they talk in the office.  And I'm sick of all these little rich kids, coming in with privilage, thinking their shit don't stink, thinking they're entitled to experience, that they should be treated as though they know something and I whind up spending overtime hours fixing all the crap they fuck up!
> 
> But when you go higher up the ladder, these preamadonna's can do some real damage to you and the country when they get involved in these phoney economy's like the derrivitives market.  All this speculative crap doesn't create real goods or services.  It is a phoney economy that will destroy the lives of people all over the planet.  And who's fault is that?  These little fuckin' kids who never had to work hard for a dollar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You envy and hatred of people like the Kennedys is noted.   other than that, your post is worthless.
Click to expand...


The Kennedy's,  despite living off a stolen fortune,  at least gave back a great deal of community service.  

Not in the ranks of Buffet and Gates and Oprah and Angelina Jolie.


More like Soros and the people whose foundations are listed on PBS credits. 

Much above the Kochs,  Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump,  Grover Norquist,  Rush Limbaugh,  Rupert Murdock and that ilk.


----------



## PMZ

tooAlive said:


> I'm happily surprised this thread has gotten so much attention. Not so much so the fact that 20% of our members are communists.
> 
> Back to the convo, if you disagree with a flat tax rate for everyone you should probably stop using the term "fair share." There's nothing fair about penalizing someone more because they're more successful. That's like serving fat people less food at restaurants for the same price.
> 
> It's strange that liberals and socialists want to end "class warfare" and fight for equality while they push an agenda that separates people into tax brackets based on their income.
> 
> You want to end class warfare and social classes? Get rid of tax brackets.



Who taught you that life was fair?  They lied.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> One thing that I'll never understand or accept is all of the conservative whining about having to work. Apparently they were raised to believe that wealth is an entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for. And responsibilities are optional.
> 
> I was taught that work was an entitlement,  table stakes for life,  and responsibility for others a tribute to your good fortune.
> 
> When I was young those values led me to be a Republican.  These new values that the GOP has migrated to though are pure bullshit.




>> One thing that I'll never understand or accept is all of the conservative whining about having to work.

False strawman.

>> Apparently they were raised to believe that wealth is an entitlement that you shouldn't have to work for. 

False strawman.

>> And responsibilities are optional. 

False strawman.

>> I was taught that work was an entitlement,  table stakes for life,  and responsibility for others a tribute to your good fortune. 

That's your problem.  You should have been taught that you were responsible for your own work, borrow when necessary to take educated risks, and take care of your family first so you can have a strong family that can participate in hand-ups, and never hand good money over to swine. 

>> When I was young those values led me to be a Republican.  

Then you were misled. 

>> These new values that the GOP has migrated to though are pure bullshit.

Some are, some are not.


----------



## Contumacious

Billo_Really said:


> What about the people getting rich, by tearing down the poor?  r.



Like Slick Willy?

$7,000,000 per speech.

And I suspect that HBO will be commanding the same amount.

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.
> 
> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.
> 
> How?  You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money.  Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.
> 
> >> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.
> 
> You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing.  What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what your first point is about. 

My position is the same one that I've made several times.  

Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable.  Aristocracy is always temporary.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.
> 
> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.
> 
> How?  You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money.  Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.
> 
> >> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.
> 
> You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing.  What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your first point is about.
> 
> My position is the same one that I've made several times.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable.  Aristocracy is always temporary.
Click to expand...


Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No?  If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources?  Why not?  If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question.  Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?


----------



## g5000

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
Click to expand...


I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.


----------



## tooAlive

RKMBrown said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
Click to expand...


Well said.

Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax. 

AKA, the FairTax.


----------



## g5000

tooAlive said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
Click to expand...


You two are very naive.

You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?


----------



## g5000

In the current income tax regime, if you buy a house, you pay less taxes than someone who earns the same income you do who did not buy a house.

In a Fair Tax regime, if you buy a house, you will get a bigger monthly rebate than someone who earns the same income you do who did not buy as house.

Same difference.

In a Fair Tax regime, if you buy the right kind of refrigerator, you will get a bigger monthly rebate check the month after you buy it.

All of these extra rebates will quickly add up to over a trillion dollars a year, just like they do now.

To pay for all that shit, the government will have to raise the Fair Tax, at which point the American people (the same people accepting all these gifts) will howl like welfare queens.  Just like they do now.  So the government will not raise taxes and will borrow the money from China instead to pay for all those extra rebates, which will continue to run up the debt as a result.

Just like they do now.


----------



## RKMBrown

tooAlive said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
Click to expand...


Flat sales + additional import duties to adjust for product dumping, such as using slave rate child labor.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You two are very naive.
> 
> You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?
Click to expand...


Taxing, spending, campaign finance, and quid-pro quo are four completely different issues.  Pretending none can be solved without solving all of them at the same time is just silly.  But if you want to do that go ahead and start shooting cause you'll need a revolution to fix everything at the same time.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> In the current income tax regime, if you buy a house, you pay less taxes than someone who earns the same income you do who did not buy a house.
> 
> In a Fair Tax regime, if you buy a house, you will get a bigger monthly rebate than someone who earns the same income you do who did not buy as house.
> 
> Same difference.
> 
> In a Fair Tax regime, if you buy the right kind of refrigerator, you will get a bigger monthly rebate check the month after you buy it.
> 
> All of these extra rebates will quickly add up to over a trillion dollars a year, just like they do now.
> 
> To pay for all that shit, the government will have to raise the Fair Tax, at which point the American people (the same people accepting all these gifts) will howl like welfare queens.  Just like they do now.  So the government will not raise taxes and will borrow the money from China instead to pay for all those extra rebates, which will continue to run up the debt as a result.
> 
> Just like they do now.



You are defining a fair tax as a screwed up tax, then saying see the fair tax is screwed up.  Duh.  Just make it a sales tax just as is done by most states today and be done with it.  Chill dude.


----------



## g5000

RKMBrown said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the current income tax regime, if you buy a house, you pay less taxes than someone who earns the same income you do who did not buy a house.
> 
> In a Fair Tax regime, if you buy a house, you will get a bigger monthly rebate than someone who earns the same income you do who did not buy as house.
> 
> Same difference.
> 
> In a Fair Tax regime, if you buy the right kind of refrigerator, you will get a bigger monthly rebate check the month after you buy it.
> 
> All of these extra rebates will quickly add up to over a trillion dollars a year, just like they do now.
> 
> To pay for all that shit, the government will have to raise the Fair Tax, at which point the American people (the same people accepting all these gifts) will howl like welfare queens.  Just like they do now.  So the government will not raise taxes and will borrow the money from China instead to pay for all those extra rebates, which will continue to run up the debt as a result.
> 
> Just like they do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are defining a fair tax as a screwed up tax, then saying see the fair tax is screwed up.  Duh.  Just make it a sales tax just as is done by most states today and be done with it.  Chill dude.
Click to expand...


The Fair Tax is not a sales tax. If it was, they would call it a National Sales Tax. Duh.

What I said stands.  It is exactly what would happen to the rebate process.


----------



## g5000

RKMBrown said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You two are very naive.
> 
> You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxing, spending, campaign finance, and quid-pro quo are four completely different issues.  Pretending none can be solved without solving all of them at the same time is just silly.  But if you want to do that go ahead and start shooting cause you'll need a revolution to fix everything at the same time.
Click to expand...

They can all be solved at the same time.  It is very simple: Ban all tax expenditures.  If you remove the incentive to give a Congressman campaign cash, that tit will dry right up.  If a Congressman can't add a deduction/credit/subsidy/loophole/boondoggle to the tax code, there is no point paying him to do so.

Presto, you just solved campaign finance without having to write yet another failed campaign finance reform legislation.

No exceptions.  Ban ALL tax expenditures.

Now watch the pseudo-welfare queens come crawling out of the woodwork to defend their sacred cows.

It's a seriously fucked up system that has people earning_ identical incomes_ paying different amounts of taxes, but that is exactly what we have.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two are very naive.
> 
> You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing, spending, campaign finance, and quid-pro quo are four completely different issues.  Pretending none can be solved without solving all of them at the same time is just silly.  But if you want to do that go ahead and start shooting cause you'll need a revolution to fix everything at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can all be solved at the same time.  It is very simple: Ban all tax expenditures.  If you remove the incentive to give a Congressman campaign cash, that tit will dry right up.  If a Congressman can't add a deduction/credit/subsidy/loophole/boondoggle to the tax code, there is no point paying him to do so.
> 
> No exceptions.  Ban ALL tax expenditures.
> 
> Now watch the pseudo-welfare queens come crawling out of the woodwork to defend their sacred cows.
Click to expand...


What is a tax expenditure?  Do you mean ban people from writing checks to the government for taxes owed?


----------



## g5000

Just as an aside, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive.

Just like the mortgage interest deduction is.

The "FairTax" tries to fix this by providing monthly rebates.  But that leaves it wide open to the identical corruption we have today with the income tax (Congressmen being paid campaign cash to add exemptions to the code).  With the Fair Tax, it would mean extra rebates for buying the right products or behaving the way the government wants you to behave.

Good little sheep.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> Just as an aside, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive.
> 
> Just like the mortgage interest deduction is.



Regressive to who? Regressive to home owners?  WTF dude put down the pipe.


----------



## Contumacious

tooAlive said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
Click to expand...


*The Fair Tax Fraud*

.


----------



## g5000

RKMBrown said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive.
> 
> Just like the mortgage interest deduction is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive to who? Regressive to home owners?  WTF dude put down the pipe.
Click to expand...


Government milk has made you soft in the head.

The bigger the mortgage you have (the richer you are), the bigger the deduction you get.  That is textbook regressive.

For every dollar you take in gifts from the government, that is a dollar that someone else has to make up for, or that the government has to borrow.

So if you are very wealthy, you can take out a much bigger mortage than someone who earns a lower income. This means you get a much bigger gift from the government, which means many more dollars everyone else has to pay for or many more dollars that have to be borrowed to give you that gift.

The wealthier you are, the bigger the expense your deductions are to everyone else.

And that is regressive.  Textbook.

Simple economics.


----------



## g5000

Here comes the welfare queen mindset.

Watch.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside, a national sales tax would be extremely regressive.
> 
> Just like the mortgage interest deduction is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive to who? Regressive to home owners?  WTF dude put down the pipe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government milk has made you soft in the head.
> 
> The bigger the mortgage you have (the richer you are), the bigger the deduction you get.  That is textbook regressive.
> 
> For every dollar you take in gifts from the government, that is a dollar that someone else has to make up for, or that the government has to borrow.
> 
> So if you are very wealthy, you can take out a much bigger mortage than someone who earns a lower income. This means you get a much bigger gift from the government, which means many more dollars everyone else has to pay for or many more dollars that have to be borrowed to give you that gift.
> 
> The wealthier you are, the bigger the expense your deductions are to everyone else.
> 
> And that is regressive.  Textbook.
> 
> Simple economics.
Click to expand...


No one gets a mortgage deduction for sales taxes. I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## g5000

tooAlive said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are defining a fair tax as a screwed up tax, then saying see the fair tax is screwed up.  Duh.  Just make it a sales tax just as is done by most states today and be done with it.  Chill dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fair Tax is not a sales tax. If it was, they would call it a National Sales Tax. Duh.
> 
> What I said stands.  It is exactly what would happen to the rebate process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they do call it a national sales tax.
Click to expand...


It's more than that.  It comes with monthly rebates, which is where it is wide open to corruption.

But without the rebates, it is highly regressive.

So the FairTax is lose/lose if we do not ban all tax expenditures.

If we banned all tax expenditures, we would not need the FairTax.  




tooAlive said:


> But I agree with you on the tax expenditures issue. It should be a flat tax for everyone; no loopholes.



If we banned all tax expenditures, then the income tax would be just fine the way it is.

In fact, we could lower the tax rates for everyone.  This is what the jackholes who defend tax expenditures don't get.  With all their deductions and subsidies and credits and loopholes, they are forcing everyone to pay higher tax rates, and forcing the government to borrow trillions of dollars from foreign countries!

Just so they can have their government crutches.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Clintons  

Unless you can show me a country that has better.


----------



## g5000

RKMBrown said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regressive to who? Regressive to home owners?  WTF dude put down the pipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government milk has made you soft in the head.
> 
> The bigger the mortgage you have (the richer you are), the bigger the deduction you get.  That is textbook regressive.
> 
> For every dollar you take in gifts from the government, that is a dollar that someone else has to make up for, or that the government has to borrow.
> 
> So if you are very wealthy, you can take out a much bigger mortage than someone who earns a lower income. This means you get a much bigger gift from the government, which means many more dollars everyone else has to pay for or many more dollars that have to be borrowed to give you that gift.
> 
> The wealthier you are, the bigger the expense your deductions are to everyone else.
> 
> And that is regressive.  Textbook.
> 
> Simple economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one gets a mortgage deduction for sales taxes. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I'm getting the impression you have no idea how the Fair Tax works.

There is an entire industry devoted to donating large sums of cash to campaign coffers to ensure Congress keeps the mortgage interest deduction in the current income tax code.  A huge government crutch.  It's either the second or third largest crutch in the tax code that costs about _$120 billion a year_.  Ironically, that deduction is priced into the cost of a house!  But as a result of that deduction, everyone else has to pay higher taxes ($120 billion) to cover the kickback to homebuyers.

Now, do you seriously believe that if we went to a FairTax, that same massive industry would not be paying the same large cash donations to Congress to ensure Congress provides a rebate kickback ($120 billion) to homebuyers?  

You think they would give that $120 billion up?  If you believe that would happen, you are incredibly naive.


----------



## g5000

We are hostage to $1.4 trillion of annual tax expenditures.

Everyone demands them.  They _demand_ them.  Just like welfare queens.

Congress is paid good money to put that gigantic economic drain in the tax code.  Lots of campaign cash.  Because that is what everyone demands of them.

If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl.  So Congress borrows the money instead.  That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.

YOU put it there. Not the darkie with the ObamaPhone.  YOU did it.

We could actually lower tax rates if you weren't such welfare queens.


----------



## RKMBrown

g5000 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government milk has made you soft in the head.
> 
> The bigger the mortgage you have (the richer you are), the bigger the deduction you get.  That is textbook regressive.
> 
> For every dollar you take in gifts from the government, that is a dollar that someone else has to make up for, or that the government has to borrow.
> 
> So if you are very wealthy, you can take out a much bigger mortage than someone who earns a lower income. This means you get a much bigger gift from the government, which means many more dollars everyone else has to pay for or many more dollars that have to be borrowed to give you that gift.
> 
> The wealthier you are, the bigger the expense your deductions are to everyone else.
> 
> And that is regressive.  Textbook.
> 
> Simple economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one gets a mortgage deduction for sales taxes. I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm getting the impression you have no idea how the Fair Tax works.
> 
> There is an entire industry devoted to donating large sums of cash to campaign coffers to ensure Congress keeps the mortgage interest deduction in the current income tax code.  A huge government crutch.  It's either the second or third largest crutch in the tax code that costs about _$120 billion a year_.  Ironically, that deduction is priced into the cost of a house!  But as a result of that deduction, everyone else has to pay higher taxes ($120 billion) to cover the kickback to homebuyers.
> 
> Now, do you seriously believe that if we went to a FairTax, that same massive industry would not be paying the same large cash donations to Congress to ensure Congress provides a rebate kickback ($120 billion) to homebuyers?
> 
> You think they would give that $120 billion up?  If you believe that would happen, you are incredibly naive.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what fair tax you are talking about.  Near as I can tell we still have income taxes and they are most certainly not fair.  I was talking about a sales tax.  It would appear you, by contrast, want to rail against the current income tax system and subsequent exemptions.  Ok fine, you are yelling at who?  Please tell me who is arguing with you?


----------



## Contumacious

g5000 said:


> If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl.  So Congress borrows the money instead.  That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
> .



Congress (1) INFLATES  THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows

.


----------



## ScienceRocks

g5000 said:


> We are hostage to $1.4 trillion of annual tax expenditures.
> 
> Everyone demands them.  They _demand_ them.  Just like welfare queens.
> 
> Congress is paid good money to put that gigantic economic drain in the tax code.  Lots of campaign cash.  Because that is what everyone demands of them.
> 
> If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl.  So Congress borrows the money instead.  That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
> 
> YOU put it there. Not the darkie with the ObamaPhone.  YOU did it.
> 
> We could actually lower tax rates if you weren't such welfare queens.



Maybe we could do what Mexico does and 
1. Not have welfare
2. Flood Mexico and Canada with our poor


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl.  So Congress borrows the money instead.  That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress (1) INFLATES  THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows
> 
> .
Click to expand...


(3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.


----------



## RKMBrown

Matthew said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are hostage to $1.4 trillion of annual tax expenditures.
> 
> Everyone demands them.  They _demand_ them.  Just like welfare queens.
> 
> Congress is paid good money to put that gigantic economic drain in the tax code.  Lots of campaign cash.  Because that is what everyone demands of them.
> 
> If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl.  So Congress borrows the money instead.  That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
> 
> YOU put it there. Not the darkie with the ObamaPhone.  YOU did it.
> 
> We could actually lower tax rates if you weren't such welfare queens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we could do what Mexico does and
> 1. Not have welfare
> 2. Flood Mexico and Canada with our poor
Click to expand...


I like it!!


----------



## Contumacious

RKMBrown said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we actually raised taxes to the level necessary to pay for all those expenditures, the country would howl.  So Congress borrows the money instead.  That's why we have a $17 trillion debt.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress (1) INFLATES  THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.
Click to expand...



Exactly.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Contumacious said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress (1) INFLATES  THE CURRENCY and (2) borrows
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


17Trillion/100million families = 170k in debt for each and every tax paying family in the country.  Won't be long before the amount of debt we each owe is fairly significant.. hehe  OMG we are so screwed.


----------



## Contumacious

RKMBrown said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> (3) kicks the can down the road, for the children, don't forget to screw over the children on your way out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 17Trillion/100million families = 170k in debt for each and every tax paying family in the country.  Won't be long before the amount of debt we each owe is fairly significant.. hehe  OMG we are so screwed.
Click to expand...



Historical evidence shows that DC creates an "emergency"  the scumbags in SCOTUS allow the executive branch to USURP powers in order to address the so-call emergency- those powers are never rescinded ; they create new emergencies and the vicious cycle never ends.

.


----------



## rdean

The tax rate is the lowest in 60 years.

It's not that Republicans want "free stuff", which they do, but they want to live for free in this county.  Freedom costs money.  If they don't want to pay to support this country, they should leave.  Go someplace they could live for free without paying to support the country they live in.


----------



## Rozman

And it drives Liberals nuts....
All that lost revenue they don't have to spend.


----------



## Rozman

It just makes them feel so.....

Incomplete...


----------



## FA_Q2

g5000 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You two are very naive.
> 
> You think Congress would not get right to work putting carve-outs in a Fair Tax in exchange for campaign cash the same way they do with income taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxing, spending, campaign finance, and quid-pro quo are four completely different issues.  Pretending none can be solved without solving all of them at the same time is just silly.  But if you want to do that go ahead and start shooting cause you'll need a revolution to fix everything at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can all be solved at the same time.  It is very simple: Ban all tax expenditures.  If you remove the incentive to give a Congressman campaign cash, that tit will dry right up.  If a Congressman can't add a deduction/credit/subsidy/loophole/boondoggle to the tax code, there is no point paying him to do so.
> 
> Presto, you just solved campaign finance without having to write yet another failed campaign finance reform legislation.
> 
> No exceptions.  Ban ALL tax expenditures.
> 
> Now watch the pseudo-welfare queens come crawling out of the woodwork to defend their sacred cows.
> 
> It's a seriously fucked up system that has people earning_ identical incomes_ paying different amounts of taxes, but that is exactly what we have.
Click to expand...


That is exactly why any real tax reform would require an amendment that banned changes for special interests.  

I dont like a sales tax.  Anything like that is inherently complex as hell.  Personally I think a flat tax on ALL income is the way to go with zero possible deductions.  There is simply no way to jimmy that system and the increase/decrease of tax rates effect ALL equally.  It halts class warfare.  Most of all, removing all adjustments in the code removes MASSIVE amounts of power from congress to play to their buddies and interests with special favors.

For all your railing against the welfare queens and claiming that people were going to come out to defend their sacred cows, it appears that you were flat out wrong.  No one here seems to be defending their cow.  Most here that advocate for fair taxes are quite aware of the kickbacks and absolutely want them eliminated.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> Because it would quickly make our extreme wealth distribution much worse.
> 
> How?  You say that like you actually believe government is a bad place for our money.  Careful.. here big guy you are treading on thin ice.
> 
> >> Remember the French Revolution,  our revolution and the Civil War?  All to correct extreme wealth distribution with the wealthy trying to protect what they saw as an entitlement,  and the poor sick of not being paid what their work was worth.
> 
> You say that like our American Revolution was a bad thing.  What's wrong with people being sick of not getting paid what they are worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your first point is about.
> 
> My position is the same one that I've made several times.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable.  Aristocracy is always temporary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No?  If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources?  Why not?  If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question.  Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?
Click to expand...


Taxes aren't good or bad.  They are the cost of living in a well run country.  

Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially. 

One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government. 

You with me so far?


----------



## PMZ

g5000 said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
Click to expand...


Fair is not objective. 

Tax systems have many objectives. 

One would be to promote the common good.  

For instance a functional wealth distribution. 

So your position,  ''two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes'' might satisfy one objective,  to be equitable,  but doesn't even address other objectives,  like how those household taxes compare to those with higher or lower incomes for example.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
Click to expand...


I assume that you mean by this,  there is no fair income tax system.  
Fair being as subjective as you can get,  I'd agree.


----------



## PMZ

tooAlive said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When two households earning identical incomes are paying identical income taxes, then we will have a fair system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
Click to expand...


Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse,  and really offers no advantages over the present system.


----------



## PMZ

What a bunch of sad sack ideas. 

Everybody hates welfare queens while loving the idea of gaming the same system to their own advantage. 

And,  I loved the idea of let's emulate Mexico.  Why stop there? Let's try for Somalia. 

All of this is exactly why the Republican Party is doomed.  They hate this country and do not make the slightest pretense even of doing what's best for the country.  A bunch of self centered yahoos focused only on me,  me,  me. 

Discusting.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your first point is about.
> 
> My position is the same one that I've made several times.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable.  Aristocracy is always temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No?  If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources?  Why not?  If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question.  Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes aren't good or bad.  They are the cost of living in a well run country.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.
> 
> One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.
> 
> You with me so far?
Click to expand...


No.  Please show me where managing wealth distribution is a factor in designing taxation systems.  I thought it was for the cost of living in a well run country.  Now you say it's the cost for redistributing money from people who have it to people who don't have it.  Which is it?  How do you measure extreme wealth distribution dysfunction?  If I do absolutely NOTHING why do I deserve redistribution checks?  On what basis do I deserve to get money for nothing? Isn't that extreme dysfunction?

It seems to me that you have two goals. One punish people with money and two accuse anyone who resists of being an anarchist.  Isn't it true that you are being disingenuous with regard to your true goals for redistributing money?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you a fair income tax when you show me a fair system of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse,  and really offers no advantages over the present system.
Click to expand...


That's because you don't want to work any more.  You just want to sit back and collect.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No?  If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources?  Why not?  If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question.  Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes aren't good or bad.  They are the cost of living in a well run country.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.
> 
> One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.
> 
> You with me so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Please show me where managing wealth distribution is a factor in designing taxation systems.  I thought it was for the cost of living in a well run country.  Now you say it's the cost for redistributing money from people who have it to people who don't have it.  Which is it?  How do you measure extreme wealth distribution dysfunction?  If I do absolutely NOTHING why do I deserve redistribution checks?  On what basis do I deserve to get money for nothing? Isn't that extreme dysfunction?
> 
> It seems to me that you have two goals. One punish people with money and two accuse anyone who resists of being an anarchist.  Isn't it true that you are being disingenuous with regard to your true goals for redistributing money?
Click to expand...


More than one objective seems to be beyond you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> Abolish income taxes altogether and enact a flat national sales tax.
> 
> AKA, the FairTax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse,  and really offers no advantages over the present system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you don't want to work any more.  You just want to sit back and collect.
Click to expand...


You've lost it old man.


----------



## PMZ

From Wikipedia. 

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[10]

After the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%.[9][10][11]


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes aren't good or bad.  They are the cost of living in a well run country.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.
> 
> One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.
> 
> You with me so far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Please show me where managing wealth distribution is a factor in designing taxation systems.  I thought it was for the cost of living in a well run country.  Now you say it's the cost for redistributing money from people who have it to people who don't have it.  Which is it?  How do you measure extreme wealth distribution dysfunction?  If I do absolutely NOTHING why do I deserve redistribution checks?  On what basis do I deserve to get money for nothing? Isn't that extreme dysfunction?
> 
> It seems to me that you have two goals. One punish people with money and two accuse anyone who resists of being an anarchist.  Isn't it true that you are being disingenuous with regard to your true goals for redistributing money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than one objective seems to be beyond you.
Click to expand...


The objectives are contradictory.  That is what is beyond you and all other democrats like yourself. 

If you want to punish CEOs that use their oligopoly on board rooms, then punish CEOs.  If you want to punish investors, I have to ask, WTF is wrong with you?  If you want to punish workers again.. WTF is wrong with you?  Reward hard work by making taxes flat not progressive.  Reward work by eliminating hand-outs.  This is not rocket science.  People will flock to that which is rewarded, and shy away from that which does not put food on the table.  

Look at the EBT crap that occurred over the weekend.  What does this tell you? Are you capable of learning?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every Fair Tax proposal that I've seen would make our wealth distribution worse,  and really offers no advantages over the present system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't want to work any more.  You just want to sit back and collect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've lost it old man.
Click to expand...


Didn't you just say you are 64 in another thread? Or did I confuse you with another lib?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you don't want to work any more.  You just want to sit back and collect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've lost it old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you just say you are 64 in another thread? Or did I confuse you with another lib?
Click to expand...


I didn't say,  but I'm older.  More experienced than that.  I've seen the full extent of the decline in the American dream due to conservatism.  I remember the days of American pride and accomplishment.  I know what conservatism has taken from the spirit of America.  And I grieve.  And I resist.  I know what we can be and won't settle for less.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've lost it old man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you just say you are 64 in another thread? Or did I confuse you with another lib?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say,  but I'm older.  More experienced than that.  I've seen the full extent of the decline in the American dream due to conservatism.  I remember the days of American pride and accomplishment.  I know what conservatism has taken from the spirit of America.  And I grieve.  And I resist.  I know what we can be and won't settle for less.
Click to expand...


Then you won't personally benefit from high income taxes on the rich and no income taxes on the bottom 51%?  You won't personally benefit from sticking with income taxes over switching to a national sales tax?  You don't have any stake in this at all you are just trying to make sure the evil rich are punished for their sin of having more money than you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you just say you are 64 in another thread? Or did I confuse you with another lib?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say,  but I'm older.  More experienced than that.  I've seen the full extent of the decline in the American dream due to conservatism.  I remember the days of American pride and accomplishment.  I know what conservatism has taken from the spirit of America.  And I grieve.  And I resist.  I know what we can be and won't settle for less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you won't personally benefit from high income taxes on the rich and no income taxes on the bottom 51%?  You won't personally benefit from sticking with income taxes over switching to a national sales tax?  You don't have any stake in this at all you are just trying to make sure the evil rich are punished for their sin of having more money than you?
Click to expand...


I have always felt privileged to be born in a great country.  I have grandchildren to pass that privilege on to.  I intend to.  I don't know if they'll pursue great riches or great happiness.  I hope happiness.  But,  whatever their personal choice is,  I know that pursuing it in a great country will be advantageous to them compared to an average country. That's what I want to bequeath to them.  A great country.  Conservatives are standing in the way in search of an  immediate benefit to them. 

I say no.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say,  but I'm older.  More experienced than that.  I've seen the full extent of the decline in the American dream due to conservatism.  I remember the days of American pride and accomplishment.  I know what conservatism has taken from the spirit of America.  And I grieve.  And I resist.  I know what we can be and won't settle for less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't personally benefit from high income taxes on the rich and no income taxes on the bottom 51%?  You won't personally benefit from sticking with income taxes over switching to a national sales tax?  You don't have any stake in this at all you are just trying to make sure the evil rich are punished for their sin of having more money than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have always felt privileged to be born in a great country.  I have grandchildren to pass that privilege on to.  I intend to.  I don't know if they'll pursue great riches or great happiness.  I hope happiness.  But,  whatever their personal choice is,  I know that pursuing it in a great country will be advantageous to them compared to an average country. That's what I want to bequeath to them.  A great country.  Conservatives are standing in the way in search of an  immediate benefit to them.
> 
> I say no.
Click to expand...


BULL SHIT Conservative majority are the ones fighting for a future for the country, the dem welfare crowd and a few dem and pub 1% ers are the ones sucking the countries life blood like vampires.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't personally benefit from high income taxes on the rich and no income taxes on the bottom 51%?  You won't personally benefit from sticking with income taxes over switching to a national sales tax?  You don't have any stake in this at all you are just trying to make sure the evil rich are punished for their sin of having more money than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always felt privileged to be born in a great country.  I have grandchildren to pass that privilege on to.  I intend to.  I don't know if they'll pursue great riches or great happiness.  I hope happiness.  But,  whatever their personal choice is,  I know that pursuing it in a great country will be advantageous to them compared to an average country. That's what I want to bequeath to them.  A great country.  Conservatives are standing in the way in search of an  immediate benefit to them.
> 
> I say no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULL SHIT Conservative majority are the ones fighting for a future for the country, the dem welfare crowd and a few dem and pub 1% ers are the ones sucking the countries life blood like vampires.
Click to expand...


The only evidence that you have to offer are the claims from Fox News. Republican propaganda. There is no conservative majority. You loose.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have always felt privileged to be born in a great country.  I have grandchildren to pass that privilege on to.  I intend to.  I don't know if they'll pursue great riches or great happiness.  I hope happiness.  But,  whatever their personal choice is,  I know that pursuing it in a great country will be advantageous to them compared to an average country. That's what I want to bequeath to them.  A great country.  Conservatives are standing in the way in search of an  immediate benefit to them.
> 
> I say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULL SHIT Conservative majority are the ones fighting for a future for the country, the dem welfare crowd and a few dem and pub 1% ers are the ones sucking the countries life blood like vampires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only evidence that you have to offer are the claims from Fox News. Republican propaganda. There is no conservative majority. You loose.
Click to expand...


If I loose, we all loose.  Well all but the 1%ers that are living off our labors.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.
> 
> The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which other countries? Give us a list.
Click to expand...


Flat Tax Is Fantasy In U.S. But Works Fine Behind Old Iron Curtain - Forbes


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULL SHIT Conservative majority are the ones fighting for a future for the country, the dem welfare crowd and a few dem and pub 1% ers are the ones sucking the countries life blood like vampires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only evidence that you have to offer are the claims from Fox News. Republican propaganda. There is no conservative majority. You loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I loose, we all loose.  Well all but the 1%ers that are living off our labors.
Click to expand...


No.  You're living off middle class workers.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> The flat tax has worked in other countries there is no reason it wouldn't work here.
> 
> The crybaby argument is that since the so called poor ( you know the almost 50% of Americans who don't have to pay income tax) would finally have to pay something it would ruin them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which other countries? Give us a list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flat Tax Is Fantasy In U.S. But Works Fine Behind Old Iron Curtain - Forbes
Click to expand...


What do you think that the wealth distribution was under the Communism of those countries?


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which other countries? Give us a list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flat Tax Is Fantasy In U.S. But Works Fine Behind Old Iron Curtain - Forbes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think that the wealth distribution was under the Communism of those countries?
Click to expand...


wHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF THE FLAT TAX IN THOSE COUNTRIES?


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flat Tax Is Fantasy In U.S. But Works Fine Behind Old Iron Curtain - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that the wealth distribution was under the Communism of those countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF THE FLAT TAX IN THOSE COUNTRIES?
Click to expand...


Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that the wealth distribution was under the Communism of those countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF THE FLAT TAX IN THOSE COUNTRIES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.
Click to expand...


Do you really believe the distribution of wealth in the former Soviet Union was flat?

If you do I have some swamp land in FL to talk to you about.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only evidence that you have to offer are the claims from Fox News. Republican propaganda. There is no conservative majority. You loose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I loose, we all loose.  Well all but the 1%ers that are living off our labors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  You're living off middle class workers.
Click to expand...


How am I doing that?  Nearly all of my income is personal income.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> wHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF THE FLAT TAX IN THOSE COUNTRIES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe the distribution of wealth in the former Soviet Union was flat?
> 
> If you do I have some swamp land in FL to talk to you about.
Click to expand...


Are you denying what I said?  That it's the goal of Communism.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I loose, we all loose.  Well all but the 1%ers that are living off our labors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You're living off middle class workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I doing that?  Nearly all of my income is personal income.
Click to expand...


Wealth is goods and services created by workers.  Money is token wealth. 

What goods and services do you as a worker produce?


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe the distribution of wealth in the former Soviet Union was flat?
> 
> If you do I have some swamp land in FL to talk to you about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying what I said?  That it's the goal of Communism.
Click to expand...


And when has communism ever realized that goal?

Besides the flat tax isn't a wealth tax it is an income tax and we all know that income is not wealth.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You're living off middle class workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I doing that?  Nearly all of my income is personal income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wealth is goods and services created by workers.  Money is token wealth.
> 
> What goods and services do you as a worker produce?
Click to expand...


Wrong, money is a representation of resources.  Resources includes tangible and intangible resources such as natural resources, ideas, and goods & services produced by workers.

As a worker I'm the sole author of Custom Insurance and Financial software products in use today by hundreds of corporations.  I've also participated in the creation of hundreds of goods and services that are used by hundreds of millions of people.  On a side note, I'm the author of hundreds of patents.  How about you, what have you done?


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your first point is about.
> 
> My position is the same one that I've made several times.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is socially unstable.  Aristocracy is always temporary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that the more government taxes the rich the better off we'll be especially the poor, right? Yes or No?  If yes then why does that not also go for taxing the poor the same % on all income sources?  Why not?  If taxes are good for the rich why are taxes bad for the poor? Serious question.  Isn't that money simply coming straight back to the poor anyways?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes aren't good or bad.  They are the cost of living in a well run country.
> 
> Extreme wealth distribution is dysfunctional economically and socially.
> 
> *One factor in designing taxation systems is to manage wealth distribution while raising the income to fund government.*
> 
> You with me so far?
Click to expand...


The bold is flat out incorrect.  Tax systems, no matter how you design it, does not flatten out income distribution.  The distribution in this nation has nothing to do with tax structure.  It has everything to do with modernization, automation, international trade policy and productivity.  The fact that you think high taxes has a snowballs chance in hell of flatting out income certainly explains a lot.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that the wealth distribution was under the Communism of those countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF THE FLAT TAX IN THOSE COUNTRIES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.
Click to expand...


However, the distribution was NOT flat.  It was far worse than we have it as a matter of fact.  The richest might not have been as rich as our rich are BUT the poor were FAR FAR FAR worse than the poorest here.  Something that many seem completely unable to grasp when looking at something as vapid as income distribution.  

The distribution in those areas was not even close to 1 and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that flat taxes were successful in those areas.  The current distribution has nothing to do with flat taxes.  The entire point of flat taxes is that they take away the government social engineering.  What you also seem to miss entirely7 is that most of your mega rich are ONLY that rich as a direct result of that engineering.  You know what that means  your progressive tax code is at the heart of terrible income distributions.


----------



## RKMBrown

Even if you were able to take 90% of the one percentile's wealth and they did not run away, even then... what would stop them from deciding to pay themselves 8x more so they would end up with the same amount of incoming money as they had before?  Oh and guess how they would do it... hire ten people to do your job in Asia, Africa for the price of a bowl of rice a day.  Taxes are not a useful tool to correct bad behavior.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I doing that?  Nearly all of my income is personal income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth is goods and services created by workers.  Money is token wealth.
> 
> What goods and services do you as a worker produce?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, money is a representation of resources.  Resources includes tangible and intangible resources such as natural resources, ideas, and goods & services produced by workers.
> 
> As a worker I'm the sole author of Custom Insurance and Financial software products in use today by hundreds of corporations.  I've also participated in the creation of hundreds of goods and services that are used by hundreds of millions of people.  On a side note, I'm the author of hundreds of patents.  How about you, what have you done?
Click to expand...


How come I've never heard of you?


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> wHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE SUCCESS OF THE FLAT TAX IN THOSE COUNTRIES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, the distribution was NOT flat.  It was far worse than we have it as a matter of fact.  The richest might not have been as rich as our rich are BUT the poor were FAR FAR FAR worse than the poorest here.  Something that many seem completely unable to grasp when looking at something as vapid as income distribution.
> 
> The distribution in those areas was not even close to 1 and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that flat taxes were successful in those areas.  The current distribution has nothing to do with flat taxes.  The entire point of flat taxes is that they take away the government social engineering.  What you also seem to miss entirely7 is that most of your mega rich are ONLY that rich as a direct result of that engineering.  You know what that means  your progressive tax code is at the heart of terrible income distributions.
Click to expand...


Evidence Pancho,  evidence.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wealth is goods and services created by workers.  Money is token wealth.
> 
> What goods and services do you as a worker produce?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, money is a representation of resources.  Resources includes tangible and intangible resources such as natural resources, ideas, and goods & services produced by workers.
> 
> As a worker I'm the sole author of Custom Insurance and Financial software products in use today by hundreds of corporations.  I've also participated in the creation of hundreds of goods and services that are used by hundreds of millions of people.  On a side note, I'm the author of hundreds of patents.  How about you, what have you done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come I've never heard of you?
Click to expand...


6billion people on the planet, why would you expect to have heard of me?


----------



## Gadawg73

rdean said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Corporate Tax Rate Is Lowest in Decades; Is Business Paying Its Fair Share? | TIME.com
> 
> Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
> 
> These Republicans.  Their greed and selfishness has over powered their common sense.  Freedom is expensive.  It costs money.  You have bastards like Mitt Romney saying the reason none of his five sons ever went into the military is because they were doing something more important.  Helping him get elected president.
> 
> Where do most of our soldiers come from?  The middle class and the poor.  The very people Republicans want to screw over in the worst way.
> 
> And they cry about government taking their money.  Fuckers should leave.  Go someplace you can live for "free".
> 
> Listen up fucktards.  It's NOT your country if you don't want to help pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Responsibility is a tough issue for conservatives.  They like it in others,  but hate it for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  You can't get the right wing to take responsibility for anything except taking out Bin Laden.  The one thing they had nothing to do with.
Click to expand...


They take responsibility for themselves and their families without demanding government plunder the resources of what others earned to give to them.


----------



## Gadawg73

"mommy, Johnny has a bigger piece of pie than me. THAT IS NOT FAIR MOMMY"
We have a nation full of these folks now and they are over 18 and still act like children.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, money is a representation of resources.  Resources includes tangible and intangible resources such as natural resources, ideas, and goods & services produced by workers.
> 
> As a worker I'm the sole author of Custom Insurance and Financial software products in use today by hundreds of corporations.  I've also participated in the creation of hundreds of goods and services that are used by hundreds of millions of people.  On a side note, I'm the author of hundreds of patents.  How about you, what have you done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come I've never heard of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 6billion people on the planet, why would you expect to have heard of me?
Click to expand...


Hundreds of patents.  Rivaling Edison.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Responsibility is a tough issue for conservatives.  They like it in others,  but hate it for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  You can't get the right wing to take responsibility for anything except taking out Bin Laden.  The one thing they had nothing to do with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They take responsibility for themselves and their families without demanding government plunder the resources of what others earned to give to them.
Click to expand...


For people who take care of themselves you certainly do an awful lot of childish whining.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come I've never heard of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6billion people on the planet, why would you expect to have heard of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hundreds of patents.  Rivaling Edison.
Click to expand...


Typical lib, always making assumptions.  You'll note I did not say I owned the patents, I was just the author.  I was only in the top ten in my last company in filing patents for the company, and you will not have heard of any of us.  Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6billion people on the planet, why would you expect to have heard of me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of patents.  Rivaling Edison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical lib, always making assumptions.  You'll note I did not say I owned the patents.  I was only in the top ten in my last company in filing patents for the company, and you will not have heard of any of us.  Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.
Click to expand...


Fame = contribution? 

Wow!  The Kardasians are going to love that!


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of patents.  Rivaling Edison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical lib, always making assumptions.  You'll note I did not say I owned the patents.  I was only in the top ten in my last company in filing patents for the company, and you will not have heard of any of us.  Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fame = contribution?
> 
> Wow!  The Kardasians are going to love that!
Click to expand...

Who said fame is contribution?  Go back to doing your crossword old man.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical lib, always making assumptions.  You'll note I did not say I owned the patents.  I was only in the top ten in my last company in filing patents for the company, and you will not have heard of any of us.  Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fame = contribution?
> 
> Wow!  The Kardasians are going to love that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said fame is contribution?  Go back to doing your crossword old man.
Click to expand...


'' Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fame = contribution?
> 
> Wow!  The Kardasians are going to love that!
> 
> 
> 
> Who said fame is contribution?  Go back to doing your crossword old man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> '' Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
Click to expand...


Who said fame is contribution?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said fame is contribution?  Go back to doing your crossword old man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '' Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said fame is contribution?
Click to expand...


You seem quite slow today.  Bad night last night?


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if the wealth distribution was flat,  everyone the same,  a Gini coefficient of 1, the purported goal of Communism,  a flat tax would work fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the distribution was NOT flat.  It was far worse than we have it as a matter of fact.  The richest might not have been as rich as our rich are BUT the poor were FAR FAR FAR worse than the poorest here.  Something that many seem completely unable to grasp when looking at something as vapid as income distribution.
> 
> The distribution in those areas was not even close to 1 and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that flat taxes were successful in those areas.  The current distribution has nothing to do with flat taxes.  The entire point of flat taxes is that they take away the government social engineering.  What you also seem to miss entirely7 is that most of your mega rich are ONLY that rich as a direct result of that engineering.  You know what that means  your progressive tax code is at the heart of terrible income distributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence Pancho,  evidence.
Click to expand...

 Typical. You make vapid claims and then demand that others provide evidence that you were never interested in presenting yourself (or even capable). Lets recap - we push the flat tax where you make the claim that it does not work. Then you are provided with places where it has indeed worked quite well. Then you push another claim that those examples are not applicable because income distribution. No evidence that the distribution was better or worse than here but that didn't matter to you. That was YOUR claim. You can go back that up whenever you want but I suspect that you are not going to bother.

I don't claim that it was better on paper anyway. The sad part is that income distribution is completely meaningless when everyone is dirt poor. It might LOOK better because there are not enough rich people to skew the numbers but it certainly is not better by any stretch of the imagination. The US ranks below countries like South Korea, Israel, Philippines and Turkey in income distribution yet I don't think that anyone here would believe they have better prospects in those nations than they do in this one. If you think Turkey is a better place to be economically then I suggest you try living there. You will find that such a measure is completely useless without looking at a MUCH larger picture than that single statistic. The Philippinesis even worse. The poverty there is extreme and yet they rank better than the US in income distribution.

Useless statistic is, well, useless.

Oh, as far as evidence: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html




Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Foxfyre

Fall out from Obamacare to date:

1.  Two of my friends have been laid off as companies are downsizing due to Obamacare.

2.  Several (not sure exactly how many) have had their hours cut from full time to part time due to Obamacare.

3.  Two (different) friends still working full time have lost their healthcare insurance through their employer who could not afford the gigantic increase in the premium.

4.  Hundreds are out of work here because companies they once could depend on to hire them are not hiring now - due to Obamacare.

5.  Mr. Foxfyre and my Medicare premiums have been increased a whopping 38% while many things Medicare once covered are no longer covered and most of the copays have doubled or more - due to Obamacare.

6.  Mr. Foxfyre's beloved primary physician is taking early retirement this year because he just can't cope with the ridiculous regulations, extra paperwork, and unjustifiable restrictions imposed by Obamacare.   Among a dozen doctors that my aged Aunt and Uncle have to see for their mutliple health issues, one--count it ONE--of those doctors is American born.  This is going to be the norm as fewer and fewer Americans are willing to jump through government hoops that are now required in healthcare.

7.  Every local hospital is laying off staff and the understaffing has become very apparent to those needing healthcare in those institut6ions.  All due to Obamacare.

Now then you 'fair share' people, the Supreme Court has ruled Obamacare legal only because it is a TAX.   Do you think we're all getting our fair share of benefits for the whopping big increase in that tax most of us will have to pay?


----------



## emilynghiem

1. I answered a flat rate for everyone.
a. in truth, I believe it should be proportional, that if you commit crimes or abuses that cost taxpayers money you should be held accountable for the amount that you incur, and that exercising rights of citizenship should be based on such an agreement
b. I believe 10% would be a good rate because the math would be instant and cut down on excessive calculations, paperwork, errors etc.
I still believe people should be rewarded for tax deductions for investing in sustainable effective services and solutions which replaces govt having to provide for these costs

2. so in short the same way people have a tradition of donating 10% to churches or charity equivalents, govt should be the same way. If you can do a better job than govt, you should have the option to invest your taxes directly into better solutions. Where govt works well, I don't see that people have a problem paying voluntarily. Where people are incurring added costs to govt and public taxpayers, that's where financial accountability should be enforced. I believe we could clean up the criminal justice system this way and use that to fund health care, housing and education with the billions in taxes already wasted on crimes and abuses.

3. Also for services/duties that all people and parties agree belong on the federal level, the income taxes should cover that. But for things like health care we disagree on politically, I believe such programs or policies should be funded by party or other affiliation. So maybe local taxes can be paid to the party of one's choice to cover programs not agreed by all. If you want it, you fund it; similar to churches or other charities funded freely by choice.


----------



## emilynghiem

P.S. whoever voted for 91% 
yeah that works if you're not the ones putting in the most income to cover those without

Who is going to join that group and pay for it?

Like going to dinner and sitting at the table where everyone agrees that everyone else with money is going to pay the whole bill for everyone who doesn't have enough to pay in.

So all the people with money sit at the table where people each pay for their own meal.
And all the people without sit at the table waiting for other people to pay for them?

How does that work?

P.S. This can work if you have charitable people AGREEING to cover the difference where people don't have equal ability to pay. But that becomes a voluntarily system.

My brother complained that when my older sister was in charge of splitting the cost of a suit for my mother, she insisted younger siblings still in school without jobs paid the same amount as those who had money.

When I was splitting the cost of an antique table as a present among family members,
I ended up paying the share of people who even had more money than I did
but never got around to paying. I wrote that off because that family always hosts the Christmas dinners and does all the cooking and cleaning up for everyone else.

So just watch who you put in charge before you decide you really want everyone sharing equally. It rarely comes out that way. Usually there is some adjustment so it depends on the situation. 

If you voted for this because you already segregate yourself from or discriminate against "rich people" instead of treating people equally that's already a problem. 

Fair negotiations require working together to accommodate differences with equal respect.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> '' Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said fame is contribution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem quite slow today.  Bad night last night?
Click to expand...


Nope not at all.  Who said fame is contribution?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said fame is contribution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem quite slow today.  Bad night last night?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope not at all.  Who said fame is contribution?
Click to expand...


You did.  I showed you your quote.  Now you're trying to claim that it doesn't say what it says.  Desperate.


----------



## PMZ

Clearly the conservative position is that the taxes paid by the wealthy today need to be shifted to the poor. Of course that's possible.  Merely pay the poor a living wage. 

Of course then they'll whine about how expensive goods and services are.  

They love the country that allowed them to get wealthy. They hate paying to live there though.  They want something for nothing.  In fact,  they think that they are entitled to it.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem quite slow today.  Bad night last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope not at all.  Who said fame is contribution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did.  I showed you your quote.  Now you're trying to claim that it doesn't say what it says.  Desperate.
Click to expand...


Actually, you quoted a statement that claimed the EXACT opposite.  The fact that you are unable to understand basic english is all on you.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope not at all.  Who said fame is contribution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did.  I showed you your quote.  Now you're trying to claim that it doesn't say what it says.  Desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you quoted a statement that claimed the EXACT opposite.  The fact that you are unable to understand basic english is all on you.
Click to expand...


Explain that to us.  Don't just claim it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did.  I showed you your quote.  Now you're trying to claim that it doesn't say what it says.  Desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you quoted a statement that claimed the EXACT opposite.  The fact that you are unable to understand basic english is all on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain that to us.  Don't just claim it.
Click to expand...


No he's right it's all on you.  We are not responsible for teaching you basic English.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you quoted a statement that claimed the EXACT opposite.  The fact that you are unable to understand basic english is all on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain that to us.  Don't just claim it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he's right it's all on you.  We are not responsible for teaching you basic English.
Click to expand...


Actually,  the problem is you making completely unsupportable claims then hoping to fake your way by them.  

I'm pretty sure that that makes you an asshole.  Yes.  I'm sure of it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain that to us.  Don't just claim it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he's right it's all on you.  We are not responsible for teaching you basic English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually,  the problem is you making completely unsupportable claims then hoping to fake your way by them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that that makes you an asshole.  Yes.  I'm sure of it.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  What "completely unsupportable claims" did I make? Care to put some money where your foul mouth is?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he's right it's all on you.  We are not responsible for teaching you basic English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  the problem is you making completely unsupportable claims then hoping to fake your way by them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that that makes you an asshole.  Yes.  I'm sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  What "completely unsupportable claims" did I make? Care to put some money where your foul mouth is?
Click to expand...


You said:

''Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''

Then you said that you didn't say that fame = contribution.  

Then you posted under another name that you said the opposite of what you said.  

Your confusion over the meaning of your words is 100 percent your problem.  

Next time choose your words more carefully.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  the problem is you making completely unsupportable claims then hoping to fake your way by them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that that makes you an asshole.  Yes.  I'm sure of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  What "completely unsupportable claims" did I make? Care to put some money where your foul mouth is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> ''Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> Then you said that you didn't say that fame = contribution.
> 
> Then you posted under another name that you said the opposite of what you said.
> 
> Your confusion over the meaning of your words is 100 percent your problem.
> 
> Next time choose your words more carefully.
Click to expand...


Your accusations are blatant lies.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  the problem is you making completely unsupportable claims then hoping to fake your way by them.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that that makes you an asshole.  Yes.  I'm sure of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  What "completely unsupportable claims" did I make? Care to put some money where your foul mouth is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> ''Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> Then you said that you didn't say that fame = contribution.
> 
> Then you posted under another name that you said the opposite of what you said.
> 
> Your confusion over the meaning of your words is 100 percent your problem.
> 
> Next time choose your words more carefully.
Click to expand...


Posted under another name, LOL.  Trust me, RMK and I are NOT the same person.  We have had several spirited arguments here.

I notice something missing in your quote.  Specifically, the word contribute or any derivative of that word is completely absent.  I also notice that there is nothing at all alluding to how much any of those people contribute at all.  As a matter of fact, the entire concept of what those individuals contribute to anything is absent from that statement.  IOW, you added it in on your own.  Yup, Basic English.  You are completely lacking in understanding of such a simple statement of fact.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  What "completely unsupportable claims" did I make? Care to put some money where your foul mouth is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> ''Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> Then you said that you didn't say that fame = contribution.
> 
> Then you posted under another name that you said the opposite of what you said.
> 
> Your confusion over the meaning of your words is 100 percent your problem.
> 
> Next time choose your words more carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posted under another name, LOL.  Trust me, RMK and I are NOT the same person.  We have had several spirited arguments here.
> 
> I notice something missing in your quote.  Specifically, the word contribute or any derivative of that word is completely absent.  I also notice that there is nothing at all alluding to how much any of those people contribute at all.  As a matter of fact, the entire concept of what those individuals contribute to anything is absent from that statement.  IOW, you added it in on your own.  Yup, Basic English.  You are completely lacking in understanding of such a simple statement of fact.
Click to expand...


I keep forgetting that context is too complex a concept for small minded conservatives.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> ''Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> Then you said that you didn't say that fame = contribution.
> 
> Then you posted under another name that you said the opposite of what you said.
> 
> Your confusion over the meaning of your words is 100 percent your problem.
> 
> Next time choose your words more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted under another name, LOL.  Trust me, RMK and I are NOT the same person.  We have had several spirited arguments here.
> 
> I notice something missing in your quote.  Specifically, the word contribute or any derivative of that word is completely absent.  I also notice that there is nothing at all alluding to how much any of those people contribute at all.  As a matter of fact, the entire concept of what those individuals contribute to anything is absent from that statement.  IOW, you added it in on your own.  Yup, Basic English.  You are completely lacking in understanding of such a simple statement of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting that context is too complex a concept for small minded conservatives.
Click to expand...

Put the shovel away you are the one that lost context.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posted under another name, LOL.  Trust me, RMK and I are NOT the same person.  We have had several spirited arguments here.
> 
> I notice something missing in your quote.  Specifically, the word contribute or any derivative of that word is completely absent.  I also notice that there is nothing at all alluding to how much any of those people contribute at all.  As a matter of fact, the entire concept of what those individuals contribute to anything is absent from that statement.  IOW, you added it in on your own.  Yup, Basic English.  You are completely lacking in understanding of such a simple statement of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting that context is too complex a concept for small minded conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put the shovel away you are the one that lost context.
Click to expand...


No,  I think that it was you and your ''friend''.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting that context is too complex a concept for small minded conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Put the shovel away you are the one that lost context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  I think that it was you and your ''friend''.
Click to expand...


Either your reading level is pre-K or you are a lying Jerk farming for negs cause that's all you have in life. Which is it?


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said:
> 
> ''Do you know the guys that worked for Edison?  Yeah, well I don't.  The people that we hear about are not the worker bees, its the CEOs, Actors, Athletes, Media, and Politicians.''
> 
> Then you said that you didn't say that fame = contribution.
> 
> Then you posted under another name that you said the opposite of what you said.
> 
> Your confusion over the meaning of your words is 100 percent your problem.
> 
> Next time choose your words more carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posted under another name, LOL.  Trust me, RMK and I are NOT the same person.  We have had several spirited arguments here.
> 
> I notice something missing in your quote.  Specifically, the word contribute or any derivative of that word is completely absent.  I also notice that there is nothing at all alluding to how much any of those people contribute at all.  As a matter of fact, the entire concept of what those individuals contribute to anything is absent from that statement.  IOW, you added it in on your own.  Yup, Basic English.  You are completely lacking in understanding of such a simple statement of fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting that context is too complex a concept for small minded conservatives.
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean the context where he tells you that he has contributed largely and then YOU asked why you had never heard of him?  That context.  The context where he gave you the quoted statement to illustrate that you dont hear about those that are large contributors because it is the CEO etc. that you do hear about.  

Again, everything he stated had was saying that fame does not equal contribution but you still cling to that asinine charge.  Still clinging even though YOU are the only person to make that illogical leap.

Playing this asinine game is getting old.  The thread has been essentially derailed into a look at the retard showcasing and it is getting boring.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put the shovel away you are the one that lost context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  I think that it was you and your ''friend''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either your reading level is pre-K or you are a lying Jerk farming for negs cause that's all you have in life. Which is it?
Click to expand...


Neither.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posted under another name, LOL.  Trust me, RMK and I are NOT the same person.  We have had several spirited arguments here.
> 
> I notice something missing in your quote.  Specifically, the word contribute or any derivative of that word is completely absent.  I also notice that there is nothing at all alluding to how much any of those people contribute at all.  As a matter of fact, the entire concept of what those individuals contribute to anything is absent from that statement.  IOW, you added it in on your own.  Yup, Basic English.  You are completely lacking in understanding of such a simple statement of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting that context is too complex a concept for small minded conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean the context where he tells you that he has contributed largely and then YOU asked why you had never heard of him?  That context.  The context where he gave you the quoted statement to illustrate that you dont hear about those that are large contributors because it is the CEO etc. that you do hear about.
> 
> Again, everything he stated had was saying that fame does not equal contribution but you still cling to that asinine charge.  Still clinging even though YOU are the only person to make that illogical leap.
> 
> Playing this asinine game is getting old.  The thread has been essentially derailed into a look at the retard showcasing and it is getting boring.
Click to expand...


Well,  retard,  stop posting.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Why won't you anti-civilization people go back into the woods? Beat off and please never vote.


----------



## FA_Q2

Matthew said:


> Why won't you anti-civilization people go back into the woods? Beat off and please never vote.



Why wont you empty slogan people go home and stop voting?  No one here is anti-civilization but you keep prattling on about investments in infrastructure and science but when I ask about specifics and actually give you real and hard numbers about current spending in various areas I get nothing from you but science.  I have done this multiple times and yet all you can do is repeat the same tired old bullshit.

Try something new matt  actually educate yourself on the issues and ignore the empty slogans.  Abandon this bullshit unspecific invest in infrastructure and science and actually mention something specific that should be invested in.


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't you anti-civilization people go back into the woods? Beat off and please never vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wont you empty slogan people go home and stop voting?  No one here is anti-civilization but you keep prattling on about investments in infrastructure and science but when I ask about specifics and actually give you real and hard numbers about current spending in various areas I get nothing from you but science.  I have done this multiple times and yet all you can do is repeat the same tired old bullshit.
> 
> Try something new matt  actually educate yourself on the issues and ignore the empty slogans.  Abandon this bullshit unspecific invest in infrastructure and science and actually mention something specific that should be invested in.
Click to expand...


I don't think the what matters to him.  I think he just wants us to write him a check.


----------



## PMZ

I'm amazed that,  apparently,  Fox News has neglected to mention all of the sustainable energy sources being built around the world today.  All of the energy saving measures underway.  All of the effort and investments and deaths attributable to the earthly systems trying to shed extra energy and return to stability. 

I mean they have 24/7/365 to ''inform'' people.  What are they spending it on?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't you anti-civilization people go back into the woods? Beat off and please never vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wont you empty slogan people go home and stop voting?  No one here is anti-civilization but you keep prattling on about investments in infrastructure and science but when I ask about specifics and actually give you real and hard numbers about current spending in various areas I get nothing from you but science.  I have done this multiple times and yet all you can do is repeat the same tired old bullshit.
> 
> Try something new matt  actually educate yourself on the issues and ignore the empty slogans.  Abandon this bullshit unspecific invest in infrastructure and science and actually mention something specific that should be invested in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the what matters to him.  I think he just wants us to write him a check.
Click to expand...


Don't need your money.  So you can't buy me.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wont you empty slogan people go home and stop voting?  No one here is anti-civilization but you keep prattling on about investments in infrastructure and science but when I ask about specifics and actually give you real and hard numbers about current spending in various areas I get nothing from you but science.  I have done this multiple times and yet all you can do is repeat the same tired old bullshit.
> 
> Try something new matt  actually educate yourself on the issues and ignore the empty slogans.  Abandon this bullshit unspecific invest in infrastructure and science and actually mention something specific that should be invested in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the what matters to him.  I think he just wants us to write him a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't need your money.  So you can't buy me.
Click to expand...


Is your name Matthew?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the what matters to him.  I think he just wants us to write him a check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need your money.  So you can't buy me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your name Matthew?
Click to expand...


You know it's not.  But,  I know that people like you are very used to buying influence so I wanted to make my position clear.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't need your money.  So you can't buy me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Matthew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know it's not.  But,  I know that people like you are very used to buying influence so I wanted to make my position clear.
Click to expand...


I see. So you you are a whore that wants your john to collect the money for you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your name Matthew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's not.  But,  I know that people like you are very used to buying influence so I wanted to make my position clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see. So you you are a whore that wants your john to collect the money for you.
Click to expand...


No,  you are a John who doesn't want to pay for services rendered.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know it's not.  But,  I know that people like you are very used to buying influence so I wanted to make my position clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So you you are a whore that wants your john to collect the money for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  you are a John who doesn't want to pay for services rendered.
Click to expand...


Lies, I have not had sex with you.  I don't even know you.  What the hell have you ever done for me and why the hell would I pay you a dime?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see. So you you are a whore that wants your john to collect the money for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you are a John who doesn't want to pay for services rendered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies, I have not had sex with you.  I don't even know you.  What the hell have you ever done for me and why the hell would I pay you a dime?
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right.  I don't do sex with men or for money.  Or women for that matter other than my wife.  

But every day you take services from our government that you'd rather steal than pay for.  It's good that we have IRS law enforcement to make sure that you can't get away with it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  you are a John who doesn't want to pay for services rendered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, I have not had sex with you.  I don't even know you.  What the hell have you ever done for me and why the hell would I pay you a dime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right.  I don't do sex with men or for money.  Or women for that matter other than my wife.
> 
> But every day you take services from our government that you'd rather steal than pay for.  It's good that we have IRS law enforcement to make sure that you can't get away with it.
Click to expand...


Where have I ever said I don't want to pay for services rendered by any Government?  My issue is merely with "re-distributions" you lying sack.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies, I have not had sex with you.  I don't even know you.  What the hell have you ever done for me and why the hell would I pay you a dime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right.  I don't do sex with men or for money.  Or women for that matter other than my wife.
> 
> But every day you take services from our government that you'd rather steal than pay for.  It's good that we have IRS law enforcement to make sure that you can't get away with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said I don't want to pay for services rendered by any Government?  My issue is merely with "re-distributions" you lying sack.
Click to expand...


Republicans wildly cheered as the Bushwacker redistributed more wealth than ever had been moved before. Republicans love the wealth redistribution inherent in capitalism. Don't tell me that you weren't and aren't included in that. 

As the old joke says,  we've already established that you're a whore,  now we are negotiating the price.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right.  I don't do sex with men or for money.  Or women for that matter other than my wife.
> 
> But every day you take services from our government that you'd rather steal than pay for.  It's good that we have IRS law enforcement to make sure that you can't get away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said I don't want to pay for services rendered by any Government?  My issue is merely with "re-distributions" you lying sack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans wildly cheered as the Bushwacker redistributed more wealth than ever had been moved before. Republicans love the wealth redistribution inherent in capitalism. Don't tell me that you weren't and aren't included in that.
> 
> As the old joke says,  we've already established that you're a whore,  now we are negotiating the price.
Click to expand...


I'm not a republican.  Why are you railing against capitalism?  Are you "un-American?"  Are you a Marxist?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said I don't want to pay for services rendered by any Government?  My issue is merely with "re-distributions" you lying sack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans wildly cheered as the Bushwacker redistributed more wealth than ever had been moved before. Republicans love the wealth redistribution inherent in capitalism. Don't tell me that you weren't and aren't included in that.
> 
> As the old joke says,  we've already established that you're a whore,  now we are negotiating the price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a republican.  Why are you railing against capitalism?  Are you "un-American?"  Are you a Marxist?
Click to expand...


I am a Republican.  I'm not railing against Capitalism.  I'm railing against ignorance. 

Capitaliam will redistribute wealth up until those that produce it are not getting to retain in proportion to their contribution. Then society goes unstable. We accept that risk because greed is the best motivator,  but mitigate it with governmental redistribution down.  We eat our cake and have it too.  

We also rely on competition to limit the redistribution up. 

However,  we've given the wealthy too much power to be purchased. They will,  will,  if we don't act,  consume the golden goose because they can't help themselves to avoid it. 

Why can they purchase so much influence?  Propaganda sources like Fox, selling it,  and people with little critical thinking capability like you falling for their brand marketing. 

After all,  that propaganda process has gone so far as creating a multi billion dollar market for bottled water beating out freely available water at home. 

Democracy depends on an informed electorate.  We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans wildly cheered as the Bushwacker redistributed more wealth than ever had been moved before. Republicans love the wealth redistribution inherent in capitalism. Don't tell me that you weren't and aren't included in that.
> 
> As the old joke says,  we've already established that you're a whore,  now we are negotiating the price.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a republican.  Why are you railing against capitalism?  Are you "un-American?"  Are you a Marxist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Republican.  I'm not railing against Capitalism.  I'm railing against ignorance.
> 
> Capitaliam will redistribute wealth up until those that produce it are not getting to retain in proportion to their contribution. Then society goes unstable. We accept that risk because greed is the best motivator,  but mitigate it with governmental redistribution down.  We eat our cake and have it too.
> 
> We also rely on competition to limit the redistribution up.
> 
> However,  we've given the wealthy too much power to be purchased. They will,  will,  if we don't act,  consume the golden goose because they can't help themselves to avoid it.
> 
> Why can they purchase so much influence?  Propaganda sources like Fox, selling it,  and people with little critical thinking capability like you falling for their brand marketing.
> 
> After all,  that propaganda process has gone so far as creating a multi billion dollar market for bottled water beating out freely available water at home.
> 
> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.  We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work. 

The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.

>> Why can they purchase so much influence?

Because people like you can be bought with promises of redistribution checks. 

>> multi billion dollar market for bottled water 

What do you have against bottled water? Advertising is "propaganda?"  WTH?

>> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.  

We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.  

>>> We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.

We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.


----------



## Foxfyre

If PMZ is a Republican, I am the Queen of Sheba.

Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth--a progressive tax system is.

Capitalism is not designed for the rich to support the poor--our current tax system is.

Our current tax system is not designed to enable and encourage the creation of wealth.  Capitalism does enable and encourages the creation of wealth.

Capitalism requires enough regulation to prevent the powerful from unethically preying on the weak, but otherwise can be left entirely alone to do its thing and more will prosper than under any other system humankind has ever devised.

A flat tax to fund the NECESSARY--and that is the money word: NECESSARY--functions of government is a fair and equitable way to pay the bills and is based on the foundational principle of capitalism.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a republican.  Why are you railing against capitalism?  Are you "un-American?"  Are you a Marxist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Republican.  I'm not railing against Capitalism.  I'm railing against ignorance.
> 
> Capitaliam will redistribute wealth up until those that produce it are not getting to retain in proportion to their contribution. Then society goes unstable. We accept that risk because greed is the best motivator,  but mitigate it with governmental redistribution down.  We eat our cake and have it too.
> 
> We also rely on competition to limit the redistribution up.
> 
> However,  we've given the wealthy too much power to be purchased. They will,  will,  if we don't act,  consume the golden goose because they can't help themselves to avoid it.
> 
> Why can they purchase so much influence?  Propaganda sources like Fox, selling it,  and people with little critical thinking capability like you falling for their brand marketing.
> 
> After all,  that propaganda process has gone so far as creating a multi billion dollar market for bottled water beating out freely available water at home.
> 
> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.  We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.
> 
> The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.
> 
> >> Why can they purchase so much influence?
> 
> Because people like you can be bought with promises of redistribution checks.
> 
> >> multi billion dollar market for bottled water
> 
> What do you have against bottled water? Advertising is "propaganda?"  WTH?
> 
> >> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
> 
> We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.
> 
> >>> We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.
> 
> We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.
Click to expand...


''Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.''

No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars. 

'' The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.''

I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies. 

'' Advertising is "propaganda?''

Yes. 

''We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.''

We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.  True of most governments today. 

We've been a democracy since 1930 with the universal suffrage Ammendment. I don't see going back on that. 

'' We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.''

Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.  

The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education. 

I don't know the solution but the problem is clear.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> If PMZ is a Republican, I am the Queen of Sheba.
> 
> Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth--a progressive tax system is.
> 
> Capitalism is not designed for the rich to support the poor--our current tax system is.
> 
> Our current tax system is not designed to enable and encourage the creation of wealth.  Capitalism does enable and encourages the creation of wealth.
> 
> Capitalism requires enough regulation to prevent the powerful from unethically preying on the weak, but otherwise can be left entirely alone to do its thing and more will prosper than under any other system humankind has ever devised.
> 
> A flat tax to fund the NECESSARY--and that is the money word: NECESSARY--functions of government is a fair and equitable way to pay the bills and is based on the foundational principle of capitalism.



Queenie,  you're welcome to believe anything that you wish was true.  

Smart people are,  however,  only swayed by evidence of which you have provided none.  

''Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth''

Just one example of ignorance.  Of course it is.  That's how it works and why pure socialism doesn't.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If PMZ is a Republican, I am the Queen of Sheba.
> 
> Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth--a progressive tax system is.
> 
> Capitalism is not designed for the rich to support the poor--our current tax system is.
> 
> Our current tax system is not designed to enable and encourage the creation of wealth.  Capitalism does enable and encourages the creation of wealth.
> 
> Capitalism requires enough regulation to prevent the powerful from unethically preying on the weak, but otherwise can be left entirely alone to do its thing and more will prosper than under any other system humankind has ever devised.
> 
> A flat tax to fund the NECESSARY--and that is the money word: NECESSARY--functions of government is a fair and equitable way to pay the bills and is based on the foundational principle of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queenie,  you're welcome to believe anything that you wish was true.
> 
> Smart people are,  however,  only swayed by evidence of which you have provided none.
> 
> ''Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth''
> 
> Just one example of ignorance.  Of course it is.  That's how it works and why pure socialism doesn't.
Click to expand...


Depends on what you think redistribution of wealth is I suppose.  The business dictionary defines it as such:



> *Redistribution of wealth:*
> Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits.
> 
> Read more: What is redistribution of wealth? definition and meaning



In other words, redistribution of wealth is something government does whether that is via the tax code or via regulation or preferential treatment or any other manipulation that requires the richer to give up wealth on the theory that the poor will receive it.

That is the very antithesis of capitalism in which those who earn or merit the property reap the rewards which in turn encourages more economic activity and wealth creation.



> *Capitalism*
> Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.
> Read more: What is Capitalism? definition and meaning


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Republican.  I'm not railing against Capitalism.  I'm railing against ignorance.
> 
> Capitaliam will redistribute wealth up until those that produce it are not getting to retain in proportion to their contribution. Then society goes unstable. We accept that risk because greed is the best motivator,  but mitigate it with governmental redistribution down.  We eat our cake and have it too.
> 
> We also rely on competition to limit the redistribution up.
> 
> However,  we've given the wealthy too much power to be purchased. They will,  will,  if we don't act,  consume the golden goose because they can't help themselves to avoid it.
> 
> Why can they purchase so much influence?  Propaganda sources like Fox, selling it,  and people with little critical thinking capability like you falling for their brand marketing.
> 
> After all,  that propaganda process has gone so far as creating a multi billion dollar market for bottled water beating out freely available water at home.
> 
> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.  We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.
> 
> The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.
> 
> >> Why can they purchase so much influence?
> 
> Because people like you can be bought with promises of redistribution checks.
> 
> >> multi billion dollar market for bottled water
> 
> What do you have against bottled water? Advertising is "propaganda?"  WTH?
> 
> >> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
> 
> We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.
> 
> >>> We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.
> 
> We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.''
> 
> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
> 
> '' The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.''
> 
> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
> 
> '' Advertising is "propaganda?''
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ''We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.''
> 
> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.  True of most governments today.
> 
> We've been a democracy since 1930 with the universal suffrage Ammendment. I don't see going back on that.
> 
> '' We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.''
> 
> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
> 
> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
> 
> I don't know the solution but the problem is clear.
Click to expand...


>> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars. 
Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country.  The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.

>>> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies. 

Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies.  My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders).  Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success.  Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...

>>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.  

Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.

>>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning. 

Not so much.  The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime. 

>>> Ads are propaganda...

There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda.  You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.

>>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education. 

We were more competitive before the federal government got involved.  Capitalism is the way.  Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If PMZ is a Republican, I am the Queen of Sheba.
> 
> Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth--a progressive tax system is.
> 
> Capitalism is not designed for the rich to support the poor--our current tax system is.
> 
> Our current tax system is not designed to enable and encourage the creation of wealth.  Capitalism does enable and encourages the creation of wealth.
> 
> Capitalism requires enough regulation to prevent the powerful from unethically preying on the weak, but otherwise can be left entirely alone to do its thing and more will prosper than under any other system humankind has ever devised.
> 
> A flat tax to fund the NECESSARY--and that is the money word: NECESSARY--functions of government is a fair and equitable way to pay the bills and is based on the foundational principle of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Queenie,  you're welcome to believe anything that you wish was true.
> 
> Smart people are,  however,  only swayed by evidence of which you have provided none.
> 
> ''Capitalism is not designed to redistribute wealth''
> 
> Just one example of ignorance.  Of course it is.  That's how it works and why pure socialism doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what you think redistribution of wealth is I suppose.  The business dictionary defines it as such:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Redistribution of wealth:*
> Central tenet of most modern economies whereby a nation's wealth is channeled, from those who have more to those below a certain income level, through taxes that pay for welfare benefits.
> 
> Read more: What is redistribution of wealth? definition and meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, redistribution of wealth is something government does whether that is via the tax code or via regulation or preferential treatment or any other manipulation that requires the richer to give up wealth on the theory that the poor will receive it.
> 
> That is the very antithesis of capitalism in which those who earn or merit the property reap the rewards which in turn encourages more economic activity and wealth creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism*
> Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services. Such a system is based on the premise of separating the state and business activities. Capitalists believe that markets are efficient and should thus function without interference, and the role of the state is to regulate and protect.
> Read more: What is Capitalism? definition and meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why would anyone believe that down is the only way that wealth can be moved,  and government is the only system that can move it?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Why would anyone believe that down is the only way that wealth can be moved,  and government is the only system that can move it?


Ask that PMZ jerk, he's the only one that has been making that claim.


----------



## zeke

What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?

After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.

And that number is????????????magic.

If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.

Never gonna happen.


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
> 
> After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
> 
> And that number is????????????magic.
> 
> If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
> 
> Never gonna happen.



Define ultra wealthy.  Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level?  Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.
> 
> The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.
> 
> >> Why can they purchase so much influence?
> 
> Because people like you can be bought with promises of redistribution checks.
> 
> >> multi billion dollar market for bottled water
> 
> What do you have against bottled water? Advertising is "propaganda?"  WTH?
> 
> >> Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
> 
> We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.
> 
> >>> We are being robbed of it.  It has to stop.
> 
> We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.''
> 
> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
> 
> '' The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.''
> 
> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
> 
> '' Advertising is "propaganda?''
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ''We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.''
> 
> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.  True of most governments today.
> 
> We've been a democracy since 1930 with the universal suffrage Ammendment. I don't see going back on that.
> 
> '' We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.''
> 
> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
> 
> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
> 
> I don't know the solution but the problem is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
> Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country.  The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.
> 
> >>> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
> 
> Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies.  My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders).  Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success.  Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...
> 
> >>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.
> 
> Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> >>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
> 
> Not so much.  The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime.
> 
> >>> Ads are propaganda...
> 
> There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda.  You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.
> 
> >>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
> 
> We were more competitive before the federal government got involved.  Capitalism is the way.  Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.
Click to expand...


>> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars. 
Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country.  The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide. 

Believe me.  If you get to the point where you are not expecting or consuming American government services,  you will have no American tax obligation.  The biggest evidence of disingenuousness on the part of national whiners is they want the benefits without the cost.  

>>> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies. 

Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies.  My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders).  Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success.  Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...

Give us some examples of unregulated monopolies in the US. 


>>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.  

Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.

Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  Thats the freest position possible because anything else is tyranny of a minority down to one person.  Like plutocracy is. 

>>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning. 

Not so much.  The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime. 

Thats  good thing.  We were mostly taught BS other than in language,  math and science. 


>>> Ads are propaganda...

There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda.  You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.

Advertising is by definition propaganda.  One side of the story.  Definitely not the truth,  the whole truth and noting but. 

>>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education. 

We were more competitive before the federal government got involved.  Capitalism is the way.  Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.[/QUOTE]

The Federal Government has been involved in business from day 1. Our competitors have elevated themselves to our level of performance oft by copying our success.  The biggest lead that we have now is our superior higher education system.  The biggest drag is our 2X the cost,  X/2 the effectiveness health care insurance and delivery.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone believe that down is the only way that wealth can be moved,  and government is the only system that can move it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask that PMZ jerk, he's the only one that has been making that claim.
Click to expand...


No,  Queenie made it.


----------



## PMZ

cpicturetaker said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> It's actually fairly simple--in theory and in practice.  The RICH (we'll DEFINE IT as a MILLION a year in INCOME--*NO MATTER *THE SOURCE) shouldn't EVER PAY LES PERCENTAGE than the BOTTOM EARNERS (yes, FICA will excluded from the argument and calculation).  And then the TOP EARNERS, different bracket than the 'RICH', we'll put that at about $250,00--SAME FORMULA.  S
> 
> EXAMPLE:  The year ROSS PEROT RAN, he paid 10% on $330,000,000 income.  I paid 17% that year on an income MY little calculator here doesn't have enough zeros for the percentage of my income compared to ROSS'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life has never been fair.  If it was we'd all have and pay the same.  Instead we do what works best.
Click to expand...


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''Redistribution at the point of a gun is not how capitalism should be reigned in so to speak.  Besides it won't work.''
> 
> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
> 
> '' The way to keep capitalists from taking over is by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, this is Govco's job.''
> 
> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
> 
> '' Advertising is "propaganda?''
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ''We are a republic that is sliding into a democracy, that's a big part of the problem.''
> 
> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.  True of most governments today.
> 
> We've been a democracy since 1930 with the universal suffrage Ammendment. I don't see going back on that.
> 
> '' We allowed the government to take over education.  This is one of the results of letting your government educate your kids.  Surprise, you get an education that promotes government solutions for every issue under the sun.''
> 
> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
> 
> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
> 
> I don't know the solution but the problem is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
> Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country.  The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.
> 
> >>> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
> 
> Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies.  My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders).  Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success.  Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...
> 
> >>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.
> 
> Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> >>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
> 
> Not so much.  The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime.
> 
> >>> Ads are propaganda...
> 
> There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda.  You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.
> 
> >>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
> 
> We were more competitive before the federal government got involved.  Capitalism is the way.  Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> No guns are required. We are all as free to relocate as to choose among new cars.
> Wrong: Jeff Duncan questions IRS gun usage - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
> Additionally, you can not avoid taxes by fleeing the country.  The IRS goon squad will come for you no matter where you try to hide.
> 
> Believe me.  If you get to the point where you are not expecting or consuming American government services,  you will have no American tax obligation.  The biggest evidence of disingenuousness on the part of national whiners is they want the benefits without the cost.
> 
> >>> I agree.  However wealthy people aren't monopolies or oligopolies.
> 
> Many wealth people run monopolies and many are members of oligopolies.  My favorite one to rail against is the CEO / Executive board room oligopoly across this country that sets Executive pay rates with no input from the owners of the companies (the stock holders).  Break up the monopolies and oligopolies and the result is opportunity for capitalism to spawn new business new money new success.  Don't break them up and you get people like Soros, Heinz, Gates, Koch, Buffet, ...
> 
> Give us some examples of unregulated monopolies in the US.
> 
> 
> >>> We've never had a monarch so have always been a Republic.
> 
> Electing the senate by majority has resulted in all three branches reporting to the majority rather than having the senate report to the state legislatures as a check on tyranny of the majority. Further the 14th and 16th amendments to the constitution rendered the tenth pretty much moot, thus rendering state power, over time, to tyranny of the majority as well. Having a Monarch, does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  Thats the freest position possible because anything else is tyranny of a minority down to one person.  Like plutocracy is.
> 
> >>> Public schools have been a governmental obligation from the beginning.
> 
> Not so much.  The role of the federal government wrt education is nothing like it used to be even in my lifetime.
> 
> Thats  good thing.  We were mostly taught BS other than in language,  math and science.
> 
> 
> >>> Ads are propaganda...
> 
> There are truth in advertising laws to designed to prohibit advertizing from being propaganda.  You'd need to point out an example, for me to understand where you are heading with this blanket statement.
> 
> Advertising is by definition propaganda.  One side of the story.  Definitely not the truth,  the whole truth and noting but.
> 
> >>> The only way that we stand a chance of being competitive around the world is good education for all.  We can't afford any wasted brains.  This site demonstrates the impact of unregulated information sources depriving adults of their education.
> 
> We were more competitive before the federal government got involved.  Capitalism is the way.  Socialism and socialists in particular are the reason it has been failing.
Click to expand...


The Federal Government has been involved in business from day 1. Our competitors have elevated themselves to our level of performance oft by copying our success.  The biggest lead that we have now is our superior higher education system.  The biggest drag is our 2X the cost,  X/2 the effectiveness health care insurance and delivery.[/QUOTE]

>>> The biggest evidence of disingenuousness on the part of national whiners is they want the benefits without the cost. 

You mean like the bottom 51% that get all the benefits for no cost?

>>> Give us some examples of unregulated monopolies in the US. 

Why did you ignore my oligopoly example? You want some more: Walmart, Microsoft Windows, Monsanto (seed), Luxottica (vision correction), inBev (beer), ... Dude pick an industry.  

>>> Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  Thats the freest position possible because anything else is tyranny of a minority down to one person.  Like plutocracy is. 

Tyranny of minority groups is not freedom for the minority groups.  You can't be free without being free to put your jack boot on the neck of minorities?  When you say stuff like this you just make yourself sound really stupid.  

>>>  We were mostly taught BS other than in language,  math and science. 

And that would seem to be your problem right there.  No idea who screwed you up but you should find them and slap them.

>>> Advertising is by definition propaganda.  One side of the story.  Definitely not the truth,  the whole truth and noting but. 

Only an idiot believes advertisements.  Oh.. nvm.

>>> The Federal Government has been involved in business from day 1. 

Lies.

>>> Our competitors have elevated themselves to our level of performance oft by copying our success.  

Ayup, and we helped them get there with tax payer dollars.

>>> The biggest lead that we have now is our superior higher education system.  

Ayup, which is failing because of the cost run ups due to the liberal view that everyone should get a college degree and the tax payer should back the loans no matter how much the schools run up the cost of the degree.

>>> The biggest drag is our 2X the cost,  X/2 the effectiveness health care insurance and delivery.

Our increased costs are due directly to liberal interference in capitalist markets. 

In every successful industry, liberals are on the attack running the price up by over regulating and forcing the industry to "give" stuff away to the 51%.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
> 
> After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
> 
> And that number is????????????magic.
> 
> If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
> 
> Never gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define ultra wealthy.  Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level?  Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
Click to expand...


There are certainly many wealthy criminals.  Thats why we have law enforcement.


----------



## PMZ

Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment.  They are the salt of the earth.  

I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth.  Wealth creating workers.  Responsible parents.  Concerned citizens. People who give back.  People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.  

The salt of America.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment.  They are the salt of the earth.
> 
> I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth.  Wealth creating workers.  Responsible parents.  Concerned citizens. People who give back.  People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
> 
> The salt of America.



You are nothing but a bigoted asshole.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment.  They are the salt of the earth.
> 
> I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth.  Wealth creating workers.  Responsible parents.  Concerned citizens. People who give back.  People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
> 
> The salt of America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are nothing but a bigoted asshole.
Click to expand...


I am bigoted.  I hate the enemies of our country.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
> 
> After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
> 
> And that number is????????????magic.
> 
> If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
> 
> Never gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define ultra wealthy.  Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level?  Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are certainly many wealthy criminals.  Thats why we have law enforcement.
Click to expand...


Yes, there are many wealthy criminals.  Most of them are holding an office of one kind or another.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment.  They are the salt of the earth.
> 
> I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth.  Wealth creating workers.  Responsible parents.  Concerned citizens. People who give back.  People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
> 
> The salt of America.



If they are the salt of the Earth, then why are you and all your lib brethren trying so hard to fuck them up the ass?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Life has never been fair.  If it was we'd all have and pay the same.  Instead we do what works best.



If life was fair, we wouldn't all have the same.  That's a liberal idiocy based on the notion that all people produce the same amount of value.  Most libturds produce little of any value.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

PMZ said:


> Mr Brown wants to make the point that wealthy people deserve special treatment.  They are the salt of the earth.
> 
> I'd like to make the point that the middle class is the salt of the earth.  Wealth creating workers.  Responsible parents.  Concerned citizens. People who give back.  People who don't have to show off but assume that they are here to work and give and try their best to move their causes forward.
> 
> The salt of America.



"The middle class has been buried these past 4 years" -- Joe Biden October 2012


----------



## Mac1958

.

Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny.  Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper *equilibrium.* 

On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create.  Roads, bridges, police, yawn.  I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument.  So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it.  So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.

On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so.  Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their *own* lives.

Do I really need to point this out?  Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.

So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider:  The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.

I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent.  I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.

The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to *0%. * There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately, or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week.  To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to *handle* the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' *love* to find out.

Guess what that would do?  It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs.  That would, by itself, create a *fucking flood* of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.

And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old. 

Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates.  And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.  

And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be *marginal only *and we would *keep all personal deductions* for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc.  Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that.  So maybe something like this (new rates in *bold*):


10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
*[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus*
*[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000*
Something like that.  Maybe a touch higher on the top end.  Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.

I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.

.


----------



## zeke

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
> 
> After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
> 
> And that number is????????????magic.
> 
> If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
> 
> Never gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define ultra wealthy.  Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level?  Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
Click to expand...



What would my definition of ultra wealth be? Was that the question for the purpose of this mental masturbation?

If you make 2.5 million a year or more, that would meet the definition of ultra wealthy for this purpose.

Also, I forgot to mention that ALL income would be taxed the same for the ultra wealthy. Call it capital gains, retained earnings, what ever other trick has been thought up, it's all earned income and subject to my tax rate for the ultra wealthy.

The 10% cut in spending would be across the board.

The elimination of the EIC is worth billions.

To make it hurt for the middle class, do away with the home interest deduction. 120 billion a year.

Increase earnings to 350,000 for FICA.

Increase the retirement age to 68.


This country has the means to bring our debt under control.
We just don't have the will. 

Much easier to give lip service as to how terrible the debt is rather than actually do anything about it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Increase FICA to 350? Rofl. 
You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?


----------



## zeke

RKMBrown said:


> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?



It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.

But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.


----------



## zeke

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny.  Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper *equilibrium.*
> 
> On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create.  Roads, bridges, police, yawn.  I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument.  So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it.  So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.
> 
> On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so.  Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their *own* lives.
> 
> Do I really need to point this out?  Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.
> 
> So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider:  The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.
> 
> I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent.  I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.
> 
> The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to *0%. * *There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately,* or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week.  To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to *handle* the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' *love* to find out.
> 
> Guess what that would do?  It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs.  That would, by itself, create a *fucking flood* of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.
> 
> And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old.
> 
> Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates.  And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.
> 
> And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be *marginal only *and we would *keep all personal deductions* for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc.  Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that.  So maybe something like this (new rates in *bold*):
> 
> 
> 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
> 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
> 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
> 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
> 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
> 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
> 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
> *[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus*
> *[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000*
> Something like that.  Maybe a touch higher on the top end.  Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.
> 
> I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.
> 
> .




But please do try. Why would a 0 corporate tax rate spur consumer demand? Are they gonna send the consumer a check to buy product with?  I mean explain WHY you think I would all of a sudden need to buy what ever product a company makes, just because the company won't pay any income tax.

Maybe you are talking about HUGE businesses like a GE or Cat. Aero space companies. 
You know, companies that primarily do business with governments. Cool that these companies could get huge rewards from tax paid contracts and not pay ANY income tax on said profits back to the Treasury. I can see why the companies would like that program. 

But it is utter bullshit and you know it.


----------



## Mac1958

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny.  Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper *equilibrium.*
> 
> On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create.  Roads, bridges, police, yawn.  I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument.  So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it.  So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.
> 
> On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so.  Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their *own* lives.
> 
> Do I really need to point this out?  Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.
> 
> So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider:  The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.
> 
> I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent.  I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.
> 
> The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to *0%. * *There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately,* or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week.  To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to *handle* the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' *love* to find out.
> 
> Guess what that would do?  It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs.  That would, by itself, create a *fucking flood* of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.
> 
> And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old.
> 
> Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates.  And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.
> 
> And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be *marginal only *and we would *keep all personal deductions* for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc.  Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that.  So maybe something like this (new rates in *bold*):
> 
> 
> 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
> 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
> 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
> 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
> 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
> 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
> 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
> *[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus*
> *[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000*
> Something like that.  Maybe a touch higher on the top end.  Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.
> 
> I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But please do try. Why would a 0 corporate tax rate spur consumer demand? Are they gonna send the consumer a check to buy product with?  I mean explain WHY you think I would all of a sudden need to buy what ever product a company makes, just because the company won't pay any income tax.
> 
> Maybe you are talking about HUGE businesses like a GE or Cat. Aero space companies.
> You know, companies that primarily do business with governments. Cool that these companies could get huge rewards from tax paid contracts and not pay ANY income tax on said profits back to the Treasury. I can see why the companies would like that program.
> 
> But it is utter bullshit and you know it.
Click to expand...



I think you're being truthful.  I think it's entirely possible that you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

As I predicted, neither end would like my opinion.

Always a good sign.

.


----------



## zeke

Mac1958 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Ho boy, this silly, simplistic, naive notion that a bunch of professional politicians and the federal bureaucracy can legislate "fairness", too funny.  Like anything else -- I know the partisans will hate this -- structuring a tax system is a matter of finding proper *equilibrium.*
> 
> On one side, yes, we all benefit by many (not all) of the things that taxes create.  Roads, bridges, police, yawn.  I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said that they were not willing to pay for roads, bridges and police, but I know that's somehow a real big argument.  So yes, we all benefit there, and we've all gotta pay for it.  So I'm thrilled we have that terribly complicated issue out of the way.
> 
> On the other side, you cannot simplistically and punitively tax those who create wealth through investment and business ownership to the point where you have damaged their financial motiviation to do so.  Nor can we provide services that motivate people at the bottom end to improve their *own* lives.
> 
> Do I really need to point this out?  Actually, I'm pretty sure I do, which is pretty goddamn freakin' amazing to me.
> 
> So then, we are left with three essential moving parts to consider:  The amount of "support" we are providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, the tax code and the marginal tax rates within that code.
> 
> I won't even bother addressing the support we're providing the lower ends of the economic spectrum, because it's clear we're becoming more and more dependent on that on a cellular, cultural level; nor would I bother thinking about simplying our hilarious tax code, because our "leaders" clearly don't have the balls to take that on to any extent.  I'll let someone else sort all that shit out, I've given up.
> 
> The first thing I would do is drop the corporate tax rate to *0%. * *There is no freakin' way to describe the amount of domestic economic activity on multiple levels that would spur immediately,* or the amount of capital that would be immediately re-patriated by our own corporations, not to mention the literal fucking FLOOD of international capital that come our way sometime, oh, next week.  To be perfectly honest, I don't even know if our economic infrastructure would be able to *handle* the increase in positive economic activity, but I'd freakin' *love* to find out.
> 
> Guess what that would do?  It would increase both the incomes of those all over our economic strata and create a few zillion new jobs.  That would, by itself, create a *fucking flood* of new tax revenue with which our "leaders" can purchase votes.
> 
> And that leaves us with our wonderfully comedic marginal tax rates, which are just a little old.
> 
> Since there's not a fucking thing I can do about our tax system, all we could do then is fiddle with the numbers on the marginal tax rates.  And, because incomes at the top end have now risen to stratospheric levels, I would add two (2) new marginal levels.
> 
> And remember, before any conservative heads explode here, these rates would be *marginal only *and we would *keep all personal deductions* for investing, capital gains, estate tax, etc.  Plenty of ways, zillions of ways, to work with that.  So maybe something like this (new rates in *bold*):
> 
> 
> 10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
> 15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
> 25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
> 28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
> 33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
> 35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
> 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 to $750,000, plus
> *[*]44.9% on taxable income over $750,000 to $1,000,000, plus*
> *[*]49.9% on taxable income over $1,000,000*
> Something like that.  Maybe a touch higher on the top end.  Then we look at ways to deal with spending, but I've wasted enough bandwidth.
> 
> I suspect both "ends" will hate this, which is always a good sign.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But please do try. Why would a 0 corporate tax rate spur consumer demand? Are they gonna send the consumer a check to buy product with?  I mean explain WHY you think I would all of a sudden need to buy what ever product a company makes, just because the company won't pay any income tax.
> 
> Maybe you are talking about HUGE businesses like a GE or Cat. Aero space companies.
> You know, companies that primarily do business with governments. Cool that these companies could get huge rewards from tax paid contracts and not pay ANY income tax on said profits back to the Treasury. I can see why the companies would like that program.
> 
> But it is utter bullshit and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, neither end would like my opinion.
> 
> Always a good sign.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And my prediction is also true. You can't "explain" why your 0 corporate tax policy would work. To bad, I was hoping.

But every business leader I here talk about their business, not a ONE says taxes are their problem. You know what they say they lack Mac? DEMAND. How you gonna increase DEMAND for a companies product?


----------



## Mac1958

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> But please do try. Why would a 0 corporate tax rate spur consumer demand? Are they gonna send the consumer a check to buy product with?  I mean explain WHY you think I would all of a sudden need to buy what ever product a company makes, just because the company won't pay any income tax.
> 
> Maybe you are talking about HUGE businesses like a GE or Cat. Aero space companies.
> You know, companies that primarily do business with governments. Cool that these companies could get huge rewards from tax paid contracts and not pay ANY income tax on said profits back to the Treasury. I can see why the companies would like that program.
> 
> But it is utter bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, neither end would like my opinion.
> 
> Always a good sign.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my prediction is also true. You can't "explain" why your 0 corporate tax policy would work. To bad, I was hoping.
> 
> But every business leader I here talk about their business, not a ONE says taxes are their problem. You know what they say they lack Mac? DEMAND. How you gonna increase DEMAND for a companies product?
Click to expand...



I disagree with your Keynesian premise.

Also, (a) I do this stuff for a living, and (b) I'm not a partisan ideologue, so why in the world would I burn even more time and effort trying to explain what I've already written to someone like you?

Calm down.  My opinion is a pipe dream anyway, I recognize that.  You're going to get what you want.  Be a gracious winner.

.


----------



## zeke

Mac1958 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I predicted, neither end would like my opinion.
> 
> Always a good sign.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my prediction is also true. You can't "explain" why your 0 corporate tax policy would work. To bad, I was hoping.
> 
> But every business leader I here talk about their business, not a ONE says taxes are their problem. You know what they say they lack Mac? DEMAND. How you gonna increase DEMAND for a companies product?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your Keynesian premise.
> 
> Also, (a) I do this stuff for a living, and (b) I'm not a partisan ideologue, so why in the world would I burn even more time and effort trying to explain what I've already written to someone like you?
> 
> Calm down.  My opinion is a pipe dream anyway, I recognize that.  You're going to get what you want.  Be a gracious winner.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am calm Mac. Well maybe a caffeine buzz. But I don't understand you Mac. You put an idea forth the you seem to believe would work and then can't put forth the effort to explain WHY your idea would work. Isn't that a little hard to understand?

if it is such a good idea, defend it. If you do this shit for a living, defending this idea should be a piece of cake.

And I never said you were partisan. But when you do posts like this, it seems like just what a partisan does. Make a claim, then be unable to back it up with facts and examples.

And talk about pipe dreams. Did you read mine? Eliminate the EIC. Eliminate the mortgage interest write off. Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy to 45%. All income to be taxed the same. etc etc. My pipe dream was way better than yours.

Ah well Ima gonna go work on a rental.


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.
> 
> But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.
Click to expand...


So now SS is welfare?  Are you retarded?


----------



## zeke

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.
> 
> But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So now SS is welfare?*  Are you retarded?
Click to expand...


You "think" (I know you don't really) but you pretend to think. And now you think that FICA is what funds welfare?

You are not retarded. You are fuking stupid.


----------



## Mac1958

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> And my prediction is also true. You can't "explain" why your 0 corporate tax policy would work. To bad, I was hoping.
> 
> But every business leader I here talk about their business, not a ONE says taxes are their problem. You know what they say they lack Mac? DEMAND. How you gonna increase DEMAND for a companies product?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your Keynesian premise.
> 
> Also, (a) I do this stuff for a living, and (b) I'm not a partisan ideologue, so why in the world would I burn even more time and effort trying to explain what I've already written to someone like you?
> 
> Calm down.  My opinion is a pipe dream anyway, I recognize that.  You're going to get what you want.  Be a gracious winner.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am calm Mac. Well maybe a caffeine buzz. But I don't understand you Mac. You put an idea forth the you seem to believe would work and then can't put forth the effort to explain WHY your idea would work. Isn't that a little hard to understand?
> 
> if it is such a good idea, defend it. If you do this shit for a living, defending this idea should be a piece of cake.
> 
> And I never said you were partisan. But when you do posts like this, it seems like just what a partisan does. Make a claim, then be unable to back it up with facts and examples.
> 
> And talk about pipe dreams. Did you read mine? Eliminate the EIC. Eliminate the mortgage interest write off. Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy to 45%. All income to be taxed the same. etc etc. My pipe dream was way better than yours.
> 
> Ah well Ima gonna go work on a rental.
Click to expand...



I'll be happy to describe why I won't bother trying to explain my point to you.  It's also the same reason I don't bother getting too far in the weeds with *any* partisan ideologue, left or right, on *any* topic any more.

In my original post, I opined that a 0% domestic corporate tax rate would (a) spur domestic economic activity, (b) incentivize the re-patriation of American corporate money and (c) incentivize international capital at astounding rates.

Now, from your Keynesian point of view, you may have thought to yourself, "well yes, the extra cash flow would probably create more immediate business investment which would increase demand for products & services across the board at the corporate level leading to immediate job growth to keep up with the subsequent demand, and yes, the re-patriation of a couple trillion American corporate dollars would probably multiply that, and yes, international money would see what we're doing and jump all over it with both freakin' feet.  *But, in my estimation, that just wouldn't be enough* and it's just better to stimulate our economy through the government with borrowed dollars".  Something like that.  Whatever.

But no, instead of recognizing any positive effects *whatsoever* of a 0% corporate tax rate, your response was that my thoughts were "utter bullshit and you know it".

Now why in the world would I continue that conversation?

As I said:  You're going to get your way.  Be a gracious winner.

.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?



It's called plunder.  The libs claim retirees are entitled to SS benefits because they paid into the Ponzi scheme.  That won't be true any longer when benefits no longer have any connection with contributions.  It will just be another welfare program.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so hard about the "fair share" idea?
> 
> After cutting total Federal government expenses by 10%, it is the amount of tax dollars needed from the ultra wealthy to increase income to the point that the Treasury has a surplus at the end of each year.
> 
> And that number is????????????magic.
> 
> If I told ya I'd have to shoot me. Around 45% should do it. Combined with the cuts and the elimination of the EIC.
> 
> Never gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define ultra wealthy.  Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level?  Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that anyone wants to play name that tune with you?  The IRS defines everyone's share of what it costs to live here,  and nobody is becoming poor in order to save on taxes. People who are addicted to wealth apparently still have what it takes to show off their ability to gather it up.  

All of this noise is merely the never ending whining of those who want life to be easier.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define ultra wealthy.  Is that 90k, 150k, 250, a cool million? If our government wanted to take half of everyone's salary over a certain income level, why would anyone report income over that level?  Anyone with half a brain would come up with ways to get compensation by other means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are certainly many wealthy criminals.  Thats why we have law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there are many wealthy criminals.  Most of them are holding an office of one kind or another.
Click to expand...


Yes.  CEO,  CFO,  BOD member,  investment counselor,  etc.


----------



## boedicca

zeke said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.
> 
> But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.
Click to expand...



Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.

The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?

What a thug.


----------



## zeke

Mac1958 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with your Keynesian premise.
> 
> Also, (a) I do this stuff for a living, and (b) I'm not a partisan ideologue, so why in the world would I burn even more time and effort trying to explain what I've already written to someone like you?
> 
> Calm down.  My opinion is a pipe dream anyway, I recognize that.  You're going to get what you want.  Be a gracious winner.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am calm Mac. Well maybe a caffeine buzz. But I don't understand you Mac. You put an idea forth the you seem to believe would work and then can't put forth the effort to explain WHY your idea would work. Isn't that a little hard to understand?
> 
> if it is such a good idea, defend it. If you do this shit for a living, defending this idea should be a piece of cake.
> 
> And I never said you were partisan. But when you do posts like this, it seems like just what a partisan does. Make a claim, then be unable to back it up with facts and examples.
> 
> And talk about pipe dreams. Did you read mine? Eliminate the EIC. Eliminate the mortgage interest write off. Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy to 45%. All income to be taxed the same. etc etc. My pipe dream was way better than yours.
> 
> Ah well Ima gonna go work on a rental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to describe why I won't bother trying to explain my point to you.  It's also the same reason I don't bother getting too far in the weeds with *any* partisan ideologue, left or right, on *any* topic any more.
> 
> In my original post, I opined that a 0% domestic corporate tax rate would (a) spur domestic economic activity, (b) incentivize the re-patriation of American corporate money and (c) incentivize international capital at astounding rates.
> 
> Now, from your Keynesian point of view, you may have thought to yourself, "well yes, the extra cash flow would probably create more immediate business investment which would increase demand for products & services across the board at the corporate level leading to immediate job growth to keep up with the subsequent demand, and yes, the re-patriation of a couple trillion American corporate dollars would probably multiply that, and yes, international money would see what we're doing and jump all over it with both freakin' feet.  *But, in my estimation, that just wouldn't be enough* and it's just better to stimulate our economy through the government with borrowed dollars".  Something like that.  Whatever.
> 
> But no, instead of recognizing any positive effects *whatsoever* of a 0% corporate tax rate, your response was that my thoughts were "utter bullshit and you know it".
> 
> Now why in the world would I continue that conversation?
> 
> As I said:  You're going to get your way.  Be a gracious winner.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Because I think reducing tax revenue to the Federal government,  via a 0% corporate tax rate,is a bad thing to do when you are worried about the amount of debt the country has, makes me a partisan?


Hell I thought that made me a Republican. Aren't you Republicans worried about the debt?
I am.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are certainly many wealthy criminals.  Thats why we have law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are many wealthy criminals.  Most of them are holding an office of one kind or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  CEO,  CFO,  BOD member,  investment counselor,  etc.
Click to expand...


No, the titles are Congressman, Senator, President, Mayor and Governor.


----------



## bripat9643

boedicca said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.
> 
> But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.
> 
> The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?
> 
> What a thug.
Click to expand...


The Founding Fathers rebelled against a government that was taking only 5% of their income in taxes.  Now these libs are eager to have government take more than 50%.  Taxation without representation is apparently preferable to taxation with representation.


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase FICA to 350? Rofl.
> You gonna pay them three times more in ss or are you just stealing their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.
> 
> But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.
> 
> The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?
> 
> What a thug.
Click to expand...


Where one choses to live is,  in today's world,  mostly a free choice.  Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives,  and we chose this one. 

It's no less free a market than most,  and we chose America.  

Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am calm Mac. Well maybe a caffeine buzz. But I don't understand you Mac. You put an idea forth the you seem to believe would work and then can't put forth the effort to explain WHY your idea would work. Isn't that a little hard to understand?
> 
> if it is such a good idea, defend it. If you do this shit for a living, defending this idea should be a piece of cake.
> 
> And I never said you were partisan. But when you do posts like this, it seems like just what a partisan does. Make a claim, then be unable to back it up with facts and examples.
> 
> And talk about pipe dreams. Did you read mine? Eliminate the EIC. Eliminate the mortgage interest write off. Raise taxes on the ultra wealthy to 45%. All income to be taxed the same. etc etc. My pipe dream was way better than yours.
> 
> Ah well Ima gonna go work on a rental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to describe why I won't bother trying to explain my point to you.  It's also the same reason I don't bother getting too far in the weeds with *any* partisan ideologue, left or right, on *any* topic any more.
> 
> In my original post, I opined that a 0% domestic corporate tax rate would (a) spur domestic economic activity, (b) incentivize the re-patriation of American corporate money and (c) incentivize international capital at astounding rates.
> 
> Now, from your Keynesian point of view, you may have thought to yourself, "well yes, the extra cash flow would probably create more immediate business investment which would increase demand for products & services across the board at the corporate level leading to immediate job growth to keep up with the subsequent demand, and yes, the re-patriation of a couple trillion American corporate dollars would probably multiply that, and yes, international money would see what we're doing and jump all over it with both freakin' feet.  *But, in my estimation, that just wouldn't be enough* and it's just better to stimulate our economy through the government with borrowed dollars".  Something like that.  Whatever.
> 
> But no, instead of recognizing any positive effects *whatsoever* of a 0% corporate tax rate, your response was that my thoughts were "utter bullshit and you know it".
> 
> Now why in the world would I continue that conversation?
> 
> As I said:  You're going to get your way.  Be a gracious winner.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I think reducing tax revenue to the Federal government,  via a 0% corporate tax rate,is a bad thing to do when you are worried about the amount of debt the country has, makes me a partisan?
> 
> 
> Hell I thought that made me a Republican. Aren't you Republicans worried about the debt?
> I am.
Click to expand...


We should all be worried about the debt in the face of some monstrous expenses that we have coming up in the fields of energy and extreme weather recovery and sea level rise mitigation. 

There is only one solution and that is growing the economy,  a difficult achievement made more so by Congressional Republicans dedicated to party over country.  

Let's make things easier and replace them.


----------



## zeke

PMZ said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to describe why I won't bother trying to explain my point to you.  It's also the same reason I don't bother getting too far in the weeds with *any* partisan ideologue, left or right, on *any* topic any more.
> 
> In my original post, I opined that a 0% domestic corporate tax rate would (a) spur domestic economic activity, (b) incentivize the re-patriation of American corporate money and (c) incentivize international capital at astounding rates.
> 
> Now, from your Keynesian point of view, you may have thought to yourself, "well yes, the extra cash flow would probably create more immediate business investment which would increase demand for products & services across the board at the corporate level leading to immediate job growth to keep up with the subsequent demand, and yes, the re-patriation of a couple trillion American corporate dollars would probably multiply that, and yes, international money would see what we're doing and jump all over it with both freakin' feet.  *But, in my estimation, that just wouldn't be enough* and it's just better to stimulate our economy through the government with borrowed dollars".  Something like that.  Whatever.
> 
> But no, instead of recognizing any positive effects *whatsoever* of a 0% corporate tax rate, your response was that my thoughts were "utter bullshit and you know it".
> 
> Now why in the world would I continue that conversation?
> 
> As I said:  You're going to get your way.  Be a gracious winner.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I think reducing tax revenue to the Federal government,  via a 0% corporate tax rate,is a bad thing to do when you are worried about the amount of debt the country has, makes me a partisan?
> 
> 
> Hell I thought that made me a Republican. Aren't you Republicans worried about the debt?
> I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We should all be worried about the debt in the face of some monstrous expenses that we have coming up in the fields of energy and extreme weather recovery and sea level rise mitigation.
> 
> There is only one solution and that is growing the economy,  a difficult achievement made more so by Congressional Republicans dedicated to party over country.
> 
> *Let's make things easier and replace them.*
Click to expand...



Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about  doing these things and be elected.

Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are many wealthy criminals.  Most of them are holding an office of one kind or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  CEO,  CFO,  BOD member,  investment counselor,  etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the titles are Congressman, Senator, President, Mayor and Governor.
Click to expand...


Explain to us the dynamics that,  in your mind,  led to only honest people in business,  and only dishonest people in government.  

And more importantly,  how you were led to believe that is true.


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I think reducing tax revenue to the Federal government,  via a 0% corporate tax rate,is a bad thing to do when you are worried about the amount of debt the country has, makes me a partisan?
> 
> 
> Hell I thought that made me a Republican. Aren't you Republicans worried about the debt?
> I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should all be worried about the debt in the face of some monstrous expenses that we have coming up in the fields of energy and extreme weather recovery and sea level rise mitigation.
> 
> There is only one solution and that is growing the economy,  a difficult achievement made more so by Congressional Republicans dedicated to party over country.
> 
> *Let's make things easier and replace them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about  doing these things and be elected.
> 
> Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.
Click to expand...


I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people.  If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist,  it's time to listen and figure out why.  

Thats the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "means testing". Read up on it. Not to hard to understand. Well, maybe for you it would be. But do try.
> 
> But if that's the only criticism you have..........must not be to bad of an idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.
> 
> The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?
> 
> What a thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where one choses to live is,  in today's world,  mostly a free choice.  Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives,  and we chose this one.
> 
> It's no less free a market than most,  and we chose America.
> 
> Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?
Click to expand...


I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"

That's leftists for you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.
> 
> The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?
> 
> What a thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where one choses to live is,  in today's world,  mostly a free choice.  Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives,  and we chose this one.
> 
> It's no less free a market than most,  and we chose America.
> 
> Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"
> 
> That's leftists for you.
Click to expand...


On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil".  And one of the lines was:

"If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."

Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself.  And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Foxfyre said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where one choses to live is,  in today's world,  mostly a free choice.  Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives,  and we chose this one.
> 
> It's no less free a market than most,  and we chose America.
> 
> Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"
> 
> That's leftists for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil".  And one of the lines was:
> 
> "If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."
> 
> Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself.  And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.
Click to expand...


My dear, in order to have an ethical problem with something, one must first have ethics.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs paid 30% of their production in taxes.
> 
> The upper middle class currently pay more than 50% when all taxes are added, and you want them to pay more?
> 
> What a thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where one choses to live is,  in today's world,  mostly a free choice.  Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives,  and we chose this one.
> 
> It's no less free a market than most,  and we chose America.
> 
> Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"
> 
> That's leftists for you.
Click to expand...


I see that you have nothing to refute my position.  

You suffer from the inability to accept accountability for your actions and decisions.  That never leads to anything good or even useful.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where one choses to live is,  in today's world,  mostly a free choice.  Those of us who chose to live in the US have access to tons of global information on the cost and benefits of other alternatives,  and we chose this one.
> 
> It's no less free a market than most,  and we chose America.
> 
> Why do people whine so much about what's completely under their control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"
> 
> That's leftists for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil".  And one of the lines was:
> 
> "If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."
> 
> Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself.  And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.
Click to expand...


You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more,  and those with less deserve less. 

Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional? 

It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"
> 
> That's leftists for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil".  And one of the lines was:
> 
> "If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."
> 
> Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself.  And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dear, in order to have an ethical problem with something, one must first have ethics.
Click to expand...


Not a long line of people wanting to learn ethics from Marie Antoinette.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it.  "If you don't like me sitting on my dead ass, taking half of everything you earn, then leave!  You chose to be here, so you chose to support worthless leeches like me!  Now shut up and get back to work!"
> 
> That's leftists for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil".  And one of the lines was:
> 
> "If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."
> 
> Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself.  And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more,  and those with less deserve less.
> 
> Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?
> 
> It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.

And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.

To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.

To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> On my "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" thread this morning, I posted Paul Harvey's famous mini essay on "If I were the Devil".  And one of the lines was:
> 
> "If I were the Devil I'd take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work."
> 
> Unfortunately 'fair share' to too many of the Left means a share of what others have in lieu of taking any responsibility oneself.  And they seem to have no ethical problem with that whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more,  and those with less deserve less.
> 
> Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?
> 
> It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.
> 
> And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.
> 
> To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.
> 
> To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.
Click to expand...


Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Paul assume that those with more deserve more,  and those with less deserve less.
> 
> Why would anyone assume that would lead to anyplace good or even functional?
> 
> It was the cause of the American and French Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.
> 
> And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.
> 
> To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.
> 
> To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?
Click to expand...


Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem.  I made no such assumption.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.
> 
> And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less.
> 
> To the conservative, those who deserve are those who merit.
> 
> To the leftists, merit is an evil word, and the haves should be slaves to the have nots based purely on the fact that the have nots have less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem.  I made no such assumption.
Click to expand...


Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance. 

Be that as it may though. 

'' Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''

'' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''. 

Who disagrees with this?  

Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.


----------



## PMZ

I wonder where conservatives get their belief that hard work isn't table stakes for life and that they're underpaid for doing what workers do.  Work.  It's hard to understand where all of the whining comes from. If they wanted to be hard responsible workers they can just do it.  

It seems like the basis for their whining must be that they want an easier life more like their make believe scapegoat enemy,  the poor. 

The poor?  Who wants to be one of those? And if someone does,  it's not hard to do.  

Well, but,  it turns out to be very hard to do.  Long hours of low paid hard work with nothing to show for it. 

All in all people in America live better,  but are whiner than, anyone else in history.  

If that's the nature of humanity,  God help us.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you assume that people who have wealth merit more than those who produce wealth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem.  I made no such assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Be that as it may though.
> 
> '' Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''
> 
> '' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.
> 
> Who disagrees with this?
> 
> Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.
Click to expand...


Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally?  And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.

All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more.   The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it.   The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.

Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here have suggested that most of the poor should do more to improve their own situations or that most of the rich have earned and therefore deserve what they have?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most liberals, you seem to have a reading dysfunction problem.  I made no such assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Be that as it may though.
> 
> '' Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''
> 
> '' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.
> 
> Who disagrees with this?
> 
> Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally?  And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.
> 
> All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more.   The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it.   The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.
> 
> Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here in which you or they have denied that or have said anything different about it?
Click to expand...


You keep switching subjects.  Let's pick one and stick to it. 

Pay for work done. 

The relative merits of wealth,  poverty and comfortable living. 

US tax policy. 

US wealth distribution.  

US work ethic. 

US compared to other current countries as alternative places to reside. 

Any other suggestions?


----------



## PMZ

How about the fundamentals of liberal and conservative cultures.


----------



## PMZ

The Rise and fall of the GOP?


----------



## PMZ

Why whining will never replace problem solving?


----------



## PMZ

How the rich become rich and the poor remain poor?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most conservatives you seem to have a big mouth problem fed by voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Be that as it may though.
> 
> '' Yes.  Those who prepare themselves to earn and who ethically earn their money, deserve what they get and have earned/deserve the opportunity to earn more.''
> 
> '' And those who refuse to prepare themselves to work or refuse to work, or when they do work, do as little as they can possibly do without getting fired, deserve less''.
> 
> Who disagrees with this?
> 
> Give me a quote from something posted here that is contrary to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally?  And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.
> 
> All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more.   The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it.   The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.
> 
> Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here in which you or they have denied that or have said anything different about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep switching subjects.  Let's pick one and stick to it.
> 
> Pay for work done.
> 
> The relative merits of wealth,  poverty and comfortable living.
> 
> US tax policy.
> 
> US wealth distribution.
> 
> US work ethic.
> 
> US compared to other current countries as alternative places to reside.
> 
> Any other suggestions?
Click to expand...


You are the one who seems to have difficulty focusing here.

I am focused on the concept that taking from the rich does not help the poor, in fact hurts the poor.

The liberal mantra, however, is that the rich do not deserve what they have and the poor deserve more of what the rich has simply because they do not have it.

The liberals leave all concepts of merit, earning what you get, and personal responsibility out of it.  It comes down to an emotional concept--the rich have money and the poor don't, therefore the rich should give up some of their money so the poor can have more.  The problem with that is, generosity, compassion, ethical values are all based on the liberal giving somebody else's money for the cause.  It is never seen as their personal responsibility.

Which is no doubt why Nancy Pelosi, as government workers across the board were taking a cut in hours and pay due to the sequester, said:



> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs.
> 
> "I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."
> 
> The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel.
> 
> Read more: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
> Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook



P.S.  Pelosi et al saw to it that members of Congress and their staffs took no financial hit whatsoever.

But the (other rich) - not millionaire members of Congress - should give more so the poor will have more.

The strench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.


----------



## zeke

PMZ said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should all be worried about the debt in the face of some monstrous expenses that we have coming up in the fields of energy and extreme weather recovery and sea level rise mitigation.
> 
> There is only one solution and that is growing the economy,  a difficult achievement made more so by Congressional Republicans dedicated to party over country.
> 
> *Let's make things easier and replace them.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about  doing these things and be elected.
> 
> Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people.  If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist,  it's time to listen and figure out why. *
> 
> Thats the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.
Click to expand...


I was talking about an austerity program combined with income increases as a means to balance our yearly budget and pay something on our debt.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about?


----------



## Foxfyre

zeke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about  doing these things and be elected.
> 
> Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people.  If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist,  it's time to listen and figure out why. *
> 
> That&#8217;s the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about an austerity program combined with income increases as a means to balance our yearly budget and pay something on our debt.
> 
> I wasn't sure what you were talking about?
Click to expand...


You have to excuse PMZ.  He either a)  has a reading comprehension dysfunction problem or b) has a real problem with focus or c) is trained in the Alinsky model in how to obfusicate, confuse, and otherwise derail any discussion of a topic the current radical liberals in power do not wish to have discussed.

A lot of people on this thread did appreciate a topic on the concept of taxes and what a fair share of taxes actually looks like, however, and I keep peeking back in to see if anybody is actually still discussing that.


----------



## billyerock1991

as much as it takes


----------



## Foxfyre

billyerock1991 said:


> as much as it takes



As much as it take for what?

For Congress to appropriate what is essential for Congress to do?

For Congress to appropriate what the left deems important for Congress to do?

For Congress to appropriate whatever it wants to do?

These are three different things.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I when you cannot give me a quotation of something you accused me of personally?  And you ducked the issue when I called you on it.
> 
> All you have to do, however, is look at the liberal mentality that it is good that the government take from the rich so that the poor can have more.   The argument is never that the poor worked for the money that the rich have and therefore deserve it.   The argument is never that the poor have responsibility for their own situation.
> 
> Can you show me a quotation from your own words or any liberal here in which you or they have denied that or have said anything different about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep switching subjects.  Let's pick one and stick to it.
> 
> Pay for work done.
> 
> The relative merits of wealth,  poverty and comfortable living.
> 
> US tax policy.
> 
> US wealth distribution.
> 
> US work ethic.
> 
> US compared to other current countries as alternative places to reside.
> 
> Any other suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who seems to have difficulty focusing here.
> 
> I am focused on the concept that taking from the rich does not help the poor, in fact hurts the poor.
> 
> The liberal mantra, however, is that the rich do not deserve what they have and the poor deserve more of what the rich has simply because they do not have it.
> 
> The liberals leave all concepts of merit, earning what you get, and personal responsibility out of it.  It comes down to an emotional concept--the rich have money and the poor don't, therefore the rich should give up some of their money so the poor can have more.  The problem with that is, generosity, compassion, ethical values are all based on the liberal giving somebody else's money for the cause.  It is never seen as their personal responsibility.
> 
> Which is no doubt why Nancy Pelosi, as government workers across the board were taking a cut in hours and pay due to the sequester, said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs.
> 
> "I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."
> 
> The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel.
> 
> Read more: Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com
> Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S.  Pelosi et al saw to it that members of Congress and their staffs took no financial hit whatsoever.
> 
> But the (other rich) - not millionaire members of Congress - should give more so the poor will have more.
> 
> The strench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Click to expand...


You need to use more accurate words.  They all have meaning you know.  

You've picked the topic of US tax policy. 

The condition of the country is something that we all benefit from,  not equally though.  It costs what it costs just as any home or business does.  Whiney people complain about paying for benefits that are accrued to others more than themselves but nobody has ever figured out how to price things more precisely without creating huge buerocracy. Just like every business,  pricing is simplified.  

In the end, where we each decide to live is a complex financial decision.  If our pricing got too far away from value received,  the indicator would be people moving to other places. It's not happening in any real numbers so we must be competitively priced at all levels of income. 

There has never been a society with a Gini coefficient of 1.00, perfectly level wealth distribution. Mostly because there are always those who consider themselves worth more than average,  and want that to be demonstrable. So they do whatever they have to in order to achieve that. 

Capitalism tends to use that motivational fact to the purpose of promoting the growth of means of production with the assumption that aggressive owners of means will create market and therefore economic growth.  

Those means are useless without workers to create the wealth that allows the owners of the means to get a return on their investment if they are aggressive and able to manage a market for the tangible wealth that the workers create. 

Tax policy is the system to collect adequate revenue to fund a competitive country.  

IMO the use of the abstract undefinable concept of fair is of no use in defining tax pick.  Workable is more useful.  

It also has to take into account the wealth distribution that the economic system produces.  

In the US,  today, we believe in abundant capitalism which uses extreme wealth distribution to motivate what we hope will be extreme economic growth. 

In the past however the better economic growth achieved then was driven by much more moderate levels of wealth distribution. 

A logical conclusion from the evidence would be that there is a degree of wealth distribution that is optimum gorgeous growth,  and we have surpassed it. 

So,  we have so much money needed to maintain a country that is a competitive place to live at all levels of wealth.  We have a wealth distribution that appears too extreme to achieve maximum growth.  We have loads of debt to pay off and substantial one time energy related costs facing us.  We have shipped millions of well paying careers overseas and moved the labor expenses saved to highly compensated executives and shareholders. 

What tax policy would you recommend?


----------



## Foxfyre

The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society.  The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it.  Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.

The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.

I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Replace them with WHO? No politician that does what I think needs to be done (end EIC, end mortgage interest deduction, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, across the board spending cuts of 10% etc.) could talk about  doing these things and be elected.
> 
> Hell, this fictional politician would probably be shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've found that things that work, are easily sold to reasonable people.  If I have taken a position that most reasonable people resist,  it's time to listen and figure out why. *
> 
> Thats the basis for democracy and I've never uncovered a more effective way to govern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about an austerity program combined with income increases as a means to balance our yearly budget and pay something on our debt.
> 
> I wasn't sure what you were talking about?
Click to expand...


Austerity makes the country a less desirable place to live.  In many ways,  like education,  it limits our future success,  ultimately costing us revenue. 

So like in business,  nobody shrinks to success.  They grow to success.  

Business grows by offering ever better products to increasingly satisfied customers.  It does that in the most effective way by eliminating product waste by investing in process quality improvement which is basically variability reduction. 

Why would anyone expect that the means of national success would be fundamentally different than business success?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society.  The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it.  Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.
> 
> The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.
> 
> I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.



You, I assume,  didn't know personally any of the founders.  So,  what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.  

What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified.  Our Constitution.  

In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained.  The Federal Court System. 

Thats what we follow.  Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.  

If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society.  The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it.  Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.
> 
> The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.
> 
> I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, I assume,  didn't know personally any of the founders.  So,  what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.
> 
> What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified.  Our Constitution.
> 
> In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained.  The Federal Court System.
> 
> That&#8217;s what we follow.  Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.
> 
> If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the Founders left us an enormous amount of literature such as their transcribed speeches, their written arguments, their letters, notes, and other documents all safely preserved in the National Archives with sufficient copies preserved by historical groups to ensure they will never be lost to us.  These are the foundation and the underpinning of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they should be required reading for every American in any competent educational system.

If they were required reading, you wouldn't make foolish statements such as we have no idea what they thought or why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are structured as they are.

Had you read them you would know that the supremacy of the Constitution was not to be maintained by the court system that was to have no more power than Congress or the Executive Branch of government and was given no power whatsoever to make law.

And the Founders would have been horrified to think that an American, given every opportunity to education himself or herself, would think that the courts should be given power to dictate what a fair share of taxes would be.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society.  The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it.  Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.
> 
> The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.
> 
> I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, I assume,  didn't know personally any of the founders.  So,  what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.
> 
> What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified.  Our Constitution.
> 
> In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained.  The Federal Court System.
> 
> Thats what we follow.  Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.
> 
> If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Founders left us an enormous amount of literature such as their transcribed speeches, their written arguments, their letters, notes, and other documents all safely preserved in the National Archives with sufficient copies preserved by historical groups to ensure they will never be lost to us.  These are the foundation and the underpinning of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they should be required reading for every American in any competent educational system.
> 
> If they were required reading, you wouldn't make foolish statements such as we have no idea what they thought or why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are structured as they are.
> 
> Had you read them you would know that the supremacy of the Constitution was not to be maintained by the court system that was to have no more power than Congress or the Executive Branch of government and was given no power whatsoever to make law.
> 
> And the Founders would have been horrified to think that an American, given every opportunity to education himself or herself, would think that the courts should be given power to dictate what a fair share of taxes would be.
Click to expand...


None of that history has any application or relevance to our country.  It's simply the collection of what was debated vs what was decided.  You may find among those records what you agree with.  It's just as possible to find the opposite.  It might be fun to stage a recreation of the debate between the founders based on their individual positions but it would in no way change our Constitution.  It is what they negotiated and agreed to.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, I assume,  didn't know personally any of the founders.  So,  what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.
> 
> What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified.  Our Constitution.
> 
> In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained.  The Federal Court System.
> 
> That&#8217;s what we follow.  Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.
> 
> If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Founders left us an enormous amount of literature such as their transcribed speeches, their written arguments, their letters, notes, and other documents all safely preserved in the National Archives with sufficient copies preserved by historical groups to ensure they will never be lost to us.  These are the foundation and the underpinning of the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they should be required reading for every American in any competent educational system.
> 
> If they were required reading, you wouldn't make foolish statements such as we have no idea what they thought or why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are structured as they are.
> 
> Had you read them you would know that the supremacy of the Constitution was not to be maintained by the court system that was to have no more power than Congress or the Executive Branch of government and was given no power whatsoever to make law.
> 
> And the Founders would have been horrified to think that an American, given every opportunity to education himself or herself, would think that the courts should be given power to dictate what a fair share of taxes would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that history has any application or relevance to our country.  It's simply the collection of what was debated vs what was decided.  You may find among those records what you agree with.  It's just as possible to find the opposite.  It might be fun to stage a recreation of the debate between the founders based on their individual positions but it would in no way change our Constitution.  It is what they negotiated and agreed to.
Click to expand...


And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the sad evidence of why my thread on The Rise and Decline of the American Empire is so relevant, and the reason for why even a discussion on basic taxes to fund the government is so difficult to have on a message board populated by presumably mostly average American citizens.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society.  The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it.  Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.
> 
> The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.
> 
> I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, I assume,  didn't know personally any of the founders.  So,  what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.
> 
> What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified.  Our Constitution.
> 
> In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained.  The Federal Court System.
> 
> Thats what we follow.  Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.
> 
> If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?
Click to expand...


What a retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders never intended that tax dollars be for the purpose of creating a competitive society.  The Founders intended that tax dollars be collected only for the purpose of funding government necessary to allow the states to function as a single nation and to facilitate maximum liberty for the people who lived in it.  Liberty allows the PEOPLE to choose their own course whether that is for personal prosperity, altruism, or being competitive in the economic world.
> 
> The Founders did not intend for the government to do that for the people; in fact, were of the firm unanimous conviction that government cannot do that as well for the people as the people will do it for themselves.
> 
> I favor a tax system that provides the funds for the Constitutinal responsibilities of government and nothing else, and I favor a flat tax paid by all income earners as the fairest, least regressive, most practical means to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, I assume,  didn't know personally any of the founders.  So,  what they thought is no more clear or certain to you than anyone else.
> 
> What we all know for sure is what they wrote down and negotiated and ratified.  Our Constitution.
> 
> In that document they specified exactly how it's supremacy would be maintained.  The Federal Court System.
> 
> Thats what we follow.  Not your opinion as to what some of them were thinking.
> 
> If you don't like that why do you choose to live here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a retard.
Click to expand...


This is the refutation of what I said.  What does this amount to?  Not a thing. There is nothing that they have to say.  

What a retard.  What does that mean?


----------



## Contumacious

Foxfyre said:


> Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"
> 
> .



The concept "fair share" is socialistic .

The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept "fair share" is socialistic .
> 
> The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I agree.  All unconstitional taxes should be stopped.


----------



## Foxfyre

Contumacious said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept "fair share" is socialistic .
> 
> The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose.  I define fairness re the tax code to be that everybody has some skin in the game and pays the same tax that everybody else pays.  So if it is a sales tax, everybody pays it at the exact same rate that everybody else pays it with no exceptions for any special interests no mattter how worthy.  If it is an income tax, everybody pays the same flat percentage on all earned income with no exceptions for any special interests no matter how worthy.  Tax policy will not favor one group over another.  The purpose of taxation is to pay the NECESSARY bills of the government and is for no other purpose.

I am guessing no leftist/progressive/modern day liberal would agree to that however because it takes power away from the government and gives it back to the people and it takes class warfare completely out of the equation.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept "fair share" is socialistic .
> 
> The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose.  I define fairness re the tax code to be that everybody has some skin in the game and pays the same tax that everybody else pays.  So if it is a sales tax, everybody pays it at the exact same rate that everybody else pays it with no exceptions for any special interests no mattter how worthy.  If it is an income tax, everybody pays the same flat percentage on all earned income with no exceptions for any special interests no matter how worthy.  Tax policy will not favor one group over another.  The purpose of taxation is to pay the NECESSARY bills of the government and is for no other purpose.
> 
> I am guessing no leftist/progressive/modern day liberal would agree to that however because it takes power away from the government and gives it back to the people and it takes class warfare completely out of the equation.
Click to expand...


Conservatives define fairer as less of their skin in the game.


----------



## PMZ

All tyrannical government shoots for richer rich and poorer poor.  Thats how they get power.


----------



## Contumacious

Foxfyre said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals, how much is a "fair share?"
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept "fair share" is socialistic .
> 
> The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose.  .
Click to expand...


*There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax*

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Contumacious said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept "fair share" is socialistic .
> 
> The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And your point is?   Did you read the article you linked?

"Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues.  if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'. 

But the money clause in your linked article is this:



> Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:
> 
> Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.
> 
> Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.



My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government.  "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point is?   Did you read the article you linked?
> 
> "Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues.  if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.
> 
> But the money clause in your linked article is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:
> 
> Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.
> 
> Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government.  "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.
Click to expand...


In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.  

That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared. 

Not so much any more.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept "fair share" is socialistic .
> 
> The ONLY tax that can be imposed in the US are CONSTITUTIONAL TAXES.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define 'fair' I suppose.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Good article.  The fair tax is less fair,  very problematic,  and does not solve any real problems.


----------



## boedicca

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There Is No Such Thing as a Fair Tax*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is?   Did you read the article you linked?
> 
> "Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues.  if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.
> 
> But the money clause in your linked article is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boortz is certainly right when he describes the evils of our current tax system:
> 
> Our current tax system is one that punishes the behaviors Americans value and rewards the behaviors we abhor. Those in our society who work hard and achieve are punished with taxes that approach confiscatory levels.
> 
> Politicians have managed to mold our tax code into an instrument designed not so much for raising revenue to fund the legitimate operations of government, as to control the behavior of individual Americans and corporations, and to give politicians levers to pull and buttons to push to buy votes when reelection time comes around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government.  "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.
> 
> That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.
> 
> Not so much any more.
Click to expand...




Translation:   Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.


----------



## bripat9643

boedicca said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is?   Did you read the article you linked?
> 
> "Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues.  if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.
> 
> But the money clause in your linked article is this:
> 
> 
> 
> My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government.  "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.
> 
> That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.
> 
> Not so much any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:   Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.
Click to expand...


*Bingo!*


----------



## Contumacious

Foxfyre said:


> My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything o*ther than to pay the necessary bills of government*.  "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.



That is the definition of a CONSTITUTIONAL TAX for which ALL AMERICANS are responsible. That is the ONLY definition I accept and which was applied by SCOTUS prior to  1935.

.

.


----------



## PMZ

I don't understand why there are any conservatives living in the US.  You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want. 

A country like........ like..........like.......  Oh,  maybe that's the problem.  They're already getting  the best deal available.


----------



## RKMBrown

boedicca said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point is?   Did you read the article you linked?
> 
> "Fair" and "revenue neutral" are two separate issues.  if you believe the tax code is now unfair because it raises revenues for the purpose of benefitting/bribing/coercing some but not all, 'revenue neutral' is not included in the concept of a 'fair tax'.
> 
> But the money clause in your linked article is this:
> 
> 
> 
> My concept of a 'fair tax' removes all power from government to use the tax code for anything other than to pay the necessary bills of government.  "Necessary" means what government HAS to do only, and removes from government all power to benefit any special interest groups of any kind for any purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.
> 
> That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.
> 
> Not so much any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:   Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.
Click to expand...


And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us.  What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money.  Obama is the perfect example of these scum.  Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum.  The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet.  Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you want to be the pre-eminent special interest. And your special interest is to operate as separately as possible from others.
> 
> That was a popular view when there were 90 percent fewer people around and therefore 90 percent more space for each and almost unlimited resources available to be shared.
> 
> Not so much any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:   Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us.  What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money.  Obama is the perfect example of these scum.  Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum.  The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet.  Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.
Click to expand...


You seem like a pretty sick guy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:   Mob Rule by the Parasitocracy in order to force the productive hosts to support them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us.  What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money.  Obama is the perfect example of these scum.  Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum.  The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet.  Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem like a pretty sick guy.
Click to expand...


Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if we resist, they call us crybabies that should leave, accuse us of throwing their family off a cliff, and stealing their money, albeit when we do leave they scream about us moving our money and jobs with us.  What they want is to sit on their butts crack their whip on our backs to give them bonus checks for voting in politicians who are willing to steal for them and burn the country to the ground for power and money.  Obama is the perfect example of these scum.  Comes from a family of scum with a history of selling drugs, pornography, communism, alcoholism, multiple marriages, his friends are domestic terrorists, slum lords, and chicago political scum.  The guy wants to kill his daughters babies and they are not even pregnant yet.  Makes one wonder if he participates in satanic rituals in the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like a pretty sick guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.
Click to expand...


Me too.  The difference is that I'm winning.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like a pretty sick guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  The difference is that I'm winning.
Click to expand...


Id much rather loose and hold my head high, than admit like you just did, that you are sucking the blood of your country.  While I may give you an ounce of cred for admitting it.  I don't think winning means what you think it means.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like a pretty sick guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too.  The difference is that I'm winning.
Click to expand...


So?  You're still a scumbag sucking the blood out of this country.  If you win, that only means that soon you'll have nothing but a dead carcass to feed on.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> I don't understand why there are any conservatives living in the US.  You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.
> 
> A country like........ like..........like.......  Oh,  maybe that's the problem.  They're already getting  the best deal available.



I dont understand why there are any liberals in the US.  You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want. 

A country like England, France or a much closer example like Greece.  One really does wonder.  We established why conservatives stick around but liberals actually do have alternative nations that are FAR closer to their ideal place to live.  Places that have things like crushing tax codes, free healthcare and all the other programs that make such places liberal utopias.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sick of scum like you sucking the blood of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too.  The difference is that I'm winning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Id much rather loose and hold my head high, than admit like you just did, that you are sucking the blood of your country.  While I may give you an ounce of cred for admitting it.  I don't think winning means what you think it means.
Click to expand...


I've been an American for 71 years,  a Republican for most of them. I believe that for many of those years the Republican,  business centered perspective,  and the Democrat focus on people, produced a useful tension, and the statesmanship evident in Congress gave a centrist balance that led to the most functional governments and countries the world has seen. 

Three things led to us breaking that functionality. 

When the dixiecrats became Republican the GOP actually paid attention to their unamericanism. 

24/7/365 Republican propaganda media escaped the old political campaign advertising rules by pretending to be news media,  and built an effective extremist cult from the already extreme dixiecrat base. 

The GOP became the party of plutocracy rather than business. 

America's downfall followed. 

Her restoration is critical to a successful future. 

That's what I play the role that I can in bringing about.  

I believe that we are making progress on divorcing the dixiecrats from the wealthy so that each will have to stand on its minority own.  

Then America will recover.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why there are any conservatives living in the US.  You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.
> 
> A country like........ like..........like.......  Oh,  maybe that's the problem.  They're already getting  the best deal available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont understand why there are any liberals in the US.  You would think they'd have the balls to give off their fat asses and move to a country that gives them what they want.
> 
> A country like England, France or a much closer example like Greece.  One really does wonder.  We established why conservatives stick around but liberals actually do have alternative nations that are FAR closer to their ideal place to live.  Places that have things like crushing tax codes, free healthcare and all the other programs that make such places liberal utopias.
Click to expand...


Pay attention to where the whining comes from,  and where solutions come from.  Pay attention to the trajectory of the country under conservative Bush and under liberal Obama.  Get your head out of Fox's ass,  then come and talk to us.


----------



## Foxfyre

You know what?  The topic of this thread is what is a fair share of taxes?   Most of the conservatives have been arguing that.

Most of the liberals on the thread are now becoming ever more stridently crazy, personally insulting, dishonest, and frantic in their effort to avoid a discussion of what is a fair share of taxes.  It is what liberals do instead of discussing concepts or topics.   No matter what the subject, liberals seem unable to discuss it but will invariably sooner or later focus on targets to accuse, dmonize, criticize, or blame.

Why is that?

Given any better argument, I have to believe it is because liberals have no clue why they hold the strange views of things that they do, and have nothing with which to defend those views.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> You know what?  The topic of this thread is what is a fair share of taxes?   Most of the conservatives have been arguing that.
> 
> Most of the liberals on the thread are now becoming ever more stridently crazy, personally insulting, dishonest, and frantic in their effort to avoid a discussion of what is a fair share of taxes.  It is what liberals do instead of discussing concepts or topics.   No matter what the subject, liberals seem unable to discuss it but will invariably sooner or later focus on targets to accuse, dmonize, criticize, or blame.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Given any better argument, I have to believe it is because liberals have no clue why they hold the strange views of things that they do, and have nothing with which to defend those views.



The question,  what is anyone's fair share of taxes is unanswerable and therefore nonsensical because 'fair'  is probably the most subjective word in the English language. 

Conservatives consider the question because it obscures their completely self serving perspective.  They want other people to pay more of their taxes. They feel entitled to that outcome. 

We can each make a long list of things that we wish were cheaper.   Cars,  gasoline,  food,  housing,  health care,  health care insurance,  education,  clothing, cable,  cell phones,  the list is endless. 

But,  in the end,  it's all,  and only,  whining. 

Those of us favored by life with enough income to live comfortably always have to tailor our tastes to our income and make choices. 

Conservatives apparently find that annoying and feel entitled to easier lives at the expense of other people. 

'Fair' makes that entitlement sound a little less self serving,  and a little more noble but that's an illusion like most of conservatism is. 

My response to the whining is,  if you can't afford the lifestyle that you want,  find ways to make more money.


----------



## Peterf

I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never').    I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.  

A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether.   What could be more simple?

The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.   But if you are good little proles the state will give you some.   And that such a system is the acme of fairness   I do not entirely agree with this.


----------



## Foxfyre

I rest my case.  PMZ, like most liberals, is incapable of arguing the concept. His entire previous post is ad hominem, deflection from the topic, and personal attack except for the one brief concept:  the question of what is a 'fair share' is unanswerable.  But then he fails to focus on that and storms into a screed on evil conservatives.

What ever happened to the William Raspberry's, the Camille Paglia's, the Michael Kinsley's of the liberal world--people who could focus on a principle and argue passionately for it?   Has liberalism finally so squelched the ability to focus and think critically that nobody can actually discuss a topic any more?


----------



## Foxfyre

Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made:  the fact that 'fair' is subjective.  And indeed, it can be.

But that was the whole point of the OP.  Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.

For me a 'fair share' is":
1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.

2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.

3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

So that's it in a nutshell.  I challenge all to critique the concept.  (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never').    I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.
> 
> A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether.   What could be more simple?
> 
> The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.   But if you are good little proles the state will give you some.   And that such a system is the acme of fairness   I do not entirely agree with this.



''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''

Actually,  this not the liberal position at all.  It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is.  Big difference. 

The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services.  Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained,  and everything else. 

Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in a market without competition.  It's like turning over your credit card to a thief. 

So,  the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services),  are owned by all of us,  and the labor is employed by our elected representatives.  At least it is in a democracy. So,  if they don't do an adequate job,  we fire them. 

Tangible wealth production costs money.  Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand,  product by product mostly.  Products in non-competitive markets are bundled,  and paid for through taxes. 

The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well,  suited to the 'market',  which,  in the case of government,  is the country governed. 

If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems,  that's an interesting topic. 

If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes,  it's not useful at all.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> I rest my case.  PMZ, like most liberals, is incapable of arguing the concept. His entire previous post is ad hominem, deflection from the topic, and personal attack except for the one brief concept:  the question of what is a 'fair share' is unanswerable.  But then he fails to focus on that and storms into a screed on evil conservatives.
> 
> What ever happened to the William Raspberry's, the Camille Paglia's, the Michael Kinsley's of the liberal world--people who could focus on a principle and argue passionately for it?   Has liberalism finally so squelched the ability to focus and think critically that nobody can actually discuss a topic any more?



Actually my post is none of the things that you claim and yours is all of them.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made:  the fact that 'fair' is subjective.  And indeed, it can be.
> 
> But that was the whole point of the OP.  Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.
> 
> For me a 'fair share' is":
> 1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.
> 
> 2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.
> 
> 3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
> 
> So that's it in a nutshell.  I challenge all to critique the concept.  (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)



''1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''

Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' .  Of course,  at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.  

As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive.  We also choose to reward others,  who work no harder,  with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford  vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme.  We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes.  We have traditionally chosen the tax route. 

''2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''

''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what? 

3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.

I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy.  We,  the people,  elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size.  And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.  

If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?


----------



## PMZ

I think that it's a useful simplification to think of a country as a 100 person pioneer community isolated in the woods somewhere. 

That makes it clearer that all of the goods and services that they have is exactly all of the goods and services that they produce.  Which begs the question,  how to divide them up? 

Some would make the assumption that everyone did what they were best equipped to do and say,  equally.  Others might say that there must be jobs that nobody likes to do,  so it might be necessary to reward people who do them higher to get them done.  And there are any number of other scenarios. 

Getting away from that oversimplification back to the real world,  in most cases nobody really chooses an optimal wealth distribution.  It evolves on its own. 

But our representatives do choose tax systems.  So that becomes our only opportunity to adjust whatever dysfunction occurs in income distribution.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made:  the fact that 'fair' is subjective.  And indeed, it can be.
> 
> But that was the whole point of the OP.  Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.
> 
> For me a 'fair share' is":
> 1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.
> 
> 2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.
> 
> 3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
> 
> So that's it in a nutshell.  I challenge all to critique the concept.  (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''
> 
> Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' .  Of course,  at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.
> 
> As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive.  We also choose to reward others,  who work no harder,  with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford  vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme.  We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes.  We have traditionally chosen the tax route.
> 
> ''2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''
> 
> ''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?
> 
> 3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
> 
> I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy.  We,  the people,  elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size.  And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.
> 
> If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?
Click to expand...


1.  Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them.  And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all.  That is not the same proportionally.

Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else.  In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased.  We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.

How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.

2.   An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted.   If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes. 

3.   The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.

A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist.  All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that.  The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I am going to give PMZ credit for another point made:  the fact that 'fair' is subjective.  And indeed, it can be.
> 
> But that was the whole point of the OP.  Rather than define what a 'fair share' is, some here seem to only rag on those they disagree with while refusing to provide their own view of what a 'fair share' is.
> 
> For me a 'fair share' is":
> 1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.
> 
> 2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.
> 
> 3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
> 
> So that's it in a nutshell.  I challenge all to critique the concept.  (And I'm fairly certain the liberals cannot do that, but I hope some will prove me wrong.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''
> 
> Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' .  Of course,  at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.
> 
> As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive.  We also choose to reward others,  who work no harder,  with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford  vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme.  We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes.  We have traditionally chosen the tax route.
> 
> ''2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''
> 
> ''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?
> 
> 3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
> 
> I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy.  We,  the people,  elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size.  And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.
> 
> If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them.  And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all.  That is not the same proportionally.
> 
> Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else.  In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased.  We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
> 
> How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
> 
> 2.   An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted.   If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 3.   The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
> 
> A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist.  All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that.  The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
Click to expand...


Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive,  compared to today,  redistribution of wealth upwards.  Richer rich,  poorer poor,  and I would think,  on the average,  poorer middle class.  We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country,  and this would make it more so. 

Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?


----------



## PMZ

Here's a reference that also includes other references (the TED one is particularly good)  on why greater wealth inequality benefits nobody. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''1.  Everybody having the same proportional skin in the game so that changes in tax policy affect everybody in the same way.''
> 
> Today's income tax code is based very roughly on equal 'pain' .  Of course,  at the low income end the pain of having to live in a ghetto can't be compared to the high income end of a Bentley vs a Rolls.
> 
> As a society we choose to pay some people who work very hard not enough to survive.  We also choose to reward others,  who work no harder,  with financial royalty. As those with vast wealth can afford  vast influence the extremes of pay only get more extreme.  We could choose to address that with pay or through taxes.  We have traditionally chosen the tax route.
> 
> ''2.  Everybody paying the same proportionate share without regard for socioeconomic status, demographics, or political advantage.''
> 
> ''Same proportionate share'' needs to be defined. Proportionate to what?
> 
> 3.  Everybody paying ONLY the amount to fund the NECESSARY functions of government.  Anything other than the absolutely necessary functions of goverment should be purely voluntary.
> 
> I would argue that this is true today as we live in a democracy.  We,  the people,  elected our representatives who decide that the government that we have is the right size.  And it is competitive with alternative places to live around the world.
> 
> If you were a competitive business would you choose to give your customers less?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them.  And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all.  That is not the same proportionally.
> 
> Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else.  In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased.  We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
> 
> How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
> 
> 2.   An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted.   If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 3.   The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
> 
> A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist.  All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that.  The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive,  compared to today,  redistribution of wealth upwards.  Richer rich,  poorer poor,  and I would think,  on the average,  poorer middle class.  We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country,  and this would make it more so.
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Click to expand...


Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted.  I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.

How about discussing one or more of the points I made?   Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.

Prove me wrong about that PMZ.  If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that.  If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

So I was at the grocery store and wondered to the cashier what the "fair share" I would pay in sales tax would be?

She looked at me like I was nuts and said that everyone pays 9.25%

I said, "don't you need my W2 to decide how much to charge?" But she insisted that the only reasonable thing to do was set a percentage, and charge it.

What a concept!


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Here's a reference that also includes other references (the TED one is particularly good)  on why greater wealth inequality benefits nobody.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11



The TED statistical analysis of the effects of income inequality.  

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html?source=email#.UmV6OydMIhU.email


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them.  And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all.  That is not the same proportionally.
> 
> Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else.  In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased.  We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
> 
> How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
> 
> 2.   An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted.   If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 3.   The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
> 
> A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist.  All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that.  The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive,  compared to today,  redistribution of wealth upwards.  Richer rich,  poorer poor,  and I would think,  on the average,  poorer middle class.  We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country,  and this would make it more so.
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted.  I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
> 
> How about discussing one or more of the points I made?   Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
> 
> Prove me wrong about that PMZ.  If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that.  If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
Click to expand...


I think that what you would like is agreement that you are right about everything. 

But,  you're not.  

Why is that my problem?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Today's income tax code punishes the more successful by assessing a higher percentage of taxes on what they earn and rewards the less successful with a smaller percentage required of them.  And the current tax code excludes roughly 50% of Americans by requiring little or no income taxes from them at all.  That is not the same proportionally.
> 
> Those paying little or nothing in income tax have no skin in the game and no concern no matter how much the tax code assesses on everybody else.  In fact they have every reason to say make the rich pay more so that the benefits we receive can be increased.  We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in such a system.
> 
> How we as a society view the wealthy versus the poor is a separate discussion however worthy that discussion might be.
> 
> 2.   An equal proportionate share means everybody pays the same percentage on every dollar earned or spent depending on what system of taxation is adopted.   If the amount is 10% income tax, then the guy who earns $10,000, however he earns it, will pay $1,000 in taxes.  The guy who earns $100,000, however he earns it, will pay $10,000 in taxes.
> 
> 3.   The current system of government handsomely rewards those elected to represent us and encourages them to increase their power, prestige, influence, and incredible wealth while throwing the people just enough crumbs to keep those same people in power.
> 
> A business has to produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for and if it screws up badly enough, it ceases to exist.  All the government has to do is forcibly take or borrow enough money to bribe enough people to keep itself in power and it doesn't need to worry about any negative consequences resulting from that.  The professional politicians and bureaucrats who are there now figure they'll have theirs and be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive,  compared to today,  redistribution of wealth upwards.  Richer rich,  poorer poor,  and I would think,  on the average,  poorer middle class.  We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country,  and this would make it more so.
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted.  I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
> 
> How about discussing one or more of the points I made?   Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
> 
> Prove me wrong about that PMZ.  If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that.  If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
Click to expand...


Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the net result of what you'd like would be a massive,  compared to today,  redistribution of wealth upwards.  Richer rich,  poorer poor,  and I would think,  on the average,  poorer middle class.  We are already at extreme wealth distribution in this country,  and this would make it more so.
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted.  I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
> 
> How about discussing one or more of the points I made?   Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
> 
> Prove me wrong about that PMZ.  If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that.  If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
Click to expand...


I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about.  This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes.  So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to.  I will not be party to derailing this thread.  Thanks for understanding.

Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.

1.  A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.

2.  If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.

3.  If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.

For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted.  I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
> 
> How about discussing one or more of the points I made?   Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
> 
> Prove me wrong about that PMZ.  If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that.  If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about.  This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes.  So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to.  I will not be party to derailing this thread.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
> 
> 1.  A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
> 
> 2.  If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
> 
> 3.  If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
> 
> For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
Click to expand...


PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country.  He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible.  And if you don't like it you can leave.  But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never').    I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.
> 
> A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether.   What could be more simple?
> 
> The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.   But if you are good little proles the state will give you some.   And that such a system is the acme of fairness   I do not entirely agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''
> 
> Actually,  this not the liberal position at all.  It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is.  Big difference.
> 
> The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services.  Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained,  and everything else.
> 
> Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in a market without competition.  It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.
> 
> So,  the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services),  are owned by all of us,  and the labor is employed by our elected representatives.  At least it is in a democracy. So,  if they don't do an adequate job,  we fire them.
> 
> Tangible wealth production costs money.  Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand,  product by product mostly.  Products in non-competitive markets are bundled,  and paid for through taxes.
> 
> The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well,  suited to the 'market',  which,  in the case of government,  is the country governed.
> 
> If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems,  that's an interesting topic.
> 
> If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes,  it's not useful at all.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.

I agree with most of what you say.   The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails.  In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state.  From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.

Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated.    As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'.    I do not see this as surprising.

In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.

Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work.  If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment.   Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll read the previous 1652 posts when I have time (polite speak for 'never').    I cannot see why so many key strokes have been wasted on a question with such an easy answer.
> 
> A FAIR TAX is one that must be paid by people with a bit more money than me but which I escape altogether.   What could be more simple?
> 
> The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.   But if you are good little proles the state will give you some.   And that such a system is the acme of fairness   I do not entirely agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''
> 
> Actually,  this not the liberal position at all.  It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is.  Big difference.
> 
> The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services.  Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained,  and everything else.
> 
> Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in a market without competition.  It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.
> 
> So,  the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services),  are owned by all of us,  and the labor is employed by our elected representatives.  At least it is in a democracy. So,  if they don't do an adequate job,  we fire them.
> 
> Tangible wealth production costs money.  Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand,  product by product mostly.  Products in non-competitive markets are bundled,  and paid for through taxes.
> 
> The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well,  suited to the 'market',  which,  in the case of government,  is the country governed.
> 
> If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems,  that's an interesting topic.
> 
> If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes,  it's not useful at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.
> 
> I agree with most of what you say.   The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails.  In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state.  From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.
> 
> Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated.    As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'.    I do not see this as surprising.
> 
> In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.
> 
> Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work.  If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment.   Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.
Click to expand...


What is confusing to many is cause and effect.  The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.  My references prior contain links to all kinds of statistics about how extreme we are.  There have been many studies done that show that the average American has no idea how extreme wealth distribution is here and would pull strongly for more wealth equity if they knew. Real studies with real data rather than supposition. 

If we want the poor to shoulder more of the load we have to pay them more.  That simple. If that happened the wealthy would save on taxes but spend more on goods and services. That simple.  

One other point.  There is hardly any connection at all between socialism,  government provided goods and services,  and welfare. 

Welfare is the product of poverty,  not socialism. I've been in and lived in countries that have no welfare.  Those stricken by poverty don't accommodate the wealthy by dying on the streets.  They survive however they can.  Mostly by prostitution,  theft,  begging,  etc.  Most of us would gladly choose even jail over starvation.  All in all,  having experienced it all,  I would not choose to live in a country without welfare. 

Many conservatives seem to confuse welfare abuse,  which is a crime,  with welfare which is the product of unemployment and low wages. Most of us would agree that crime can't be tolerated and we spend a great deal of money catching and prosecuting and punishing criminals.  They are different than poor people. 

Many of the alternative tax schemes posted here are thinly disguised means to move one groups share of the cost of maintaining our country to other groups.  Understandable but not a solution to any real problem.  

Our real problem is extreme wealth inequality as my references clearly show.  Anything that makes it more extreme is a big problem,  not a solution.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you have no ability to understand what I would like as you again dodge, weave, swerve, and obfusicate to divert from the topic and what I posted.  I commented on every one of your points as honestly and accuately as I could, and you revert to ad hominem and change the subject.
> 
> How about discussing one or more of the points I made?   Oh yeah, I have also argued that modern day American liberals cannot do that--they are incapable of focusing on a concept and providing a rationale or reasoned argument for it.
> 
> Prove me wrong about that PMZ.  If you were truly a Republican as you claim, you know how to do that.  If you can't do it, that only reinforces my opinion that you were not telling the truth about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about.  This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes.  So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to.  I will not be party to derailing this thread.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
> 
> 1.  A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
> 
> 2.  If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
> 
> 3.  If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
> 
> For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure where you got the idea that a flat tax of 10 percent of income would fund our government.  From what I've  read it's not even close.


----------



## PMZ

A good example for consideration is the Great Recession. One of the causes was the fact that it became fashionable for businesses to downsize to overseas,  then reward management for lowering costs.  Did anybody ask if we wanted necessarily lower quality for lower cost? 

Be that as it may,  millions of American jobs were lost creating millions of unemployed and substantially lowering our GDP and federal revenue.  President Obama took the advice to use unemployment to keep the unemployed whole for the duration of their trials while,  at the same time,  replacing the spending that they did while employed to stimulate the economy towards recovery. 

All of that mostly worked,  and federal revenue has recovered.  However there are still not enough jobs to employ everyone who wants to and needs to work. 

Some would say turn those without jobs loose from welfare and hope that jobs appear for them. Others might say that when they get hungry enough they'll do whatever they have to do. That implies a glut of workers competing for too few jobs which will lower what employers would have to pay to get work done.  And lower pay means fewer people paying income taxes.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''The lefty ('liberal' in American) position is that all money belongs to the state as of right.''
> 
> Actually,  this not the liberal position at all.  It's what extreme conservatives have been taught the liberal position is.  Big difference.
> 
> The liberal position is that there are two kinds of goods and services.  Those in markets where effective competition can be maintained,  and everything else.
> 
> Only a fool would unleash an organization dedicated to,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in a market without competition.  It's like turning over your credit card to a thief.
> 
> So,  the means to produce those goods and services (mostly services),  are owned by all of us,  and the labor is employed by our elected representatives.  At least it is in a democracy. So,  if they don't do an adequate job,  we fire them.
> 
> Tangible wealth production costs money.  Products in competitive markets are priced according to supply and demand,  product by product mostly.  Products in non-competitive markets are bundled,  and paid for through taxes.
> 
> The objectives and properties of a tax system are many and varied and if done well,  suited to the 'market',  which,  in the case of government,  is the country governed.
> 
> If this thread is about the objectives and properties of various alternative tax systems,  that's an interesting topic.
> 
> If it's about how to get other people to pay my taxes,  it's not useful at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.
> 
> I agree with most of what you say.   The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails.  In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state.  From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.
> 
> Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated.    As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'.    I do not see this as surprising.
> 
> In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.
> 
> Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work.  If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment.   Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is confusing to many is cause and effect.  The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.  My references prior contain links to all kinds of statistics about how extreme we are.  There have been many studies done that show that the average American has no idea how extreme wealth distribution is here and would pull strongly for more wealth equity if they knew. Real studies with real data rather than supposition.
> 
> If we want the poor to shoulder more of the load we have to pay them more.  That simple. If that happened the wealthy would save on taxes but spend more on goods and services. That simple.
> 
> One other point.  There is hardly any connection at all between socialism,  government provided goods and services,  and welfare.
> 
> Welfare is the product of poverty,  not socialism. I've been in and lived in countries that have no welfare.  Those stricken by poverty don't accommodate the wealthy by dying on the streets.  They survive however they can.  Mostly by prostitution,  theft,  begging,  etc.  Most of us would gladly choose even jail over starvation.  All in all,  having experienced it all,  I would not choose to live in a country without welfare.
> 
> Many conservatives seem to confuse welfare abuse,  which is a crime,  with welfare which is the product of unemployment and low wages. Most of us would agree that crime can't be tolerated and we spend a great deal of money catching and prosecuting and punishing criminals.  They are different than poor people.
> 
> Many of the alternative tax schemes posted here are thinly disguised means to move one groups share of the cost of maintaining our country to other groups.  Understandable but not a solution to any real problem.
> 
> Our real problem is extreme wealth inequality as my references clearly show.  Anything that makes it more extreme is a big problem,  not a solution.
Click to expand...


Like you I would not choose to live in a country without welfare.   But neither would I choose a society where t is possible to live in a household where no one works, has ever worked or has any intention of working in the future.  

Reducing inequalities in wealth sounds nice but it simply part of the chimera of 'equality', chased by socialists over the last few generations, with often disastrous, indeed murderous, results.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.



^^^ I vote this post by PMZ as the dumbest post ever made in the history of mankind.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your considered and courteous reply to my somewhat flippant post.
> 
> I agree with most of what you say.   The dispute exists because of very different ideas on the right and left what "if done well" in your seventh paragraph entails.  In 'welfare' type economies, such as those I am familiar with in Britain and Sweden a diminishing number of 'earners' are paying ever increasing taxes to support those who live entirely off the state.  From what I read this is increasingly the position in the US.
> 
> Once those living on welfare were the short term unemployed and a small number of the genuinely incapacitated.    As life on welfare has become more of an optional life-style choice those working have, more and more, seen the heavy taxes they pay as 'unfair'.    I do not see this as surprising.
> 
> In Sweden there is an additional factor; most of the permanent welfare recipients are immigrants who are seen as only having come here to profit from and exploit the generous social security system.
> 
> Current story: A pensioner (a lifetime taxpayer) having to sell property to pay for several tens of thousands of dollars for dental work.  If she had been an immigrant, even one here ILLEGALLY, she would have paid the grand sum of Swedish Kronor 50, about $7 for the entire course of treatment.   Only the bleeding heart, generous with other peoples' money, left see this as 'fair'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is confusing to many is cause and effect.  The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.  My references prior contain links to all kinds of statistics about how extreme we are.  There have been many studies done that show that the average American has no idea how extreme wealth distribution is here and would pull strongly for more wealth equity if they knew. Real studies with real data rather than supposition.
> 
> If we want the poor to shoulder more of the load we have to pay them more.  That simple. If that happened the wealthy would save on taxes but spend more on goods and services. That simple.
> 
> One other point.  There is hardly any connection at all between socialism,  government provided goods and services,  and welfare.
> 
> Welfare is the product of poverty,  not socialism. I've been in and lived in countries that have no welfare.  Those stricken by poverty don't accommodate the wealthy by dying on the streets.  They survive however they can.  Mostly by prostitution,  theft,  begging,  etc.  Most of us would gladly choose even jail over starvation.  All in all,  having experienced it all,  I would not choose to live in a country without welfare.
> 
> Many conservatives seem to confuse welfare abuse,  which is a crime,  with welfare which is the product of unemployment and low wages. Most of us would agree that crime can't be tolerated and we spend a great deal of money catching and prosecuting and punishing criminals.  They are different than poor people.
> 
> Many of the alternative tax schemes posted here are thinly disguised means to move one groups share of the cost of maintaining our country to other groups.  Understandable but not a solution to any real problem.
> 
> Our real problem is extreme wealth inequality as my references clearly show.  Anything that makes it more extreme is a big problem,  not a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like you I would not choose to live in a country without welfare.   But neither would I choose a society where t is possible to live in a household where no one works, has ever worked or has any intention of working in the future.
> 
> Reducing inequalities in wealth sounds nice but it simply part of the chimera of 'equality', chased by socialists over the last few generations, with often disastrous, indeed murderous, results.
Click to expand...


I too,  am against welfare crime.  All crime,  really. 

Look at my references from last night,  especially the TED statistician.  I think that ''Reducing inequalities in wealth sounds nice but it simply part of the chimera of 'equality', chased by socialists over the last few generations, with often disastrous, indeed murderous, results'' confuses cause and effect.


----------



## Spiderman

RKMBrown said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show us any studies that provide evidence that more extreme wealth distribution has any National benefit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about.  This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes.  So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to.  I will not be party to derailing this thread.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
> 
> 1.  A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
> 
> 2.  If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
> 
> 3.  If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
> 
> For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country.  He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible.  And if you don't like it you can leave.  But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.

I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.


----------



## RKMBrown

Spiderman said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about.  This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes.  So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to.  I will not be party to derailing this thread.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
> 
> 1.  A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
> 
> 2.  If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
> 
> 3.  If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
> 
> For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country.  He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible.  And if you don't like it you can leave.  But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
Click to expand...

It makes you rich, thus evil.  People like PMS don't like to work hard, or study, or take risks, so it's not fair to them that other people do and end up building things like companies that grow and hire people for a decent wage and build products.  PMS wants us to live in caves and distribute labor and food evenly where we keep an eye on everyone and make sure no one gets ahead of anyone else in the cave.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ I vote this post by PMZ as the dumbest post ever made in the history of mankind.
Click to expand...


I think the fact that you can't see my point is a major clue in why you were so easily and thoroughly fooled by conservative media propaganda. 

You believe that it's possible to pay people below poverty wages and then collect taxes from them.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know and I don't care because that is not what this thread is about.  This thread is about what is a fair share of taxes.  So you either will discuss that with me and others who wish to discuss the thread topic, or you will need to go find some choir to preach to.  I will not be party to derailing this thread.  Thanks for understanding.
> 
> Now having said that, there are two ways to look at your proposition with logic and reason--you might need to look up the definition for those two things.
> 
> 1.  A 10% flat tax may or may not reduce the tax load for the wealthy who might cheerfully pay such a tax instead of sheltering much of their income off shore.
> 
> 2.  If a 10% flat tax reduced the tax load for the wealthy, it is quite likely that the wealthy would save more (which provides reserves from which the rest of us may borrow), would invest more in other businesses which helps those of us who depend on such investments for income, and/or would invest more in commerce and industry that provides opportunity, jobs, and non inflationary economic stimulus that helps all prosper and that guy making the $10,000 would have much more opportunity to earn much more.
> 
> 3.  If a 10% flat tax stimulated the economy and promoted increased commerce and industry, it is quite likely that the income disparities would actually narrow instead of increase.
> 
> For damn sure, the welfare state has accomplished nothing other than widening the wealth gap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country.  He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible.  And if you don't like it you can leave.  But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
Click to expand...


I've done it many times.  Thats my recommendation to conservatives who want someone else to pay their taxes.  If you want more stuff than you can afford,  raise your income.


----------



## DiamondDave

Still laugh at this bullshit assertion that government is either to distribute income or to control how wealth is distributed... how very totalitarian


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country.  He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible.  And if you don't like it you can leave.  But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you rich, thus evil.  People like PMS don't like to work hard, or study, or take risks, so it's not fair to them that other people do and end up building things like companies that grow and hire people for a decent wage and build products.  PMS wants us to live in caves and distribute labor and food evenly where we keep an eye on everyone and make sure no one gets ahead of anyone else in the cave.
Click to expand...


Anybody who knows me would say that this is about as opposite who I am as can be.  Yet it's a necessary thing for conservatives to believe about non conservatives,  in order to buy into the cult 's mythology. 

If anyone asks ''what kind of person is most susceptible to conservatism?'',  remember this.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that many Americans pay no income tax is an effect caused by the way we choose to distribute income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ I vote this post by PMZ as the dumbest post ever made in the history of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the fact that you can't see my point is a major clue in why you were so easily and thoroughly fooled by conservative media propaganda.
> 
> You believe that it's possible to pay people below poverty wages and then collect taxes from them.
Click to expand...


Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.

If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?

If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.

Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you rich, thus evil.  People like PMS don't like to work hard, or study, or take risks, so it's not fair to them that other people do and end up building things like companies that grow and hire people for a decent wage and build products.  PMS wants us to live in caves and distribute labor and food evenly where we keep an eye on everyone and make sure no one gets ahead of anyone else in the cave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody who knows me would say that this is about as opposite who I am as can be.  Yet it's a necessary thing for conservatives to believe about non conservatives,  in order to buy into the cult 's mythology.
> 
> If anyone asks ''what kind of person is most susceptible to conservatism?'',  remember this.
Click to expand...


So you were wildly successful and now are apologetic and feel you should be forced to give up your assets for some past sins?  Explain, cause I don't get this we should be a socialist society BS.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> Still laugh at this bullshit assertion that government is either to distribute income or to control how wealth is distributed... how very totalitarian



All governments do it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you rich, thus evil.  People like PMS don't like to work hard, or study, or take risks, so it's not fair to them that other people do and end up building things like companies that grow and hire people for a decent wage and build products.  PMS wants us to live in caves and distribute labor and food evenly where we keep an eye on everyone and make sure no one gets ahead of anyone else in the cave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who knows me would say that this is about as opposite who I am as can be.  Yet it's a necessary thing for conservatives to believe about non conservatives,  in order to buy into the cult 's mythology.
> 
> If anyone asks ''what kind of person is most susceptible to conservatism?'',  remember this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were wildly successful and now are apologetic and feel you should be forced to give up your assets for some past sins?  Explain, cause I don't get this we should be a socialist society BS.
Click to expand...


I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes. 

If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who knows me would say that this is about as opposite who I am as can be.  Yet it's a necessary thing for conservatives to believe about non conservatives,  in order to buy into the cult 's mythology.
> 
> If anyone asks ''what kind of person is most susceptible to conservatism?'',  remember this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were wildly successful and now are apologetic and feel you should be forced to give up your assets for some past sins?  Explain, cause I don't get this we should be a socialist society BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes.
> 
> If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.
Click to expand...


Make up your mind.  You believe people should be responsible for themselves and their families and live within their means, or we should redistribute income *and assets* from people who have been wildly successful like you to people who don't wish to be responsible or live within their means.  

Which is it?


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still laugh at this bullshit assertion that government is either to distribute income or to control how wealth is distributed... how very totalitarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All governments do it.
Click to expand...


And ours is charged to do it where??


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ I vote this post by PMZ as the dumbest post ever made in the history of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the fact that you can't see my point is a major clue in why you were so easily and thoroughly fooled by conservative media propaganda.
> 
> You believe that it's possible to pay people below poverty wages and then collect taxes from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?
> 
> If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.
> 
> Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.
Click to expand...


'' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''

Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week. 

The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do. 

I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the fact that you can't see my point is a major clue in why you were so easily and thoroughly fooled by conservative media propaganda.
> 
> You believe that it's possible to pay people below poverty wages and then collect taxes from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?
> 
> If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.
> 
> Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> '' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''
> 
> Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.
Click to expand...


>> Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week. 

Wrong.  Unlike you, I do not object to rich people buying a Bentley.  It's not my job to force people to work harder and smarter and try to earn more money, they have to get up off their asses all by themselves.  Though the government should be doing it's job breaking up monopolies, foreign and domestic, it's not the job of government to redistribute income.  Govco's job, as our employees, is to ensure equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

>>> The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do. 

Working hard and working smart are two different things.  Even field hands have learned to ride along in air conditioned tractors.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still laugh at this bullshit assertion that government is either to distribute income or to control how wealth is distributed... how very totalitarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All governments do it.
Click to expand...


Wrong, they don't all do it.  Even if they did, that wouldn't make it right.  Before 1800 all governments enforced slavery.  Do you endorse slavery?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you were wildly successful and now are apologetic and feel you should be forced to give up your assets for some past sins?  Explain, cause I don't get this we should be a socialist society BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes.
> 
> If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind.  You believe people should be responsible for themselves and their families and live within their means, or we should redistribute income *and assets* from people who have been wildly successful like you to people who don't wish to be responsible or live within their means.
> 
> Which is it?
Click to expand...


Key phrase. 

''people who don't wish to be responsible or live within their means.''

Your deluded mind believes that people choose poverty. 

Here's what I believe.  That you are nowhere near as exceptional as you'd like to be.  Thats merely the unhappy little boy in you screaming for attention.  You'll never have enough to shut him up. Even if you are successful in getting other people to give up sustenance in order to pay your taxes. 

Working hard is table stakes for life.  You don't work as hard as most minimum wage workers.  Their work would kill you. 

You played the system better because other people showed you how.  

Here's one part of the system that you aren't going to game.  Democracy.  One man,  regardless of ego,  only one vote. 

Our country is working just as designed and your whining is not going to change that.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who knows me would say that this is about as opposite who I am as can be.  Yet it's a necessary thing for conservatives to believe about non conservatives,  in order to buy into the cult 's mythology.
> 
> If anyone asks ''what kind of person is most susceptible to conservatism?'',  remember this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were wildly successful and now are apologetic and feel you should be forced to give up your assets for some past sins?  Explain, cause I don't get this we should be a socialist society BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes.
> 
> If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.
Click to expand...


There's that liberal compassion we've all come to know.  "If you can't pay your bills, then make more money."  Why don't we tell poor people that?  We could do away with Welfare and Social Security.

God, I love liberal solutions!


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still laugh at this bullshit assertion that government is either to distribute income or to control how wealth is distributed... how very totalitarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All governments do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And ours is charged to do it where??
Click to expand...


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the fact that you can't see my point is a major clue in why you were so easily and thoroughly fooled by conservative media propaganda.
> 
> You believe that it's possible to pay people below poverty wages and then collect taxes from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?
> 
> If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.
> 
> Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> '' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''.
Click to expand...


Where did you get these bullshit figures?  No one is required to report how much they own to the federal government, so how does anyone know how much any particular person owns?  Furthermore, most of what the top 20% own is productive capital.  It's the stuff that provides knuckleheads like you with a job.  They have come to own it because they have proved they are the most responsible at managing it.  Do you think we should turn over ownership of the nation's industrial capacity to a bunch of welfare losers?



PMZ said:


> [Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.



Comments like that are the reason people think you're a numskull.




PMZ said:


> [The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.



However the "15%" got what they have, so long as they didn't get it by holding a gun on someone, it's none of your damn business how much they have.

Envy isn't an argument.  it's a personality defect.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you were wildly successful and now are apologetic and feel you should be forced to give up your assets for some past sins?  Explain, cause I don't get this we should be a socialist society BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes.
> 
> If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's that liberal compassion we've all come to know.  "If you can't pay your bills, then make more money."  Why don't we tell poor people that?  We could do away with Welfare and Social Security.
> 
> God, I love liberal solutions!
Click to expand...


Every poor person that I've ever met knows that and would do anything to achieve it.  

You are another deluded conservative who believes that people choose poverty.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?
> 
> If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.
> 
> Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''
> 
> Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> Wrong.  Unlike you, I do not object to rich people buying a Bentley.  It's not my job to force people to work harder and smarter and try to earn more money, they have to get up off their asses all by themselves.  Though the government should be doing it's job breaking up monopolies, foreign and domestic, it's not the job of government to redistribute income.  Govco's job, as our employees, is to ensure equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
> 
> >>> The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> Working hard and working smart are two different things.  Even field hands have learned to ride along in air conditioned tractors.
Click to expand...


''Working hard and working smart are two different things.''

Tell us,  Rush,  where your massive brain came from and how you earned it?


----------



## Mr Natural

How about 20% federal and 10% state.

Same as it's always been.


----------



## Kondor3

To many Liberals, a 'fair share' would be whatever is needed to keep the Nanny State afloat and to pay for Liberal Agenda social engineering projects and to further encroach upon the independence of the individual and to increase the degree to which the individual is beholden to and dependent upon The State?

Translation: turn-on the money-faucet and let it flow at max-speed until we tell you to stop.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ does not want people to prosper on their own merits in this country.  He wants to sit on his butt and collect as much money as possible.  And if you don't like it you can leave.  But he realizes that if he shoots for money from the 51% he'll loose the vote so he wants to make sure only the 49% get raped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've done it many times.  Thats my recommendation to conservatives who want someone else to pay their taxes.  If you want more stuff than you can afford,  raise your income.
Click to expand...


So you're a no good greedy workaholic too?

And the only people that have others pay their income taxes are the one's who pay no income taxes.

And let's not forget about the people who pay no taxes and then get some extra back via refundable tax credits.

It's those people who are having others pay their taxes.

Tell me what's immoral about treating every earned dollar the same as every other earned dollar no matter who earns it?

We tax everything else like that don't we?

You don't get a tax break on the 5 gallons of gas you use to drive to work.  Those gallons of gas could be argued to be much more important than the gallons of gas used to drive to a strip club so why not tax the strip club gas at a higher rate?

Do you see how utterly silly it is to treat a dollar differently from a gallon of gas?


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes you rich, thus evil.  People like PMS don't like to work hard, or study, or take risks, so it's not fair to them that other people do and end up building things like companies that grow and hire people for a decent wage and build products.  PMS wants us to live in caves and distribute labor and food evenly where we keep an eye on everyone and make sure no one gets ahead of anyone else in the cave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody who knows me would say that this is about as opposite who I am as can be.  Yet it's a necessary thing for conservatives to believe about non conservatives,  in order to buy into the cult 's mythology.
> 
> If anyone asks ''what kind of person is most susceptible to conservatism?'',  remember this.
Click to expand...


Funny how you lay into the so called rich though.

Greedy, workaholics, defective etc etc

Seems you need to believe these things to rationalize your own mythology


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?
> 
> If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.
> 
> Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get these bullshit figures?  No one is required to report how much they own to the federal government, so how does anyone know how much any particular person owns?  Furthermore, most of what the top 20% own is productive capital.  It's the stuff that provides knuckleheads like you with a job.  They have come to own it because they have proved they are the most responsible at managing it.  Do you think we should turn over ownership of the nation's industrial capacity to a bunch of welfare losers?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comments like that are the reason people think you're a numskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However the "15%" got what they have, so long as they didn't get it by holding a gun on someone, it's none of your damn business how much they have.
> 
> Envy isn't an argument.  it's a personality defect.
Click to expand...


It is my business.  As long as it affects my country it's my business. 

I'm not in the least bit envious.  Don't you read in the paper about the dysfunctional lives of the rich and famous? 

The only wealthy who are heroes to me are Gates,  for the global good that he has done with the second half of his life,  and Buffet for being one of the few smart business men in the world for relying on fundamentals rather than fashion.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes.
> 
> If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind.  You believe people should be responsible for themselves and their families and live within their means, or we should redistribute income *and assets* from people who have been wildly successful like you to people who don't wish to be responsible or live within their means.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key phrase.
> 
> ''people who don't wish to be responsible or live within their means.''
> 
> Your deluded mind believes that people choose poverty.
> 
> Here's what I believe.  That you are nowhere near as exceptional as you'd like to be.  That&#8217;s merely the unhappy little boy in you screaming for attention.  You'll never have enough to shut him up. Even if you are successful in getting other people to give up sustenance in order to pay your taxes.
> 
> Working hard is table stakes for life.  You don't work as hard as most minimum wage workers.  Their work would kill you.
> 
> You played the system better because other people showed you how.
> 
> Here's one part of the system that you aren't going to game.  Democracy.  One man,  regardless of ego,  only one vote.
> 
> Our country is working just as designed and your whining is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

>>> You don't work as hard as most minimum wage workers.  Their work would kill you. 

ROFL

I work my land for fun.  Just this weekend, I cleared 2acres of heavily wooded land, by myself, with only the aid of my tractor my chainsaw.  My wife want's 10acres of our land to look like a park, so on goes the overalls and out I go.  I built my house with myself as general contractor, I did about half the work, including design, half the framing, all the grading, half the finish work, half the electrical work.  

You have no idea what you are talking about when you accuse me of not being able to handle minimum wage work.  I never said I was exceptional.  Quite the contrary, I'm just an average guy with a somewhat high IQ (luck) and a somewhat better than average outcome.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I don't agree with your point, does not mean that I don't understand it.
> 
> If minimum wage was moved up by 10x the poverty level would move up 10x.  Poverty level does not mean what you think it means.  50% of the population will always earn more than the other half.  50% of the population will always work harder than the other half.  50% of the population will always be smarter than the other half.  Why?  Because if you cut an apple in half there are two sides.  If everyone always gets an A no matter what they do, what's the point of having grades?  What's the point of having money at all if it means nothing?
> 
> If you don't like the amount an employer offers you, become the employer.
> 
> Everyone should pay their share for the costs of this country.  It should be divided up evenly, but I'm ok with it just being a flat % of income till we ban income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you get these bullshit figures?  No one is required to report how much they own to the federal government, so how does anyone know how much any particular person owns?  Furthermore, most of what the top 20% own is productive capital.  It's the stuff that provides knuckleheads like you with a job.  They have come to own it because they have proved they are the most responsible at managing it.  Do you think we should turn over ownership of the nation's industrial capacity to a bunch of welfare losers?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comments like that are the reason people think you're a numskull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However the "15%" got what they have, so long as they didn't get it by holding a gun on someone, it's none of your damn business how much they have.
> 
> Envy isn't an argument.  it's a personality defect.
Click to expand...


Part of conservative mythology is that evidence lies.  Better to go with what you wish was true.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> '' In 2007 (it's gotten worse since) the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.''
> 
> Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> I can't tell you how compelling an argument that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> Your point,  I believe, is that you object to the fact that 80% of the country still have that 15% of the wealth and should help pay the taxes of the 20% who have 85% of the wealth.  That would allow the wealthy to upgrade to Rolls from Bentleys while it would only cost the 80% a few meals a week.
> 
> Wrong.  Unlike you, I do not object to rich people buying a Bentley.  It's not my job to force people to work harder and smarter and try to earn more money, they have to get up off their asses all by themselves.  Though the government should be doing it's job breaking up monopolies, foreign and domestic, it's not the job of government to redistribute income.  Govco's job, as our employees, is to ensure equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
> 
> >>> The reason must be that the 15% work harder in their air conditioned offices and mcmansions than the field hands living in the ghetto do.
> 
> Working hard and working smart are two different things.  Even field hands have learned to ride along in air conditioned tractors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Working hard and working smart are two different things.''
> 
> Tell us,  Rush,  where your massive brain came from and how you earned it?
Click to expand...


My name is Mike. I never listen to Rush.  My brain is my own. You don't own even a small piece of it, no one does.  It did not have to be bought.  I can thank my parents.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've done it many times.  Thats my recommendation to conservatives who want someone else to pay their taxes.  If you want more stuff than you can afford,  raise your income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a no good greedy workaholic too?
> 
> And the only people that have others pay their income taxes are the one's who pay no income taxes.
> 
> And let's not forget about the people who pay no taxes and then get some extra back via refundable tax credits.
> 
> It's those people who are having others pay their taxes.
> 
> Tell me what's immoral about treating every earned dollar the same as every other earned dollar no matter who earns it?
> 
> We tax everything else like that don't we?
> 
> You don't get a tax break on the 5 gallons of gas you use to drive to work.  Those gallons of gas could be argued to be much more important than the gallons of gas used to drive to a strip club so why not tax the strip club gas at a higher rate?
> 
> Do you see how utterly silly it is to treat a dollar differently from a gallon of gas?
Click to expand...


I've explained why that doesn't work for the country.  Pay attention.  If you want cheap government treat it like you do any other purchase.  Go find who offers it and take advantage of it.  This is the country of good,  not cheap government.  Always has been.  If that's not to your liking you have choices.  Many of them.  Don't whine,  solve your problem.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been wildly successful.  Part of that is to live happily within my means.  And I pay all of my bills including taxes.
> 
> If you have to have someone else pay your taxes in order to live within your means you are doing something wrong.  Either raise your means or lower your life style.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's that liberal compassion we've all come to know.  "If you can't pay your bills, then make more money."  Why don't we tell poor people that?  We could do away with Welfare and Social Security.
> 
> God, I love liberal solutions!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every poor person that I've ever met knows that and would do anything to achieve it.
> 
> You are another deluded conservative who believes that people choose poverty.
Click to expand...


Of course people choose poverty.  Are you saying it is impossible to be lazy? Or do you mean people in poverty would prefer to be rich while sitting on their ass doing nothing?


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> According to PMS anyone who works a second job and saves their money to get ahead is a greedy workaholic.
> 
> I have yet to get an answer from people like PMS as to what exactly is so abhorrent about working a second job in order to improve one's financial position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've done it many times.  Thats my recommendation to conservatives who want someone else to pay their taxes.  If you want more stuff than you can afford,  raise your income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're a no good greedy workaholic too?
> 
> And the only people that have others pay their income taxes are the one's who pay no income taxes.
> 
> And let's not forget about the people who pay no taxes and then get some extra back via refundable tax credits.
> 
> It's those people who are having others pay their taxes.
> 
> Tell me what's immoral about treating every earned dollar the same as every other earned dollar no matter who earns it?
> 
> We tax everything else like that don't we?
> 
> You don't get a tax break on the 5 gallons of gas you use to drive to work.  Those gallons of gas could be argued to be much more important than the gallons of gas used to drive to a strip club so why not tax the strip club gas at a higher rate?
> 
> Do you see how utterly silly it is to treat a dollar differently from a gallon of gas?
Click to expand...


I'm into 'treating' people not dollars.  Do you see how silly it is for a country at the extreme of wealth distribution to make it more so?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've done it many times.  Thats my recommendation to conservatives who want someone else to pay their taxes.  If you want more stuff than you can afford,  raise your income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're a no good greedy workaholic too?
> 
> And the only people that have others pay their income taxes are the one's who pay no income taxes.
> 
> And let's not forget about the people who pay no taxes and then get some extra back via refundable tax credits.
> 
> It's those people who are having others pay their taxes.
> 
> Tell me what's immoral about treating every earned dollar the same as every other earned dollar no matter who earns it?
> 
> We tax everything else like that don't we?
> 
> You don't get a tax break on the 5 gallons of gas you use to drive to work.  Those gallons of gas could be argued to be much more important than the gallons of gas used to drive to a strip club so why not tax the strip club gas at a higher rate?
> 
> Do you see how utterly silly it is to treat a dollar differently from a gallon of gas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm into 'treating' people not dollars.  Do you see how silly it is for a country at the extreme of wealth distribution to make it more so?
Click to expand...

So you have a god complex.


----------



## PMZ

Kondor3 said:


> To many Liberals, a 'fair share' would be whatever is needed to keep the Nanny State afloat and to pay for Liberal Agenda social engineering projects and to further encroach upon the independence of the individual and to increase the degree to which the individual is beholden to and dependent upon The State?
> 
> Translation: turn-on the money-faucet and let it flow at max-speed until we tell you to stop.



''Translation: turn-on the money-faucet and let it flow at max-speed until we tell you to stop.''

Look at the data.  This is what we've been doing.  Flowing wealth to the wealthy.


----------



## Fang

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?


----------



## Foxfyre

Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've done it many times.  Thats my recommendation to conservatives who want someone else to pay their taxes.  If you want more stuff than you can afford,  raise your income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're a no good greedy workaholic too?
> 
> And the only people that have others pay their income taxes are the one's who pay no income taxes.
> 
> And let's not forget about the people who pay no taxes and then get some extra back via refundable tax credits.
> 
> It's those people who are having others pay their taxes.
> 
> Tell me what's immoral about treating every earned dollar the same as every other earned dollar no matter who earns it?
> 
> We tax everything else like that don't we?
> 
> You don't get a tax break on the 5 gallons of gas you use to drive to work.  Those gallons of gas could be argued to be much more important than the gallons of gas used to drive to a strip club so why not tax the strip club gas at a higher rate?
> 
> Do you see how utterly silly it is to treat a dollar differently from a gallon of gas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm into 'treating' people not dollars.  Do you see how silly it is for a country at the extreme of wealth distribution to make it more so?
Click to expand...


  Taxes are about raising money for government functions.

If there is a tax on gas everyone who buys a gallon of gas pays the tax.

If there is a tax on alcohol everyone who buys alcohol pays the tax

There is a tax on income so why shouldn't everyone with an income pay income tax?

If there is going to be a tax on income why should dollar one be treated any differently from dollar 1 million?

I'm for treating all people equally as in exactly the same no matter what their income.


----------



## Mr Natural

Foxfyre said:


> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?



It does.


----------



## PMZ

Fang said:


> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?



Because it would make our already dysfunctional wealth distribution even more so.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?



Because,  when wealth distribution is already extreme to the point of dysfunctional,  making it worse is bad.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would make our already dysfunctional wealth distribution even more so.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause no one could ever come up with a way to work 20% more. ROFL


----------



## PMZ

I 





Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're a no good greedy workaholic too?
> 
> And the only people that have others pay their income taxes are the one's who pay no income taxes.
> 
> And let's not forget about the people who pay no taxes and then get some extra back via refundable tax credits.
> 
> It's those people who are having others pay their taxes.
> 
> Tell me what's immoral about treating every earned dollar the same as every other earned dollar no matter who earns it?
> 
> We tax everything else like that don't we?
> 
> You don't get a tax break on the 5 gallons of gas you use to drive to work.  Those gallons of gas could be argued to be much more important than the gallons of gas used to drive to a strip club so why not tax the strip club gas at a higher rate?
> 
> Do you see how utterly silly it is to treat a dollar differently from a gallon of gas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm into 'treating' people not dollars.  Do you see how silly it is for a country at the extreme of wealth distribution to make it more so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are about raising money for government functions.
> 
> If there is a tax on gas everyone who buys a gallon of gas pays the tax.
> 
> If there is a tax on alcohol everyone who buys alcohol pays the tax
> 
> There is a tax on income so why shouldn't everyone with an income pay income tax?
> 
> If there is going to be a tax on income why should dollar one be treated any differently from dollar 1 million?
> 
> I'm for treating all people equally as in exactly the same no matter what their income.
Click to expand...


Because wealth distribution in the US is extreme enough now to be dysfunctional.  Making it more,  rather than less so,  with our tax system,  would increase the dysfunction.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would make our already dysfunctional wealth distribution even more so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah cause no one could ever come up with a way to work 20% more. ROFL
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## PMZ

The argument here is classic conservative / liberal.  We both want the same things,  the liberal for everyone


----------



## Spiderman

Foxfyre said:


> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?



Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.

The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?



Who decides who earns it? 

Typically,  it's the wealthy.  You think that's what they already have almost all of it?


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm into 'treating' people not dollars.  Do you see how silly it is for a country at the extreme of wealth distribution to make it more so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are about raising money for government functions.
> 
> If there is a tax on gas everyone who buys a gallon of gas pays the tax.
> 
> If there is a tax on alcohol everyone who buys alcohol pays the tax
> 
> There is a tax on income so why shouldn't everyone with an income pay income tax?
> 
> If there is going to be a tax on income why should dollar one be treated any differently from dollar 1 million?
> 
> I'm for treating all people equally as in exactly the same no matter what their income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because wealth distribution in the US is extreme enough now to be dysfunctional.  Making it more,  rather than less so,  with our tax system,  would increase the dysfunction.
Click to expand...


So called wealth inequality is meaningless to the average person.

Anyone, even you, can increase their wealth anytime they want.

The reality is they don't want to.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who decides who earns it?
> 
> Typically,  it's the wealthy.  You think that's what they already have almost all of it?
Click to expand...


No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.


----------



## RKMBrown

Spiderman said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.
> 
> The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.
Click to expand...


Why is that a problem?  Oh yeah .. PMS thinks they should have more money because he does and if they don't have as much as he does it's because the "man" is keeping them down.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who decides who earns it?
> 
> Typically,  it's the wealthy.  You think that's what they already have almost all of it?
Click to expand...


And if they haven't earned the money they are receiving who's the dumb ass that is paying them?


----------



## Foxfyre

Fang said:


> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?



Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000 or 1000% more than the guy making $10,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system.  I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  You can't get the right wing to take responsibility for anything except taking out Bin Laden.  The one thing they had nothing to do with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They take responsibility for themselves and their families without demanding government plunder the resources of what others earned to give to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For people who take care of themselves you certainly do an awful lot of childish whining.
Click to expand...


Anything I can do including whining to keep the moocher class out of my pockets.
How else do we fight the increase of the moochers and parasites?


----------



## Gadawg73

Mr Clean said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does.
Click to expand...


Before it is redistributed to those that voted for it to be stolen and given to them.


----------



## zeke

Foxfyre said:


> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
Click to expand...



I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the  military be cut?  

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them. 

To hard to do. 

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?


----------



## Foxfyre

zeke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
Click to expand...


I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.

The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance.  They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government.  The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy.  Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.

Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it.   The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.

A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.  

That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer.  The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received.  So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out.  Government dollars not so much if at all.

That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs.  We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that.   It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
Click to expand...


Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.


----------



## kaz

zeke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
Click to expand...


You get a lot of benefits before you even cut spending.

Cutting taxes grows the economy, so the amount that needs to be made up is lower and deficits are lower as a percent of GDP.

Tax receipts also go up dramatically because people stop making decisions to reduce or evade taxes, so you collect more of what's owed.

Companies and individuals will also greatly reduce making economically inefficient decisions because taxes skews the playing field, contributing to the first two benefits.

Then, we should stop our foreign wars and cut military spending as well as reducing Federal payroll and getting rid of departments like energy and education that do nothing but harm the area they are responsible for.

But the biggest thing is that then what you do is just stop spending growth and the economy will grow faster as it's unencumbered and tax receipts will grow and wipe out the deficit completely.  Then by holding spending in check we can reduce the debt, which will reduce interest payments.

Deficits grow on themselves, so do surpluses.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.



It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work. 

It can be inherited.

It can be stolen.

It can be begged.

And it can be looted.

Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.

The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.

Support whom you will, but I support the producers.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are about raising money for government functions.
> 
> If there is a tax on gas everyone who buys a gallon of gas pays the tax.
> 
> If there is a tax on alcohol everyone who buys alcohol pays the tax
> 
> There is a tax on income so why shouldn't everyone with an income pay income tax?
> 
> If there is going to be a tax on income why should dollar one be treated any differently from dollar 1 million?
> 
> I'm for treating all people equally as in exactly the same no matter what their income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because wealth distribution in the US is extreme enough now to be dysfunctional.  Making it more,  rather than less so,  with our tax system,  would increase the dysfunction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So called wealth inequality is meaningless to the average person.
> 
> Anyone, even you, can increase their wealth anytime they want.
> 
> The reality is they don't want to.
Click to expand...


The conservative lie.  If you fall for it you're a sucker.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who decides who earns it?
> 
> Typically,  it's the wealthy.  You think that's what they already have almost all of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.
Click to expand...


How do you know?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.
> 
> The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that a problem?  Oh yeah .. PMS thinks they should have more money because he does and if they don't have as much as he does it's because the "man" is keeping them down.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that you want them to pay your taxes? 

Poorer poor and richer rich is the bottom line of all tyrannies.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who decides who earns it?
> 
> Typically,  it's the wealthy.  You think that's what they already have almost all of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they haven't earned the money they are receiving who's the dumb ass that is paying them?
Click to expand...


Some of the money that you take we give back to the rightful owners.  Workers.  Through taxes.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They take responsibility for themselves and their families without demanding government plunder the resources of what others earned to give to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For people who take care of themselves you certainly do an awful lot of childish whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything I can do including whining to keep the moocher class out of my pockets.
> How else do we fight the increase of the moochers and parasites?
Click to expand...


Move to place that has no crime.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should wealth not flow to the wealthy who earn it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before it is redistributed to those that voted for it to be stolen and given to them.
Click to expand...


If you don't like democracy,  move.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> If you don't like democracy,  move.



You misspelled "kleptocracy," spunky...


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fang said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
Click to expand...


Your asking those questions of the aristocracy at Versailles.  The answer will probably be  let them eat cake.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.
> 
> The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance.  They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government.  The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy.  Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.
> 
> Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it.   The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.
> 
> A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.
> 
> That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer.  The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received.  So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out.  Government dollars not so much if at all.
> 
> That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs.  We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that.   It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.
Click to expand...


Find a country that does things that way and move.  We'll help you pack.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
Click to expand...


Brownie's been upset since learning that 85% of Americans still have 15% of the wealth.  Goddamm Communist plot it is.  He won't rest until they're starving in the streets as God expects.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You get a lot of benefits before you even cut spending.
> 
> Cutting taxes grows the economy, so the amount that needs to be made up is lower and deficits are lower as a percent of GDP.
> 
> Tax receipts also go up dramatically because people stop making decisions to reduce or evade taxes, so you collect more of what's owed.
> 
> Companies and individuals will also greatly reduce making economically inefficient decisions because taxes skews the playing field, contributing to the first two benefits.
> 
> Then, we should stop our foreign wars and cut military spending as well as reducing Federal payroll and getting rid of departments like energy and education that do nothing but harm the area they are responsible for.
> 
> But the biggest thing is that then what you do is just stop spending growth and the economy will grow faster as it's unencumbered and tax receipts will grow and wipe out the deficit completely.  Then by holding spending in check we can reduce the debt, which will reduce interest payments.
> 
> Deficits grow on themselves, so do surpluses.
Click to expand...


Conservative do as we say,  not as we do.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
> 
> It can be inherited.
> 
> It can be stolen.
> 
> It can be begged.
> 
> And it can be looted.
> 
> Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.
> 
> The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.
> 
> Support whom you will, but I support the producers.



Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
> 
> It can be inherited.
> 
> It can be stolen.
> 
> It can be begged.
> 
> And it can be looted.
> 
> Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.
> 
> The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.
> 
> Support whom you will, but I support the producers.



''Support whom you will, but I support the producers.''

Ahhh,  another liberal.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like democracy,  move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misspelled "kleptocracy," spunky...
Click to expand...


This is not for me,  it's for you.  Move somewhere that doesn't make you all whiney.  

It's called happiness.  Try it.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like democracy,  move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misspelled "kleptocracy," spunky...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not for me,  it's for you.  Move somewhere that doesn't make you all whiney.
> 
> It's called happiness.  Try it.
Click to expand...


Liberals sure are angry for happy people.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.



I have little concern as to his company - that is between him, the board of directors, and the stock holders.

My concern is with gutter scum like George Soros who loots an entire nation - crushing the Bank of England - or fuckwads like Obama who give license to Blue Cross and Kaiser to rob me at gun point - with the gun held by Stasi (IRS) agents. Or Goldman Sachs to lose trillions and then use taxpayer funds to rebuild while the majority lose homes, jobs, and lives.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> ''Support whom you will, but I support the producers.''
> 
> Ahhh,  another liberal.



I am a liberal.

And you are a communist.

No new information here....


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''Support whom you will, but I support the producers.''
> 
> Ahhh,  another liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a liberal.
> 
> And you are a communist.
> 
> No new information here....
Click to expand...


Yes, they are not liberals, they are leftists.  They don't know what a liberal is.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
> 
> It can be inherited.
> 
> It can be stolen.
> 
> It can be begged.
> 
> And it can be looted.
> 
> Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.
> 
> The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.
> 
> Support whom you will, but I support the producers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.
Click to expand...


If it is his company to loot, what is that to me?  I don't have to do business with him if I choose not to.  He cannot force me to use his product or services or contribute to his wealth in any way.  He doesn't cost me a dime or a moment's sleep.

The professional politicians elected to high office however, and the professional bureaucrats they appoint or hire, seem to be looting the public treasury at will, take whatever they want from us at figurative gunpoint, force us to use products or services they require us to have while they demonize anybody we send to Washington to do things better.  And I have no choice or option about that while they methodically and without question take away my choices, options, opportunities, liberties, and diminish my personal wealth.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.
> 
> The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance.  They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government.  The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy.  Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.
> 
> Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it.   The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.
> 
> A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.
> 
> That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer.  The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received.  So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out.  Government dollars not so much if at all.
> 
> That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs.  We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that.   It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.
Click to expand...


What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.
> 
> The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
> The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
> The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
> The guy making a million would pay $100,000
> 
> You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. * I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.*
> 
> No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill.  No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time.   Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded.  No more paying evil governments not to attack us.  And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.
> 
> The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
Click to expand...


Same as business employees whose career was given to China or India in exchange for executive bonuses.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.
> 
> The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance.  They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government.  The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy.  Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.
> 
> Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it.   The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.
> 
> A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.
> 
> That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer.  The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received.  So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out.  Government dollars not so much if at all.
> 
> That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs.  We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that.   It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.
Click to expand...


That's definitely the way Marx looked at it all right.  However, every single place it has ever been tried it results in lowered production and sharply lowered standards of living for all.  Why?  Because only a very few people are driven to be productive when somebody else claims what they produce and there is no reward for skill, effort, creativity, innovation, or hard work.   If the slackard dullard benefits as much as the highly productive worker, there won't be highly productive workers for long.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.
> 
> The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that a problem?  Oh yeah .. PMS thinks they should have more money because he does and if they don't have as much as he does it's because the "man" is keeping them down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that you want them to pay your taxes?
> 
> Poorer poor and richer rich is the bottom line of all tyrannies.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep repeating the same questions?  Do you think it sounds cool to draw up a straw-man about what you think other people think?  

Define poor.  The poor in this country have cell phones, flat screen TVs, a place to live, and all they want to eat.  It's not like they are living like Obama's brother in the straw hut.

The poor not only don't pay taxes they collect checks.  The people I'm talking about that need to pay their share of this government are the people that are not poor.  The people below the 51% line and above the means tested poverty line.

That said, I don't want anyone to have to pay income taxes. IMO taxes should be voluntary, such as sales tax on non-food products and import duty taxes on all imports that are not otherwise readily available here in the states.  Income tax is slavery.  How many hundreds of times do I have to tell you this before it BURNS IN YOUR HEAD. Stop accusing me of wanting the very thing I keep railing for getting rid of you jerk.


----------



## PMZ

U





Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have little concern as to his company - that is between him, the board of directors, and the stock holders.
> 
> My concern is with gutter scum like George Soros who loots an entire nation - crushing the Bank of England - or fuckwads like Obama who give license to Blue Cross and Kaiser to rob me at gun point - with the gun held by Stasi (IRS) agents. Or Goldman Sachs to lose trillions and then use taxpayer funds to rebuild while the majority lose homes, jobs, and lives.
Click to expand...


You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you? 

Back to the 8th grade with you. Maybe when you get there you can start a Bernie Madoff fan club.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.



Really comrade?

So "workers" created the integrated circuits that let you spew your Marxist idiocy on the internet? "Workers" designed the networks and protocols to move the data? "workers" developed particle theories to build the hard disks to hold all the data?

You are but an ignorant baboon - without men of the mind, you would starve as you dig a hole, fill it in, and declare you have created wealth.....


----------



## RKMBrown

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.
> 
> The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance.  They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government.  The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy.  Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.
> 
> Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it.   The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.
> 
> A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.
> 
> That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer.  The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received.  So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out.  Government dollars not so much if at all.
> 
> That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs.  We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that.   It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's definitely the way Marx looked at it all right.  However, every single place it has ever been tried it results in lowered production and sharply lowered standards of living for all.  Why?  Because only a very few people are driven to be productive when somebody else claims what they produce and there is no reward for skill, effort, creativity, innovation, or hard work.   If the slackard dullard benefits as much as the highly productive worker, there won't be highly productive workers for long.
Click to expand...


Bingo.  I'm done rowing the USS Titanic for these laggards, let the ship wallow and sink to the bottom as they burn the ship for firewood.  I've got my own raft (Texas), screw the socialist states.


----------



## Foxfyre

A professor once experimented with communism in his classroom.  He averaged all the grades and awarded every student the same "C".  Those who hadn't studied and obviously failed the exam were thrilled.  Those who had studied hard and had earned an "A" were not at all thrilled.  The next exam, the average grade was "D".  The good students who normally would have studied hard to make the grade didn't do as much and the slackards as usual did nothing so everybody's grade fell.  And the next grade was an "F".    The slackards didn't care.  The good students were demanding a return to the earned reward system.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?



Because you are a communist, you think all wealth belongs to the state.

Because you are a looter, you think you are entitled to that wealth.

Because you are a fool, you think that what another EARNS will lessen what you get.



> Back to the 8th grade with you. Maybe when you get there you can start a Bernie Madoff fan club.



Even for class warfare, that is weak, and ignorant.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?



Compared to politicians looting the treasury, it's a pittance.

And you propose to make it worse.  Any power you give politicians will just give them the leverage to loot the company instead of the "CEO."

They will also bring down and attack CEOs who are not looting the company.

And the problem would be solved by itself anyway as the companies that have bad CEOs will go bankrupt and be replaced by companies who's CEO's act in their interest.

Just be honest, you don't give a crap about the CEO or the company, it's just the chance for a government power grab to you.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same as business employees whose career was given to China or India in exchange for executive bonuses.
Click to expand...


And you are back on track again... gebuz one second you appear to understand like this post then the next you are a whacked out socialist.  Are you sure you are not bi-polar?

Executive pay / bonuses is a big problem as their bosses, the owners, are currently prohibited from setting executive pay.  This is an oligopoly that the government refuses to break up.

That said, we don't need to work for corporations that move our jobs to china and india.   We don't need to work for corporations that have Executives with pay structures in the hundreds of millions, apparently earned for the act of off-shoring American jobs.  We can run our own companies with reasonable executive pay where the owners set and approve pay and the employees are primarily based right here.  Unless of course, customers don't want to buy American here in America.


----------



## Foxfyre

There are some Americans who will pay a lot more to buy American for various reasons, but most Americans are like people everywhere in the world.  If quality and/or functionality matters, they will buy the best product offered at a price they can afford.  If any product will do the job, they will buy the cheapest offered.

Americans were once the most productive and most skilled free market entreprenours in the world.  When government stayed mostly out of the way, we had the most rapidly increasing economy and standard of living.  But the more government meddling--regulation, manipulation of special interest, and increased taxes and fees--has entered into the picture, the more difficult to prosper it becomes.

If the government got out of the way and allowed the free market to work again, I have every confidence that Americans would again be the most productive and skilled entreprenours in the world, and because it would make good economic sense to do so, the investment capital and jobs would be brought back here.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have little concern as to his company - that is between him, the board of directors, and the stock holders.
> 
> My concern is with gutter scum like George Soros who loots an entire nation - crushing the Bank of England - or fuckwads like Obama who give license to Blue Cross and Kaiser to rob me at gun point - with the gun held by Stasi (IRS) agents. Or Goldman Sachs to lose trillions and then use taxpayer funds to rebuild while the majority lose homes, jobs, and lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?
> 
> Back to the 8th grade with you. Maybe when you get there you can start a Bernie Madoff fan club.
Click to expand...


Back to the womb for you.
CEOs looting companies costs ONLY THE SHAREHOLDERS. 
The shareholders own the company, not you and I. ONLY they lose money.
So you also believe corporations pay taxes I would guess.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.
> 
> What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.
> 
> What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.
> 
> How much will the  military be cut?
> 
> What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?
> 
> I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.
> 
> To hard to do.
> 
> So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?
> 
> Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brownie's been upset since learning that 85% of Americans still have 15% of the wealth.  Goddamm Communist plot it is.  He won't rest until they're starving in the streets as God expects.
Click to expand...


They have it because either they earned it or someone legally gave it to them.
Why are you envious and jealous of those that have more money than you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.



You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*

Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> For people who take care of themselves you certainly do an awful lot of childish whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything I can do including whining to keep the moocher class out of my pockets.
> How else do we fight the increase of the moochers and parasites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Move to place that has no crime.
Click to expand...


That would require you to move to a place that has no government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
> 
> It can be inherited.
> 
> It can be stolen.
> 
> It can be begged.
> 
> And it can be looted.
> 
> Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.
> 
> The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.
> 
> Support whom you will, but I support the producers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.
Click to expand...


Larry Ellison - Oracle
Elon Musk - Tesla Motors
Marissa A. Mayer - Yahoo Inc.
Ralph Lauren - Ralph Lauren Corp
Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
John J. Donahoe - Ebay Inc
Howard Schultz - Starbucks Inc.

Actually, I could just list every CEO who received over $30 million in salary, but I'd like to see you argue that the above are looting their companies.  They created their companies.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything I can do including whining to keep the moocher class out of my pockets.
> How else do we fight the increase of the moochers and parasites?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move to place that has no crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would require you to move to a place that has no government.
Click to expand...


Right.  Perfect for an anarchist.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*
> 
> Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity
Click to expand...


Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brownie's been upset since learning that 85% of Americans still have 15% of the wealth.  Goddamm Communist plot it is.  He won't rest until they're starving in the streets as God expects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have it because either they earned it or someone legally gave it to them.
> Why are you envious and jealous of those that have more money than you?
Click to expand...


You don't know what group I'm in,  do you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*
> 
> Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
Click to expand...


I completely understand what you wrote.  That's why I nominated you for the award.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> U
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have little concern as to his company - that is between him, the board of directors, and the stock holders.
> 
> My concern is with gutter scum like George Soros who loots an entire nation - crushing the Bank of England - or fuckwads like Obama who give license to Blue Cross and Kaiser to rob me at gun point - with the gun held by Stasi (IRS) agents. Or Goldman Sachs to lose trillions and then use taxpayer funds to rebuild while the majority lose homes, jobs, and lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?
> 
> Back to the 8th grade with you. Maybe when you get there you can start a Bernie Madoff fan club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the womb for you.
> CEOs looting companies costs ONLY THE SHAREHOLDERS.
> The shareholders own the company, not you and I. ONLY they lose money.
> So you also believe corporations pay taxes I would guess.
Click to expand...


How about the employees and customers?  How about the other companies the company in question supplies and their customers? 

What money do the shareholders lose? Some dividends if the company pays any? 

Unless the stock is an IPO, all of the money shareholders pay for stock goes to the seller of the stock.  Nothing goes to the company. The original shareholders own whatever means that get financed through that means. 

Nobody own the company's biggest asset.  The employees. That would be slavery.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> There are some Americans who will pay a lot more to buy American for various reasons, but most Americans are like people everywhere in the world.  If quality and/or functionality matters, they will buy the best product offered at a price they can afford.  If any product will do the job, they will buy the cheapest offered.
> 
> Americans were once the most productive and most skilled free market entreprenours in the world.  When government stayed mostly out of the way, we had the most rapidly increasing economy and standard of living.  But the more government meddling--regulation, manipulation of special interest, and increased taxes and fees--has entered into the picture, the more difficult to prosper it becomes.
> 
> If the government got out of the way and allowed the free market to work again, I have every confidence that Americans would again be the most productive and skilled entreprenours in the world, and because it would make good economic sense to do so, the investment capital and jobs would be brought back here.



Got any evidence?  Like the evidence that I gave you showing that the problems you mention correlate with extreme wealth inequality?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as business employees whose career was given to China or India in exchange for executive bonuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are back on track again... gebuz one second you appear to understand like this post then the next you are a whacked out socialist.  Are you sure you are not bi-polar?
> 
> Executive pay / bonuses is a big problem as their bosses, the owners, are currently prohibited from setting executive pay.  This is an oligopoly that the government refuses to break up.
> 
> That said, we don't need to work for corporations that move our jobs to china and india.   We don't need to work for corporations that have Executives with pay structures in the hundreds of millions, apparently earned for the act of off-shoring American jobs.  We can run our own companies with reasonable executive pay where the owners set and approve pay and the employees are primarily based right here.  Unless of course, customers don't want to buy American here in America.
Click to expand...


''Executive pay / bonuses is a big problem as their bosses, the owners, are currently prohibited from setting executive pay.  This is an oligopoly that the government refuses to break up.''

Most companies don't have owners.  The shareholders are just gamblers betting on share price. They care nothing about the means that they own beyond getting ASAP to their target selling price. The BODs are typically other executives who agree to any compensation that will, quid pro quo,  get them more money.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another set of bullshit deflections.  This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads.  What will out of work government workers do?  Die or become productive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brownie's been upset since learning that 85% of Americans still have 15% of the wealth.  Goddamm Communist plot it is.  He won't rest until they're starving in the streets as God expects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have it because either they earned it or someone legally gave it to them.
> Why are you envious and jealous of those that have more money than you?
Click to expand...


I'm not jealous in the least.  Every day there is news about how dysfunctionally wealthy live.  Jealous?  Are you kidding?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to politicians looting the treasury, it's a pittance.
> 
> And you propose to make it worse.  Any power you give politicians will just give them the leverage to loot the company instead of the "CEO."
> 
> They will also bring down and attack CEOs who are not looting the company.
> 
> And the problem would be solved by itself anyway as the companies that have bad CEOs will go bankrupt and be replaced by companies who's CEO's act in their interest.
> 
> Just be honest, you don't give a crap about the CEO or the company, it's just the chance for a government power grab to you.
Click to expand...


Evidence man,  not what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a communist, you think all wealth belongs to the state.
> 
> Because you are a looter, you think you are entitled to that wealth.
> 
> Because you are a fool, you think that what another EARNS will lessen what you get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the 8th grade with you. Maybe when you get there you can start a Bernie Madoff fan club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even for class warfare, that is weak, and ignorant.
Click to expand...


Class warfare is your war,  not mine.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> A professor once experimented with communism in his classroom.  He averaged all the grades and awarded every student the same "C".  Those who hadn't studied and obviously failed the exam were thrilled.  Those who had studied hard and had earned an "A" were not at all thrilled.  The next exam, the average grade was "D".  The good students who normally would have studied hard to make the grade didn't do as much and the slackards as usual did nothing so everybody's grade fell.  And the next grade was an "F".    The slackards didn't care.  The good students were demanding a return to the earned reward system.



What does that have to do Communism?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
> 
> It can be inherited.
> 
> It can be stolen.
> 
> It can be begged.
> 
> And it can be looted.
> 
> Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.
> 
> The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.
> 
> Support whom you will, but I support the producers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Larry Ellison - Oracle
> Elon Musk - Tesla Motors
> Marissa A. Mayer - Yahoo Inc.
> Ralph Lauren - Ralph Lauren Corp
> Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
> John J. Donahoe - Ebay Inc
> Howard Schultz - Starbucks Inc.
> 
> Actually, I could just list every CEO who received over $30 million in salary, but I'd like to see you argue that the above are looting their companies.  They created their companies.
Click to expand...


If they started their company their compensation should,  and does,  come from stock value increase. 

Their operating contribution is miniscule compared to their employees.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*
> 
> Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely understand what you wrote.  That's why I nominated you for the award.
Click to expand...


Then tell us what,  specifically,  what you think is in error.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Ellison - Oracle
> Elon Musk - Tesla Motors
> Marissa A. Mayer - Yahoo Inc.
> Ralph Lauren - Ralph Lauren Corp
> Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
> John J. Donahoe - Ebay Inc
> Howard Schultz - Starbucks Inc.
> 
> Actually, I could just list every CEO who received over $30 million in salary, but I'd like to see you argue that the above are looting their companies.  They created their companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they started their company their compensation should,  and does,  come from stock value increase.
> 
> *Their operating contribution is miniscule compared to their employees.*
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Two nominations for Dumbest Post of the Month in one day!


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely understand what you wrote.  That's why I nominated you for the award.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then tell us what,  specifically,  what you think is in error.
Click to expand...


To begin with, there's your claim that "*it doesn't matter who owns it*."

Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist.  In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*
> 
> Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
Click to expand...


1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.

2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.

Explain those, please.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely understand what you wrote.  That's why I nominated you for the award.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell us what,  specifically,  what you think is in error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To begin with, there's your claim that "*it doesn't matter who owns it*."
> 
> Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist.  In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.
Click to expand...


You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by non government workers. 

I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true. 

If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise. 

That may be a little advanced for you.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*
> 
> Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.
> 
> 2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.
> 
> Explain those, please.
Click to expand...


Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell us what,  specifically,  what you think is in error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, there's your claim that "*it doesn't matter who owns it*."
> 
> Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist.  In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by no government workers.
> 
> I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.
> 
> If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise.
> 
> That may be a little advanced for you.
Click to expand...


Here's the first flaw in your argument:  The claim the government workers produce wealth.  They don't.  No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces.  That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.

Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid.  If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation.  When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.

You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just been nominated for the "Dumbest Statement of the Month" award for your entry *"What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it."*
> 
> Congratulations Komrade!  You are setting a higher standard for stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.
> 
> 2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.
> 
> Explain those, please.
Click to expand...


I' m not sure that I understand your question. Or even if you're asking it of me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.
> 
> 2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.
> 
> Explain those, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I' m not sure that I understand your question. Or even if you're asking it of me.
Click to expand...


So your response is that you're too dumb to be expected to answer.  Noted.  Run along.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.
> 
> 2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.
> 
> Explain those, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Thats why I'm always on the side of middle class workers,  creators of the wealth that we all share amongst us.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, there's your claim that "*it doesn't matter who owns it*."
> 
> Every socialist in the universe would disagree with that, as would ever economist.  In fact, an 8 year old would disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by no government workers.
> 
> I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.
> 
> If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise.
> 
> That may be a little advanced for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the first flaw in your argument:  The claim the government workers produce wealth.  They don't.  No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces.  That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.
> 
> Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid.  If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation.  When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.
> 
> You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.
Click to expand...


As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.  

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value? 

An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that? 

A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable? 

The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.  

I can go on all day proving you wrong.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by no government workers.
> 
> I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.
> 
> If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise.
> 
> That may be a little advanced for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the first flaw in your argument:  The claim the government workers produce wealth.  They don't.  No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces.  That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.
> 
> Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid.  If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation.  When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.
> 
> You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.
Click to expand...


What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value.   Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.

But even  among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources.   It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.

The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency.  Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.


----------



## PMZ

eric said:


> How can we ever have homeland security with our current immigration, or lack of thereof, policy.
> 
> When my parents can here from Europe in the early 50's, first of all there was a quota on the number of people from different countries who could come here, and by the way you could not be pregnant. Then you needed a sponser, who was responsible for you, till you became a citizen. You were required to take a test and report to the post office every two weeks.  If you did not comply they came and deported you. Compare this to todays joke of a system, where we do not even know who is here.
> 
> While I'm on a role, let me not stop here.  My parents learned english in a very short time, which they taught me, not their native languages. The schools I went to did not have teach in different languages, just plain old english ! Mom & Dad were working within 3 days, and paying taxes, after they arrived here. They found a way to overcome obstacles, like language in the begining, they did not go on welfare, have 20 kids, send their money back to Europe, and become a fly on the american taxpayers a??. I have been working since I was 17 years old, paying taxes, and hopefully being a productive citizen. I resent having to foot the bill for some mexican who walks across the boarder broke, pregnant, and ready for some good old American welfare. Let me say I have nothing against helping Americans who need help, in fact I think we should give more to the people who truely need it, like the elderly, disabled, our vets, etc . Most of these people who played it straight live a substandard existence because the monies are spread so thin, feeding the illegals, cheaters, and the just plain old LAZY.
> 
> By the way did you guys read or see that the families of some of the mexicans crossing our lovely southern boarder, are suing the US govt. because their loved ones died of dehydration crossing our deserts. They claim the govt. should have installing drinking fountains to prevent this. Maybe I'm a little hard core but I think we should have installed 50 caliber machine guns instead. I also saw on Fox News a congressman who described an incident where the mexican army escorted illegals across the boarder and when confronted by boarder patrol fired weapons at them. HOW is this tolerated? How is this Homeland security?
> 
> Whew! Thats enough to ge you worked UP, better take a valium. Only kidding.



No.  I told you.  I don't understand your question.  If you are unable to clarify it,  move on.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.
> 
> 2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.
> 
> Explain those, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Thats why I'm always on the side of middle class workers,  creators of the wealth that we all share amongst us.
Click to expand...


How sweet.  But what is at issue is how those middle - or upper or lower - class workers are resourced, organised and directed to produce the shared wealth.

Socialist countries like the USSR and its satellites were very bad at producing wealth to share (and very bad at sharing it) which is why they collapsed.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the first flaw in your argument:  The claim the government workers produce wealth.  They don't.  No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces.  That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.
> 
> Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid.  If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation.  When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.
> 
> You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value.   Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.
> 
> But even  among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources.   It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.
> 
> The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency.  Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.
Click to expand...


There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value.  Some work for government,  some for private enterprise. 

Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so,  you're just plain stupid.  

No competition,  make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work.  Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact?  Give me a noncompetitive contract.  I'll show you profit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by no government workers.
> 
> I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.  Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.
> 
> If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise.
> 
> That may be a little advanced for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the first flaw in your argument:  The claim the government workers produce wealth.  They don't.  No one would pay voluntarily for anything the government produces.  That's why government has to use guns to make you pay for it.
> 
> Again, the claim that it doesn't matter who owns it is the ultimate in stupid.  If you think that it didn't matter whether Henry Ford owned Ford Motor Corp or some imbecile bureaucrat, then you are so stupid you are beyond salvation.  When Steve Jobs took over Apple Computer, he increased the value of the company by several hundred billion dollars.
> 
> You have to be a complete moron to actually believe it doesn't matter who owns it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.
Click to expand...


You know, we believed you when you told me that you were too stupid to answer me.  You didn't actually have to PROVE it.  But we appreciate the thought.

Learn the meaning of "produce wealth", fucknut.  Move along.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Why you think we all "have" to do this.
> 
> 2)  Why you think those of us who actually produce have any desire to participating in such an asinine idea.
> 
> Explain those, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parasites who produce nothing are always eager to divide up what others have produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  That&#8217;s why I'm always on the side of middle class workers,  creators of the wealth that we all share amongst us.
Click to expand...


You mean you're on the side of parasites because under capitalism everyone receives exactly what his fellow men believe he is entitled to receive.  Your only purpose in taking a side to is to alter that arrangement.  There are no sides under capitalism because all arrangements are voluntary.  It's only when politicians pit one citizen against another by inciting envy that "sides" come into being.  One of those "sides" is always a gang of thugs intent on looting the other "side" which are the victims.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value.   Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.
> 
> But even  among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources.   It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.
> 
> The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency.  Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value.  Some work for government,  some for private enterprise.
> 
> Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so,  you're just plain stupid.
> 
> No competition,  make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work.  Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact?  Give me a noncompetitive contract.  I'll show you profit.
Click to expand...


You are describing the essence of government: no competition.  It makes money regardless of the cost to taxpayers.  When you have a monopoly on the use of force, you have the worst kind of monopoly.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Because wealth distribution in the US is extreme enough now to be dysfunctional.  Making it more,  rather than less so,  with our tax system,  would increase the dysfunction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So called wealth inequality is meaningless to the average person.
> 
> Anyone, even you, can increase their wealth anytime they want.
> 
> The reality is they don't want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservative lie.  If you fall for it you're a sucker.
Click to expand...


If you don't believe it then you've never been poor.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who decides who earns it?
> 
> Typically,  it's the wealthy.  You think that's what they already have almost all of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know?
Click to expand...


Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.

Have you? And if so by whom?


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value.   Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.
> 
> But even  among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources.   It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.
> 
> The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency.  Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value.  Some work for government,  some for private enterprise.
> 
> Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so,  you're just plain stupid.
> 
> No competition,  make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work.  Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact?  Give me a noncompetitive contract.  I'll show you profit.
Click to expand...


I entirely agree.  In those rare cases where it really is impossible to inject competition into an essential service it must be run by the state or some other public authority.   This is not socialism but realism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you have shown is that some state employees sometimes add value.   Nothing wrong with that even though you have carefully selected examples that support your case, ignoring that vast army of bureaucrats who add no value whatsoever but simply get in the way of those who actually produce.
> 
> But even  among your examples it may be that the state is wasting resources.   It is possible that air traffic control could be carried out by a private company more efficiently and at lower cost.
> 
> The need to make a profit is a powerful drive towards efficiency.  Relying on ever more money from taxpayers is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value.  Some work for government,  some for private enterprise.
> 
> Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so,  you're just plain stupid.
> 
> No competition,  make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work.  Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact?  Give me a noncompetitive contract.  I'll show you profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I entirely agree.  In those rare cases where it really is impossible to inject competition into an essential service it must be run by the state or some other public authority.   This is not socialism but realism.
Click to expand...


This is a variation of the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument:  if you don't think socialism is splendiferous, you MUST want anarchy and no government whatsoever.  It is simply impossible for leftist minds to scrape up enough brain cells to comprehend the subtlety of "some VERY LIMITED government to handle VERY FEW tasks".


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
Click to expand...


You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.  

Or more probably,  the higher unemployment is, the cheaper workers are.  You can pay them starvation wages then complain about wealth redistribution to keep them from starving. 

Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.  

One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many bureaucrats who don't add much value.  Some work for government,  some for private enterprise.
> 
> Private enterprise is a fine system with competition. Would you contract work to a single supplier? If so,  you're just plain stupid.
> 
> No competition,  make more money regardless of the cost to others, just doesn't work.  Why are conservatives oblivious to that simple fact?  Give me a noncompetitive contract.  I'll show you profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I entirely agree.  In those rare cases where it really is impossible to inject competition into an essential service it must be run by the state or some other public authority.   This is not socialism but realism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a variation of the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument:  if you don't think socialism is splendiferous, you MUST want anarchy and no government whatsoever.  It is simply impossible for leftist minds to scrape up enough brain cells to comprehend the subtlety of "some VERY LIMITED government to handle VERY FEW tasks".
Click to expand...


The difference between conservatives and liberals is evidence.  Conservatives believe what they're told.  Liberals get evidence.


----------



## zeke

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No so called wealthy guy ever stopped me from earning money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
Click to expand...


Do you REALLY think that IF you go from 12 bucks an hour to 15 bucks an hour, that the 3 dollar "increase" puts you on a par with those that woke up this morning with 50 MILLION in the bank and are looking at making another 20,000 dollars before noon.

You really think you can do that (have 50 million dollars and make 20k a day)?

If you really believe that you can do that, why don't cha?

I already know what you will say; BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. I AM SO HAPPY WITH MY 15 DOLLARS AN HOUR I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN 50 MILLION IN THE BANK. BUT I COULD IF I WANTED TO. AIN'T NOBODY STOPPIN ME BUT ME.

LMAO.


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives believe that one must choose between a hammer and a screwdriver and make their choice at the hammer store getting their advice from a hammer salesman on commission.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to politicians looting the treasury, it's a pittance.
> 
> And you propose to make it worse.  Any power you give politicians will just give them the leverage to loot the company instead of the "CEO."
> 
> They will also bring down and attack CEOs who are not looting the company.
> 
> And the problem would be solved by itself anyway as the companies that have bad CEOs will go bankrupt and be replaced by companies who's CEO's act in their interest.
> 
> Just be honest, you don't give a crap about the CEO or the company, it's just the chance for a government power grab to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence man,  not what you wish was true.
Click to expand...


Um...


----------



## BlackSand

t_polkow said:


> Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent  the top rate during the 1990s  annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.



*So what you are basically saying is that the top earners are more equipped to fund the government and likewise grow the economy?*

This relies on the ability to understand that if you can ever become successful enough to be in the top earnings group ... Then you have to take responsibility for all those who hate your guts and will never pay their fair share of anything.
Grow a company and produce earnings ... And Progressive Liberals in government will make you grow the overall economy as well ... Because you can do it better than they can, or ever will.

The rich have to grow the economy because it is the only way they can make any money when taxes are oppressive ... And Progressive Liberals act like taxing the rich is a positive solution.
No matter how much money they want to tax the rich ... It will never make Progressive Liberals better money managers or successful in any way.

*At a 90% tax rate on earnings ...*

If the rich want $50 and they earn more than most people overall ... They have to earn $500 to get to keep $50 they earned ... You better believe that it will lead them to figuring out how to do it.

*It is a crying shame the rest of the people cannot do the same in an honest and forthright manner.*

.


----------



## BlackSand

zeke said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY think that IF you go from 12 bucks an hour to 15 bucks an hour, that the 3 dollar "increase" puts you on a par with those that woke up this morning with 50 MILLION in the bank and are looking at making another 20,000 dollars before noon.
> 
> You really think you can do that (have 50 million dollars and make 20k a day)?
> 
> If you really believe that you can do that, why don't cha?
> 
> I already know what you will say; BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. I AM SO HAPPY WITH MY 15 DOLLARS AN HOUR I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN 50 MILLION IN THE BANK. BUT I COULD IF I WANTED TO. AIN'T NOBODY STOPPIN ME BUT ME.
> 
> LMAO.
Click to expand...


Do you *REALLY* think that stealing the 50 million through taxation on the rich man makes you par with him?

.


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY think that IF you go from 12 bucks an hour to 15 bucks an hour, that the 3 dollar "increase" puts you on a par with those that woke up this morning with 50 MILLION in the bank and are looking at making another 20,000 dollars before noon.
> 
> You really think you can do that (have 50 million dollars and make 20k a day)?
> 
> If you really believe that you can do that, why don't cha?
> 
> I already know what you will say; BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. I AM SO HAPPY WITH MY 15 DOLLARS AN HOUR I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN 50 MILLION IN THE BANK. BUT I COULD IF I WANTED TO. AIN'T NOBODY STOPPIN ME BUT ME.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you *REALLY* think that stealing the 50 million through taxation on the rich man makes you par with him?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No. I think that I'm on par with all others. Regardless of anything.


----------



## DGS49

Liberals' view of the world is based on envy and ignorance about economic realities.

They see someone with wealth or high income, and rather than looking closely to see how it came about (usually through a combination of talent, hard work, and taking intelligent risks), they assume that the wealth is either obtained through some sort of theft or "good fortune."

Consider even the word, "fortunate."  When talking about the wealthy or high earners, they frequently use the word "fortunate," PRESUMING that the wealth was the product of some sort of luck.  The very idea that it might have resulted from intelligence, hard work, or shrewd risk-taking doesn't even cross a Liberal's mind.  Is it "luck" that drives a person to get an MBA or a law degree or a doctorate?  Is it LUCK that causes an executive's car to be in the employee's parking lot on Sunday or at 9pm, while the rest of the lot is empty?  Are business owners just LUCKY to be working 80 hours a week?

And look at the same word when applied to the other end of the spectrum.  Liberals are constantly referring to people with low incomes and minimal assets as "unfortunate."  Maybe that is the case, but it is also very possible that a person is "poor" because he is unwilling to DO THE THINGS THAT RESULT IN HIGHER INCOMES OR THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH.  How difficult is it to get a college degree these days (from a community college and/or state U)?  How difficult is it to work hard, come to work on time, seek out opportunities for more responsibility, or even START YOUR OWN BUSINESS?

Who is keeping them from it?

How hard is it to defer having children until you are MARRIED and can AFFORD TO NURTURE THEM PROPERLY?  Not too fucking hard, actually.  How many of the "poor" are not "unfortunate" at all, but are some combination of stupid, lazy, and criminally self-destructive?

Government - even competent, efficient government, assuming there is such a thing  - is expensive and must be paid for by taxes and fees.  EVERYONE should be paying federal taxes, not just half the population.  But anything more than 1/4 of earned income is theft.

And by the way, I haven't read through all these pages but it would be good to note that when the MARGINAL top income tax rate was over 70% in the 70's and 80's, there was also an umbrella provision that limited the actual taxes to 50% of AGI.  Nobody paid 75% of their income to the Federal Government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.



What's funny is that I've read Marx, I understand Marx, I even respect Marx.

And you, who flaccidly spews Marxist rhetoric, have not read, much less understood, that which you advocate.

Idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> If they started their company their compensation should,  and does,  come from stock value increase.
> 
> Their operating contribution is miniscule compared to their employees.



Yes, without the guiding wisdom of Miguel, the third shift janitor, Oracle would never have grown to what it is today!

Yer a right fucking genius, comrade.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by non government workers.



Government workers don't create wealth.

You have no grasp at all of markets.



> I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.



Yes, a statement so stupid that few Jr. High kids enamored with Marx would even mutter. 

You are either a troll or are in fact mentally retarded.



> Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.



DO NOT FEED TROLL.....

Look, you fucking moron, I can set you down for as many hours as you like and tell you to design a relational database with referential integrity.

We could wait 10,000 years and it will never happen. No amount of sweat or brute strength will create it. This was the major flaw in Marxist theory, the idea that people are cogs in a wheel, that one is just that same as any other. But a drooling dolt like you will never create anything - because creation is the act of the mind. Without Larry Elison, Oracle would never have existed, the thousands of employees would have never had jobs. Because it was his INTELLECT, along with Umang Gupta, who built Oracle. 

You can dig a hole and fill it in for a million years, and though you are "working," you'll never create value.



> If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise.




And THAT is why the Yugo was a car that was every bit as valuable as a Mercedes Benz. Yer a right fucking genius.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.



Moving the goal posts I see...

You claimed that government workers create wealth.

If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he CREATED WEALTH?

Uh, no..


----------



## PMZ

DGS49 said:


> Liberals' view of the world is based on envy and ignorance about economic realities.
> 
> They see someone with wealth or high income, and rather than looking closely to see how it came about (usually through a combination of talent, hard work, and taking intelligent risks), they assume that the wealth is either obtained through some sort of theft or "good fortune."
> 
> Consider even the word, "fortunate."  When talking about the wealthy or high earners, they frequently use the word "fortunate," PRESUMING that the wealth was the product of some sort of luck.  The very idea that it might have resulted from intelligence, hard work, or shrewd risk-taking doesn't even cross a Liberal's mind.  Is it "luck" that drives a person to get an MBA or a law degree or a doctorate?  Is it LUCK that causes an executive's car to be in the employee's parking lot on Sunday or at 9pm, while the rest of the lot is empty?  Are business owners just LUCKY to be working 80 hours a week?
> 
> And look at the same word when applied to the other end of the spectrum.  Liberals are constantly referring to people with low incomes and minimal assets as "unfortunate."  Maybe that is the case, but it is also very possible that a person is "poor" because he is unwilling to DO THE THINGS THAT RESULT IN HIGHER INCOMES OR THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH.  How difficult is it to get a college degree these days (from a community college and/or state U)?  How difficult is it to work hard, come to work on time, seek out opportunities for more responsibility, or even START YOUR OWN BUSINESS?
> 
> Who is keeping them from it?
> 
> How hard is it to defer having children until you are MARRIED and can AFFORD TO NURTURE THEM PROPERLY?  Not too fucking hard, actually.  How many of the "poor" are not "unfortunate" at all, but are some combination of stupid, lazy, and criminally self-destructive?
> 
> Government - even competent, efficient government, assuming there is such a thing  - is expensive and must be paid for by taxes and fees.  EVERYONE should be paying federal taxes, not just half the population.  But anything more than 1/4 of earned income is theft.
> 
> And by the way, I haven't read through all these pages but it would be good to note that when the MARGINAL top income tax rate was over 70% in the 70's and 80's, there was also an umbrella provision that limited the actual taxes to 50% of AGI.  Nobody paid 75% of their income to the Federal Government.



Of course your rant is what you'd like to true as you cannot provide any evidence to support that it is.  You're a victim of propaganda which almost always is based on,  why you should be angry,  and who to blame it on.  

So the talking head told you what liberals are like.  Of course he also did not supply any evidence,  but because you were angry at the situation that he described to you,  you didn't care.  

Sucker play, but you have lots of company.  Lots of people who go the no evidence route.  

BTW there isn't a single American who wouldn't agree that everyone should be employed and paying taxes.  But business has a lot to do creating new high paying jobs before it will happen.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something that implied that the wealth created by government workers does not 'count'  the same as the wealth created by non government workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government workers don't create wealth.
> 
> You have no grasp at all of markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said ' What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a statement so stupid that few Jr. High kids enamored with Marx would even mutter.
> 
> You are either a troll or are in fact mentally retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.' which is perfectly true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DO NOT FEED TROLL.....
> 
> Look, you fucking moron, I can set you down for as many hours as you like and tell you to design a relational database with referential integrity.
> 
> We could wait 10,000 years and it will never happen. No amount of sweat or brute strength will create it. This was the major flaw in Marxist theory, the idea that people are cogs in a wheel, that one is just that same as any other. But a drooling dolt like you will never create anything - because creation is the act of the mind. Without Larry Elison, Oracle would never have existed, the thousands of employees would have never had jobs. Because it was his INTELLECT, along with Umang Gupta, who built Oracle.
> 
> You can dig a hole and fill it in for a million years, and though you are "working," you'll never create value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a worker makes a widget,  that's a unit of tangible wealth. A widget  made on means owned by all us,  in other words government,  is exactly the same unit of wealth as one produced via means owned by some of us,  ie private enterprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And THAT is why the Yugo was a car that was every bit as valuable as a Mercedes Benz. Yer a right fucking genius.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything I said?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> What does that have to do with anything I said?



Crawl back to DailyKOS, retard.

You are defeated.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals' view of the world is based on envy and ignorance about economic realities.
> 
> They see someone with wealth or high income, and rather than looking closely to see how it came about (usually through a combination of talent, hard work, and taking intelligent risks), they assume that the wealth is either obtained through some sort of theft or "good fortune."
> 
> Consider even the word, "fortunate."  When talking about the wealthy or high earners, they frequently use the word "fortunate," PRESUMING that the wealth was the product of some sort of luck.  The very idea that it might have resulted from intelligence, hard work, or shrewd risk-taking doesn't even cross a Liberal's mind.  Is it "luck" that drives a person to get an MBA or a law degree or a doctorate?  Is it LUCK that causes an executive's car to be in the employee's parking lot on Sunday or at 9pm, while the rest of the lot is empty?  Are business owners just LUCKY to be working 80 hours a week?
> 
> And look at the same word when applied to the other end of the spectrum.  Liberals are constantly referring to people with low incomes and minimal assets as "unfortunate."  Maybe that is the case, but it is also very possible that a person is "poor" because he is unwilling to DO THE THINGS THAT RESULT IN HIGHER INCOMES OR THE ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH.  How difficult is it to get a college degree these days (from a community college and/or state U)?  How difficult is it to work hard, come to work on time, seek out opportunities for more responsibility, or even START YOUR OWN BUSINESS?
> 
> Who is keeping them from it?
> 
> How hard is it to defer having children until you are MARRIED and can AFFORD TO NURTURE THEM PROPERLY?  Not too fucking hard, actually.  How many of the "poor" are not "unfortunate" at all, but are some combination of stupid, lazy, and criminally self-destructive?
> 
> Government - even competent, efficient government, assuming there is such a thing  - is expensive and must be paid for by taxes and fees.  EVERYONE should be paying federal taxes, not just half the population.  But anything more than 1/4 of earned income is theft.
> 
> And by the way, I haven't read through all these pages but it would be good to note that when the MARGINAL top income tax rate was over 70% in the 70's and 80's, there was also an umbrella provision that limited the actual taxes to 50% of AGI.  Nobody paid 75% of their income to the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your rant is what you'd like to true as you cannot provide any evidence to support that it is.  You're a victim of propaganda which almost always is based on,  why you should be angry,  and who to blame it on.
> 
> So the talking head told you what liberals are like.  Of course he also did not supply an evidence,  but because you were angry at the situation that he described to you,  you didn't care.
> 
> Sucker play, but you have lots of company.  Lots of people who go the no evidence route.
> 
> BTW there isn't a single American who wouldn't agree that everyone should be employed and paying taxes.  But business has a lot to do creating new high paying jobs before it will happen.
Click to expand...


The part of your post that I agree with is that there are many reasons why any particular person might be poor or rich.  All the way from completely good or bad fortune to fully earned.  However the consequences are comfort for the rich and pain for the poor.  So who's more motivated? 

I tend to ignore both extremes as outliers and concentrate on the huge majority middle class. The workers who create the country's wealth.  The parents who raise the next generation.  Those with average luck and average skills.  Those with balanced lives. 

They are America and they are being taken advantage of by both sets of outliers.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us specifically what you don't understand about what I wrote.  I'll explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that I've read Marx, I understand Marx, I even respect Marx.
> 
> And you, who flaccidly spews Marxist rhetoric, have not read, much less understood, that which you advocate.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with me explaining what I wrote?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
> 
> Or more probably,  the higher unemployment is, the cheaper workers are.  You can pay them starvation wages then complain about wealth redistribution to keep them from starving.
> 
> Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.
> 
> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.
Click to expand...


Jobs are never created, they are demanded through consumers. The more you take from all consumers in the free market in taxes be they rich or middle class the less demand there is and the fewer jobs there are.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
Click to expand...


If no one has a job to offer you then find another way to make money.  This might come as a surprise to you but you do not have to work for someone else.



> Or more probably,  the higher unemployment is, the cheaper workers are.  You can pay them starvation wages then complain about wealth redistribution to keep them from starving.



I have no employees.  Never needed them. And if the economy and your circumstances are such that one job won't pay your bills then work 2 jobs.  Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job is all one needs?



> Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.



Already told you my parents were killed when I was 10.  I have been supporting myself since I was 15 quit HS at 17 because there was nothing there for me and college seemed to be a waste of time and money to me. I learned early that if you want to be financially secure that one full time job was not enough. I put in my hours when I was young and could burn the candle at both ends. 100 hour work weeks were no stranger to me. Now I am completely free to do whatever i want and my income will continue for as long as I want it to.

Nothing is stopping anyone from doing what I did.  Nothing but the choice not to do it.



> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.



Entitled: are you fucking kidding me?

I don't think I am entitled to anything.  Nothing. You on the other hand think people are entitled to live on other peoples' money.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual,  you are almost completely wrong.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he added value?
> 
> An air traffic controller safely guides 1000 flights to safe arrivals and departure.  Any value in that?
> 
> A CSC Dr isolates a new deadly virus and has a supply of vaccine ready when the contagion hits America.  Valuable?
> 
> The FBI investigates Bernie Madoff and the result is the biggest parasite of our times goes to prison and much of his 'profits' get returned to his victims.
> 
> I can go on all day proving you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts I see...
> 
> You claimed that government workers create wealth.
> 
> If a CIA agent doing his work stops a terrorist from blowing up a building,  has he CREATED WEALTH?
> 
> Uh, no..
Click to expand...


On one hand,  we have a standing valuable building filled with valuable equipment and living,  skilled people who produce. 

On the other we have a mass grave. 

This certainly isn't rocket science.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything I said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crawl back to DailyKOS, retard.
> 
> You are defeated.
Click to expand...


Posts like yours define the nature of conservatism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> On one hand,  we have a standing valuable building filled with valuable equipment and living,  skilled people who produce.
> 
> On the other we have a mass grave.
> 
> This certainly isn't rocket science.



No it isn't, yet you remain far too stupid to grasp it.

Again, you're just a troll.


----------



## Spiderman

zeke said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you REALLY think that IF you go from 12 bucks an hour to 15 bucks an hour, that the 3 dollar "increase" puts you on a par with those that woke up this morning with 50 MILLION in the bank and are looking at making another 20,000 dollars before noon.
Click to expand...


That's not the question I asked is it?

So why don't you answer the question I asked?



> You really think you can do that (have 50 million dollars and make 20k a day)?
> 
> If you really believe that you can do that, why don't cha?



I make more than 20K a month and I started by working minimum wage jobs.  I just worked 2 or three at a time.



> I already know what you will say; BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. I AM SO HAPPY WITH MY 15 DOLLARS AN HOUR I DON'T NEED NO STINKIN 50 MILLION IN THE BANK. BUT I COULD IF I WANTED TO. AIN'T NOBODY STOPPIN ME BUT ME.
> 
> LMAO.



I wouldn't be happy with $15 an hour but unlike you I would actually do something about it rather than complain that some rich guy is keeping me down because he doesn't pay enough taxes.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Conservatives believe that one must choose between a hammer and a screwdriver and make their choice at the hammer store getting their advice from a hammer salesman on commission.



That's funny coming from a dupe who labels everyone as conservative or liberal.


----------



## Dante

Voters: 81. You have already voted on this poll?



Liars!  How many rightwing sock puppets showed up to vote and disappeared?

81 members voted?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
> 
> Or more probably,  the higher unemployment is, the cheaper workers are.  You can pay them starvation wages then complain about wealth redistribution to keep them from starving.
> 
> Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.
> 
> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs are never created, they are demanded through consumers. The more you take from all consumers in the free market in taxes be they rich or middle class the less demand there is and the fewer jobs there are.
Click to expand...


I've never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been created yet. 

Jobs are created by growth.  Either business or government.  When a combination of business and government has grown to the size of a well paying job for 100% of the workers, the economy and country are as prosperous as they can be. 

Growth comes from both government and businesses providing desirable goods and services to satisfied customers.  Both government and business offer their goods and services at the lowest possible cost by continuously reducing process variability. Companies optimize competitive markets and governments otherwise.  In a democracy performance is maintained by the electorate rewarding those who demonstrate it with continued employment.  Same with business except who decides. 

I swear this is all 8th grade stuff.  I always assumed that most Americans are educated beyond the, 8th grade. 

What happened?


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have never been stopped from working, getting a better paying job, or increasing my net worth.
> 
> Have you? And if so by whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If no one has a job to offer you then find another way to make money.  This might come as a surprise to you but you do not have to work for someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no employees.  Never needed them. And if the economy and your circumstances are such that one job won't pay your bills then work 2 jobs.  Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job is all one needs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already told you my parents were killed when I was 10.  I have been supporting myself since I was 15 quit HS at 17 because there was nothing there for me and college seemed to be a waste of time and money to me. I learned early that if you want to be financially secure that one full time job was not enough. I put in my hours when I was young and could burn the candle at both ends. 100 hour work weeks were no stranger to me. Now I am completely free to do whatever i want and my income will continue for as long as I want it to.
> 
> Nothing is stopping anyone from doing what I did.  Nothing but the choice not to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entitled: are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> I don't think I am entitled to anything.  Nothing. You on the other hand think people are entitled to live on other peoples' money.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that working hard is exceptional?  

Why do you think bring uneducated is exceptional? 

''Nothing is stopping anyone from doing what I did.  Nothing but the choice not to do it.''

Zero evidence that this is true unless you assume that everyone is as or more capable than you. 

Your parents raised you until they died and someone after.  Do you want us to believe that nobody ever taught you a thing?  I'm interested because you would be the first person that I've ever met to claim that.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand,  we have a standing valuable building filled with valuable equipment and living,  skilled people who produce.
> 
> On the other we have a mass grave.
> 
> This certainly isn't rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't, yet you remain far too stupid to grasp it.
> 
> Again, you're just a troll.
Click to expand...


Again you are a valuable representative of conservatism.  

Valuable to liberals.


----------



## DGS49

One wonders whether the PMZ person is a troll or just stupid.

"Zero evidence" that people can still accumulate great wealth through individual hard work?

That really says it all. He has nothing worth responding to.  He is a fool.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If no one has a job to offer you then find another way to make money.  This might come as a surprise to you but you do not have to work for someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no employees.  Never needed them. And if the economy and your circumstances are such that one job won't pay your bills then work 2 jobs.  Where is it written that one 40 hour a week job is all one needs?
> 
> 
> 
> Already told you my parents were killed when I was 10.  I have been supporting myself since I was 15 quit HS at 17 because there was nothing there for me and college seemed to be a waste of time and money to me. I learned early that if you want to be financially secure that one full time job was not enough. I put in my hours when I was young and could burn the candle at both ends. 100 hour work weeks were no stranger to me. Now I am completely free to do whatever i want and my income will continue for as long as I want it to.
> 
> Nothing is stopping anyone from doing what I did.  Nothing but the choice not to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entitled: are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> I don't think I am entitled to anything.  Nothing. You on the other hand think people are entitled to live on other peoples' money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that working hard is exceptional?
> 
> Why do you think bring uneducated is exceptional?
Click to expand...


Where did I ever say that?  there is nothing extraordinary about me.  I'm just a guy like any other.



> ''Nothing is stopping anyone from doing what I did.  Nothing but the choice not to do it.''
> 
> Zero evidence that this is true unless you assume that everyone is as or more capable than you.



Anyone of average intelligence and able bodied is as capable as I am. Did I wrongly assume we were talking about able bodied people of average intelligence ?

If you were talking about the physically or mentally handicapped you should have said so.



> Your parents raised you until they died and someone after.  Do you want us to believe that nobody ever taught you a thing?  I'm interested because you would be the first person that I've ever met to claim that.



I can barely remember anything from when I was 10 but I'm sure you can list all the life lessons your parents taught you by age 10 right?.

And the only thing I learned in foster care was to shut up and keep my head down. Oh I also learned how to sneak in and out of the house so I could work without my foster parents or the social workers knowing about it.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
> 
> Or more probably,  the higher unemployment is, the cheaper workers are.  You can pay them starvation wages then complain about wealth redistribution to keep them from starving.
> 
> Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.
> 
> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are never created, they are demanded through consumers. The more you take from all consumers in the free market in taxes be they rich or middle class the less demand there is and the fewer jobs there are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been created yet.
> 
> Jobs are created by growth.  Either business or government.  When a combination of business and government has grown to the size of a well paying job for 100% of the workers, the economy and country are as prosperous as they can be.
> 
> Growth comes from both government and businesses providing desirable goods and services to satisfied customers.  Both government and business offer their goods and services at the lowest possible cost by continuously reducing process variability. Companies optimize competitive markets and governments otherwise.  In a democracy performance is maintained by the electorate rewarding those who demonstrate it with continued employment.  Same with business except who decides.
> 
> I swear this is all 8th grade stuff.  I always assumed that most Americans are educated beyond the, 8th grade.
> 
> What happened?
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised you have never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been produced yet, because that is not how it works.

Eli Whitney observed the tedious process of removing seeds from freshly picked cotton by hand and how people kept trying to find a more efficient way to do that.  He saw a need or desire, and he figured out a device that would fill it.

Somebody else saw the tedious methods of cutting and threshing wheat by hand and invented a machine that could harvest a field in an hour that once required days of intense manual labor.

Somebody saw a need and figured out to invent a machine that could spin wool into yarn, and somebody else figured out how to build a loom that could weave that yarn into usable cloth, and somebody else figured out how to operate a loom as a machine.  Somebody else replaced tedious hand stitching with a machine that could do it much more efficiently and faster than what could be done by hand.

For years in the agency I headed, I was frustrated at how quickly the enclosed exit lights would burn out and need to be replaced.  And we invariably had one exit light that wasn't working during safety inspections when I wanted a perfect score.  So a salesman shows up with a new cooler burning bulb guaranteed to last for up to a 100 times longer than the bulbs we were using.   He had no problem making a sale.

How many times have any of us wished we had a tool that would be more efficient in doing a particular task, and voila!!  One day there it was.  Somebody saw the need and had filled it.

Each new innovation can take away some jobs that are no longer needed, but new jobs are created to replace them.  As the buggy manufacturers were closing down in the wake of those new fangled automobiles, a whole new industry was springing up to manufacture parts and provide fuel, maintenance, and fancy accessories.

And government was not involved in any of this in any way.  Good government accommodates private sector innovations and follows economic development with necessary shared serfvices.  Except in very rare circumstances--the space program would be one exception--it does not create private sector innovations or create wealth efficiently.


----------



## PMZ

DGS49 said:


> One wonders whether the PMZ person is a troll or just stupid.
> 
> "Zero evidence" that people can still accumulate great wealth through individual hard work?
> 
> That really says it all. He has nothing worth responding to.  He is a fool.



There is evidence of that.  Also evidence that people can accumulate great wealth through pure luck. 

Did you think that I disbelieved that there are people with great wealth in the world and this country?  

I read about them all of the time in the news and see them every day. Sad lives,  many of them.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are never created, they are demanded through consumers. The more you take from all consumers in the free market in taxes be they rich or middle class the less demand there is and the fewer jobs there are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been created yet.
> 
> Jobs are created by growth.  Either business or government.  When a combination of business and government has grown to the size of a well paying job for 100% of the workers, the economy and country are as prosperous as they can be.
> 
> Growth comes from both government and businesses providing desirable goods and services to satisfied customers.  Both government and business offer their goods and services at the lowest possible cost by continuously reducing process variability. Companies optimize competitive markets and governments otherwise.  In a democracy performance is maintained by the electorate rewarding those who demonstrate it with continued employment.  Same with business except who decides.
> 
> I swear this is all 8th grade stuff.  I always assumed that most Americans are educated beyond the, 8th grade.
> 
> What happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised you have never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been produced yet, because that is not how it works.
> 
> Eli Whitney observed the tedious process of removing seeds from freshly picked cotton by hand and how people kept trying to find a more efficient way to do that.  He saw a need or desire, and he figured out a device that would fill it.
> 
> Somebody else saw the tedious methods of cutting and threshing wheat by hand and invented a machine that could harvest a field in an hour that once required days of intense manual labor.
> 
> Somebody saw a need and figured out to invent a machine that could spin wool into yarn, and somebody else figured out how to build a loom that could weave that yarn into usable cloth, and somebody else figured out how to operate a loom as a machine.  Somebody else replaced tedious hand stitching with a machine that could do it much more efficiently and faster than what could be done by hand.
> 
> For years in the agency I headed, I was frustrated at how quickly the enclosed exit lights would burn out and need to be replaced.  And we invariably had one exit light that wasn't working during safety inspections when I wanted a perfect score.  So a salesman shows up with a new cooler burning bulb guaranteed to last for up to a 100 times longer than the bulbs we were using.   He had no problem making a sale.
> 
> How many times have any of us wished we had a tool that would be more efficient in doing a particular task, and voila!!  One day there it was.  Somebody saw the need and had filled it.
> 
> Each new innovation can take away some jobs that are no longer needed, but new jobs are created to replace them.  As the buggy manufacturers were closing down in the wake of those new fangled automobiles, a whole new industry was springing up to manufacture parts and provide fuel, maintenance, and fancy accessories.
> 
> And government was not involved in any of this in any way.  Good government accommodates private sector innovations and follows economic development.  It does not create it efficiently.
Click to expand...


I made my living inventing ways to make manufacturing better.  So I really don't need your lecture.  Maybe others do. 

I could copy you, and lecture the good things that government has done too.  Like keep us free.  But,  first, I believe you know that stuff,  and second,  I'm  sure that you'll deny it because of your agenda.  

The evidence that at the present time business is failing us in this country is ample and reliable.  But because business hires advertising to blame government,  and that succeeds with people like you,  many are not able to hold them accountable for their poor performance. 

I'm free of that influence so I am perfectly willing to call a spade a spade.  And try to free others from propaganda as I can.


----------



## zeke

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably another conservative who believes that there's no job shortage. Unemployment is imaginary.  For every job business gave away they created another  one.
> 
> Or more probably,  the higher unemployment is, the cheaper workers are.  You can pay them starvation wages then complain about wealth redistribution to keep them from starving.
> 
> Or perhaps one born from and to parents who cared to educate you and demonstrated work ethic and (while it's not obvious here)  gave you a mind and body with no handicaps that has stayed healthy through life so far.
> 
> One difference between conservatives and liberals besides whining is that liberals are grateful and conservatives are entitled to everything that they got from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are never created, they are demanded through consumers. The more you take from all consumers in the free market in taxes be they rich or middle class the less demand there is and the fewer jobs there are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been created yet.
> 
> *Jobs are created by growth. * Either business or government.  When a combination of business and government has grown to the size of a well paying job for 100% of the workers, the economy and country are as prosperous as they can be.
> 
> Growth comes from both government and businesses providing desirable goods and services to satisfied customers.  Both government and business offer their goods and services at the lowest possible cost by continuously reducing process variability. Companies optimize competitive markets and governments otherwise.  In a democracy performance is maintained by the electorate rewarding those who demonstrate it with continued employment.  Same with business except who decides.
> 
> I swear this is all 8th grade stuff.  I always assumed that most Americans are educated beyond the, 8th grade.
> 
> What happened?
Click to expand...


i know you were studying hard in school. They covered this part when you were out sick I bet.

But anyway. Jobs are created by demand. Growth occurs as a result of the increased demand. 

I know, you were out sick that day.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> No. I think that I'm on par with all others. Regardless of anything.



Well wonderful ... Since you are on par with all others, regardless of anything ... Then I guess you don't have anything to complain about.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I've never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been created yet.



Ah, you have stumbled upon Says law, "supply gives rise to demand."

True that no one demanded an iPhone prior to the supply being created by Apple - then once there was a supply, the demand was huge,



> Jobs are created by growth.  Either business or government.  When a combination of business and government has grown to the size of a well paying job for 100% of the workers, the economy and country are as prosperous as they can be.



Why would a business want to grow, if they get no reward? If all is thrown in a pot and divvied up?



> Growth comes from both government and businesses providing desirable goods and services to satisfied customers.



Growth in government comes from greed and parasites. 



> Both government and business offer their goods and services at the lowest possible cost by continuously reducing process variability.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

Both life and death offer full potential for living....

Fucktard...



> Companies optimize competitive markets and governments otherwise.  In a democracy performance is maintained by the electorate rewarding those who demonstrate it with continued employment.  Same with business except who decides.



In a kleptocracy, power is maintained by bribes to special interests who use the force of arms of the government to take from others and give to themselves. They reward the bureaucrats and thugs who do their bidding with greater power.



> I swear this is all 8th grade stuff.  I always assumed that most Americans are educated beyond the, 8th grade.
> 
> What happened?



No 8th grader is stupid enough to buy the bullshit you're selling, sparky.


----------



## PMZ

I'm aware of many people with similar stories to yours and similar results.  Often though,  their story ends either in jail,  or having to spend their fortune on lawyers to keep them out. 

On the other hand there is my hero,  Bill Gates who turned some capability,  and plenty of good fortune being in the right place at the right time,  into a huge pile of wealth which he is now investing in changing the whole world for the better.


----------



## PMZ

DGS49 said:


> One wonders whether the PMZ person is a troll or just stupid.
> 
> "Zero evidence" that people can still accumulate great wealth through individual hard work?
> 
> That really says it all. He has nothing worth responding to.  He is a fool.



I'm a person.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I'm a person.



You are person trolling the interwebz....


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are person trolling the interwebz....
Click to expand...


And you are?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a customer demand a product that hasn't been created yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you have stumbled upon Says law, "supply gives rise to demand."
> 
> True that no one demanded an iPhone prior to the supply being created by Apple - then once there was a supply, the demand was huge,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are created by growth.  Either business or government.  When a combination of business and government has grown to the size of a well paying job for 100% of the workers, the economy and country are as prosperous as they can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a business want to grow, if they get no reward? If all is thrown in a pot and divvied up?
> 
> 
> 
> Growth in government comes from greed and parasites.
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
> 
> Both life and death offer full potential for living....
> 
> Fucktard...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies optimize competitive markets and governments otherwise.  In a democracy performance is maintained by the electorate rewarding those who demonstrate it with continued employment.  Same with business except who decides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a kleptocracy, power is maintained by bribes to special interests who use the force of arms of the government to take from others and give to themselves. They reward the bureaucrats and thugs who do their bidding with greater power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear this is all 8th grade stuff.  I always assumed that most Americans are educated beyond the, 8th grade.
> 
> What happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No 8th grader is stupid enough to buy the bullshit you're selling, sparky.
Click to expand...


I've never run into folks as afraid of the truth. Bizarre. 

Pick something that I said and let's debate it. 

Oh,  wait a minute.  That's what we've been doing.  And you're getting your ass kicked.  That's why the trash talking.  

I can do that too. 

Fuck you! 

But,  I think debating is more productive.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> And you are?



Not a troll.

And not paid by OFA.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a troll.
> 
> And not paid by OFA.
Click to expand...


I didn't know that you could get paid for doing this.  I'm retired so this is just my hobby plus what I can do for my country.  

The trouble with getting paid for it would be that I probably wouldn't be able to post just my ideas in my style.  I'd be an employee with the expectation of doing what someone else thinks is valuable.  

No thanks.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I've never run into folks as afraid of the truth. Bizarre.



You should leave the welfare office more often.



> Pick something that I said and let's debate it.



I've already refuted what you posted, such as the notion that ownership of the means of production is irrelevant, or that government creates wealth.



> Oh,  wait a minute.  That's what we've been doing.  And you're getting your ass kicked.  That's why the trash talking.



That must be it. sparky..



> I can do that too.
> 
> Fuck you!
> 
> But,  I think debating is more productive.



From this and the AGW thread, I doubt your sincerity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I didn't know that you could get paid for doing this.  I'm retired so this is just my hobby plus what I can do for my country.



What's the weather like there in North Korea?



> The trouble with getting paid for it would be that I probably wouldn't be able to post just my ideas in my style.  I'd be an employee with the expectation of doing what someone else thinks is valuable.
> 
> No thanks.



You post the ideas of George Soros, and not in a particularly eloquent style....


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a troll.
> 
> And not paid by OFA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know that you could get paid for doing this.  I'm retired so this is just my hobby plus what I can do for my country.
> 
> The trouble with getting paid for it would be that I probably wouldn't be able to post just my ideas in my style.  I'd be an employee with the expectation of doing what someone else thinks is valuable.
> 
> No thanks.
Click to expand...


Repeating what other people think is fine as long as they don't have the expectation you do that?  How do you draw that line exactly?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a troll.
> 
> And not paid by OFA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that you could get paid for doing this.  I'm retired so this is just my hobby plus what I can do for my country.
> 
> The trouble with getting paid for it would be that I probably wouldn't be able to post just my ideas in my style.  I'd be an employee with the expectation of doing what someone else thinks is valuable.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating what other people think is fine as long as they don't have the expectation you do that?  How do you draw that line exactly?
Click to expand...


I suspect that every word that I've ever uttered has been said before.  Every thought that I've ever had has been thought before.  

My motto is that I've never met anyone that I couldn't learn from and teach to.  

My problem here is there seems to be so much that I've learned that others didn't or forgot. 

So my criteria is not to be unique but informed.  I'll take information from any credible source.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that you could get paid for doing this.  I'm retired so this is just my hobby plus what I can do for my country.
> 
> The trouble with getting paid for it would be that I probably wouldn't be able to post just my ideas in my style.  I'd be an employee with the expectation of doing what someone else thinks is valuable.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating what other people think is fine as long as they don't have the expectation you do that?  How do you draw that line exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect that every word that I've ever uttered has been said before.  Every thought that I've ever had has been thought before.
Click to expand...


That's likely largely true of humanity.  However, with liberals getting any two of you to have a different thought is the challenge...

How much is a "fair share?"  To a liberal, the answer is "more."


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know that you could get paid for doing this.  I'm retired so this is just my hobby plus what I can do for my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the weather like there in North Korea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble with getting paid for it would be that I probably wouldn't be able to post just my ideas in my style.  I'd be an employee with the expectation of doing what someone else thinks is valuable.
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post the ideas of George Soros, and not in a particularly eloquent style....
Click to expand...


How do you know that he doesn't post my ideas?

If we post the same ideas, it could because there is only one truth.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating what other people think is fine as long as they don't have the expectation you do that?  How do you draw that line exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that every word that I've ever uttered has been said before.  Every thought that I've ever had has been thought before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's likely largely true of humanity.  However, with liberals getting any two of you to have a different thought is the challenge...
> 
> How much is a "fair share?"  To a liberal, the answer is "more."
Click to expand...


I think that the answer is "enough".


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that every word that I've ever uttered has been said before.  Every thought that I've ever had has been thought before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely largely true of humanity.  However, with liberals getting any two of you to have a different thought is the challenge...
> 
> How much is a "fair share?"  To a liberal, the answer is "more."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the answer is "enough".
Click to expand...


Nope.  When have liberals ever said what they have is "enough?"


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely largely true of humanity.  However, with liberals getting any two of you to have a different thought is the challenge...
> 
> How much is a "fair share?"  To a liberal, the answer is "more."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the answer is "enough".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  When have liberals ever said what they have is "enough?"
Click to expand...


When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> When there's enough to pay the bills.



Stopping spending on new things like we have an unlimited credit card would help us pay the bills ... Too bad Progressive Liberals don't understand that.

.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that every word that I've ever uttered has been said before.  Every thought that I've ever had has been thought before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's likely largely true of humanity.  However, with liberals getting any two of you to have a different thought is the challenge...
> 
> How much is a "fair share?"  To a liberal, the answer is "more."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the answer is "enough".
Click to expand...


Enough of other people's money to a liberal is never enough


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the answer is "enough".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  When have liberals ever said what they have is "enough?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
Click to expand...


you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the answer is "enough".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  When have liberals ever said what they have is "enough?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  There is no justification for the spending crazy Congress and Administration we had during the Bush years.

On January 19, 2001 (when Bush was inaugurated) the National debt was $5,728,195,796,181.57. 

On January 16, 2009 (when Obama was inaugurated) the National debt was $10,628,881,485,510.23.

If you do the math, the debt during the Bush Administration increased just under $5 trillion dollars.

However, to keep things in perspective:

The National Debt passed the $17 trillion dollar mark last week and is increasing at roughly $10 or more billion dollars each and every day.

That means that President Obama has increased the Debt well over $6 trillion dollars in less than five years and we have more than three years to go.  And the debt clock is speeding up.   Even at the current rate of spending, at the end of eight years he will have increased the National Debt by more than $10 trillion, and the CBO numbers suggest a much more grim prognosis than that.

There's all kinds of supporting evidence for those numbers here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/320439-the-debt-clock-is-overheating.html

How to you calculate a 'fair share' per tax payer with numbers like that?   Considering that every dollar taken in taxes is a dollar drained from the economy, how much can the government take before the whole thing collapses?


----------



## PMZ

BlackSand said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stopping spending on new things like we have an unlimited credit card would help us pay the bills ... Too bad Progressive Liberals don't understand that.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Descretionary spending reduction has been underway for decades.  We'd be in great shape now if Bush's taxing had kept up with his spending.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  When have liberals ever said what they have is "enough?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills
Click to expand...


Evidence?


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...


Here you go:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time


----------



## BlackSand

PMZ said:


> Descretionary spending reduction has been underway for decades.  We'd be in great shape now if Bush's taxing had kept up with his spending.



Yeah ... I can see where blaming President Bush is really going to fix our spending problems.
Pretty sure he didn't just add a couple of trillion to the debt with the Affordable Care Act.

In fact ... I don't think President Bush has added any new discretionary spending in quite some time ... Too bad Progressive Liberals don't realize that.

.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
Click to expand...


Here you go.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf

Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
Click to expand...


Government doesn't produce goods.

Tell me what product have you ever bought that was produced by the government?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...




$1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...

As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
Click to expand...


Bush was a fiscal liberal, with spending he's one of you.

You'll probably disagree with that then call him a neocon...


----------



## BlackSand

kaz said:


> Bush was a fiscal liberal, with spending he's one of you.
> 
> You'll probably disagree with that then call him a neocon...



I think the point he is trying to make is that since President Bush spent money like there was no tomorrow ... Then it is okay for Progressive Liberals to do the same.
None of what PMZ says actually indicates there is a spending problem ... Nor does it indicate what is "enough" or what the "fair share" should actually be.



For strictly self-serving purposes ... I am just responding to PMZ to increase my post count and make more options for posting available ... PMZ seems like the perfect candidate for such a mundane task.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the answer is "enough".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  When have liberals ever said what they have is "enough?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
Click to expand...


Never, in other words.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stopping spending on new things like we have an unlimited credit card would help us pay the bills ... Too bad Progressive Liberals don't understand that.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Descretionary spending reduction has been underway for decades.  We'd be in great shape now if Bush's taxing had kept up with his spending.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  Name a single program liberals have ever cut.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
Click to expand...


Who wants their "goods" and "services?"


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's enough to pay the bills.  It's too bad Bush didn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?
Click to expand...


Just refer to the history of federal spending.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I entirely agree.  In those rare cases where it really is impossible to inject competition into an essential service it must be run by the state or some other public authority.   This is not socialism but realism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a variation of the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument:  if you don't think socialism is splendiferous, you MUST want anarchy and no government whatsoever.  It is simply impossible for leftist minds to scrape up enough brain cells to comprehend the subtlety of "some VERY LIMITED government to handle VERY FEW tasks".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between conservatives and liberals is evidence.  Conservatives believe what they're told.  Liberals get evidence.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  Leftists embrace ideologly they swoon over Marxist claptrap, or the vaporings of some French intellectual.  Conservatives are far more pragmatic and have a healthy distrust of grand political theories.  Even when expounded by the world's greatest orator and community organiser.

Sorry, but you have it 180 degrees wrong.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
Click to expand...


Governments are not business.  Business creates wealth; government absorbs it.

Businesses produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for or the business goes out of business.

Government takes its operating capital at gunpoint and charges the same people it took the money from for any goods or services that it provides.  And only in a very narrow category of social contract do the people ever get their full money's worth for what goods and services government provides after it swallows up a hefty percentage of it just to feed the government.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government doesn't produce goods.
> 
> Tell me what product have you ever bought that was produced by the government?
Click to expand...


It is mostly services. But there are goods like the Interstate Highway System as well.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're not following dc are you?  There isn't enough money to pay liberal bills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...
> 
> As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...
Click to expand...


You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush was a fiscal liberal, with spending he's one of you.
> 
> You'll probably disagree with that then call him a neocon...
Click to expand...


Bush was a Reagan conservative and accomplished what Reagan accomplished. Massive debt.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stopping spending on new things like we have an unlimited credit card would help us pay the bills ... Too bad Progressive Liberals don't understand that.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descretionary spending reduction has been underway for decades.  We'd be in great shape now if Bush's taxing had kept up with his spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Name a single program liberals have ever cut.
Click to expand...


Read the reference jerk.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who wants their "goods" and "services?"
Click to expand...


The American people who elect them.  Why are you still here?  Why aren't you in Somalia enjoying anarchy?  

Grow a pair if you have to.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a variation of the ever-popular leftist "all or nothing" argument:  if you don't think socialism is splendiferous, you MUST want anarchy and no government whatsoever.  It is simply impossible for leftist minds to scrape up enough brain cells to comprehend the subtlety of "some VERY LIMITED government to handle VERY FEW tasks".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between conservatives and liberals is evidence.  Conservatives believe what they're told.  Liberals get evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Leftists embrace ideologly they swoon over Marxist claptrap, or the vaporings of some French intellectual.  Conservatives are far more pragmatic and have a healthy distrust of grand political theories.  Even when expounded by the world's greatest orator and community organiser.
> 
> Sorry, but you have it 180 degrees wrong.
Click to expand...


Then how come we never see any evidence from conservatives here?  Just recital of Fox News propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Descretionary spending reduction has been underway for decades.  We'd be in great shape now if Bush's taxing had kept up with his spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Name a single program liberals have ever cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the reference jerk.
Click to expand...


What "reference" is that, asshole?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants their "goods" and "services?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American people who elect them.  Why are you still here?  Why aren't you in Somalia enjoying anarchy?
> 
> Grow a pair if you have to.
Click to expand...


Somalia isn't free of government.  It has lots of government.  Why haven't you moved to Cuba?  That's the system you endorse, isn't it?

BTW, you have to be delusional to believe people actually want government services.  The proof is that given the option, no one would pay for them.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush was a fiscal liberal, with spending he's one of you.
> 
> You'll probably disagree with that then call him a neocon...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bush was a Reagan conservative and accomplished what Reagan accomplished. Massive debt.
Click to expand...


Bush was a liberal.  He accomplished what all liberals accomplish, debt and decline.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government doesn't produce goods.
> 
> Tell me what product have you ever bought that was produced by the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is mostly services. But there are goods like the Interstate Highway System as well.
Click to expand...


By "goods" you mean huge overpriced boondoggles.  Armed robbery and extortion aren't a "services."


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Governments are not business.  Business creates wealth; government absorbs it.
> 
> Businesses produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for or the business goes out of business.
> 
> Government takes its operating capital at gunpoint and charges the same people it took the money from for any goods or services that it provides.  And only in a very narrow category of social contract do the people ever get their full money's worth for what goods and services government provides after it swallows up a hefty percentage of it just to feed the government.
Click to expand...


Hard to believe that you ran a business with this little knowledge of economics.  Shows you how low that bar is set. 

Let's try an example.  You as a consumer buy a plane ticket.  Included in the price is say $20 as your share of the cost of the pilot and $5 as your share of the cost of the air traffic controllers who got you safely off of the ground,  to your destination and safely landed.  
Your share of the pilots salary gets combined with the other passengers and the pilot uses that to pay his bills including the bill from your company.  

Your share of the traffic controllers salary gets combined with the other passengers and the controller uses that to pay his bills including the bill from your company. 

The means of production that the pilot used,  the plane,  is paid for by the profit that was included in your tickets from previous trips and owned by the airline. 

The means of production that the controller used,  his radar,  is paid for by the taxes you pay and is owned by all of us. 

Tell me what the difference is.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants their "goods" and "services?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American people who elect them.  Why are you still here?  Why aren't you in Somalia enjoying anarchy?
> 
> Grow a pair if you have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia isn't free of government.  It has lots of government.  Why haven't you moved to Cuba?  That's the system you endorse, isn't it?
> 
> BTW, you have to be delusional to believe people actually want government services.  The proof is that given the option, no one would pay for them.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.  

No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people who elect them.  Why are you still here?  Why aren't you in Somalia enjoying anarchy?
> 
> Grow a pair if you have to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia isn't free of government.  It has lots of government.  Why haven't you moved to Cuba?  That's the system you endorse, isn't it?
> 
> BTW, you have to be delusional to believe people actually want government services.  The proof is that given the option, no one would pay for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.
Click to expand...


If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?

When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between conservatives and liberals is evidence.  Conservatives believe what they're told.  Liberals get evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Leftists embrace ideologly they swoon over Marxist claptrap, or the vaporings of some French intellectual.  Conservatives are far more pragmatic and have a healthy distrust of grand political theories.  Even when expounded by the world's greatest orator and community organiser.
> 
> Sorry, but you have it 180 degrees wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how come we never see any evidence from conservatives here?  Just recital of Fox News propaganda.
Click to expand...


You don't see 'evidence' because a message board is a place for people to post their opinions, not a court of law.  They are under no obligation to provide  'proof' on demand. 

You won't get any 'Fox News Propaganda' from this conservative - not least because I've never seen Fox News.


----------



## Peterf

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia isn't free of government.  It has lots of government.  Why haven't you moved to Cuba?  That's the system you endorse, isn't it?
> 
> BTW, you have to be delusional to believe people actually want government services.  The proof is that given the option, no one would pay for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
Click to expand...


You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia isn't free of government.  It has lots of government.  Why haven't you moved to Cuba?  That's the system you endorse, isn't it?
> 
> BTW, you have to be delusional to believe people actually want government services.  The proof is that given the option, no one would pay for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
Click to expand...


Tell that to the Afghan warlords.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Leftists embrace ideologly they swoon over Marxist claptrap, or the vaporings of some French intellectual.  Conservatives are far more pragmatic and have a healthy distrust of grand political theories.  Even when expounded by the world's greatest orator and community organiser.
> 
> Sorry, but you have it 180 degrees wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how come we never see any evidence from conservatives here?  Just recital of Fox News propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't see 'evidence' because a message board is a place for people to post their opinions, not a court of law.  They are under no obligation to provide  'proof' on demand.
> 
> You won't get any 'Fox News Propaganda' from this conservative - not least because I've never seen Fox News.
Click to expand...


I believe that.  But the question remains.  If not  from Fox,  Exeter?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Afghan warlords.
Click to expand...


A "lord" is the leader of a government.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Afghan warlords.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "lord" is the leader of a government.
Click to expand...


Good point.  Join the warlords and teach them anarchy.  Tell them nobody has power.  Tell them that everyone is free.  

Report back on the results.  Let us know what nobody in charge leads to. Tell them that it will be just like a corporation with nobody in charge.   Everybody's the boss.


----------



## Valox

The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.


----------



## RKMBrown

Valox said:


> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.



The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.


----------



## Valox

RKMBrown said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
Click to expand...



While we are at it, lets subsidize the rich...oh wait, we already do that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Valox said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While we are at it, lets subsidize the rich...oh wait, we already do that.
Click to expand...


That's the way it should be.  The rich get the rewards and the lazy good for nothings actually have to pay their fair share.

Let's just make the taxes a flat amount.  We'll spend 3t a year divide that by 400million people. There's your bill.  7500 per person.  Can't pay it go to jail.  Or we cut spending.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how come we never see any evidence from conservatives here?  Just recital of Fox News propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't see 'evidence' because a message board is a place for people to post their opinions, not a court of law.  They are under no obligation to provide  'proof' on demand.
> 
> You won't get any 'Fox News Propaganda' from this conservative - not least because I've never seen Fox News.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that.  But the question remains.  If not  from Fox,  Exeter?
Click to expand...


'Exeter' to me is but a town in Devon.   Does it have some other significance?

You've seen a few of my posts  and I would have hoped that would have realised by now that I do not 'recite' anyone's propaganda - having sometimes supported points that you have made.


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Afghan warlords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "lord" is the leader of a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.  Join the warlords and teach them anarchy.  Tell them nobody has power.  Tell them that everyone is free.
> 
> Report back on the results.  Let us know what nobody in charge leads to. Tell them that it will be just like a corporation with nobody in charge.   Everybody's the boss.
Click to expand...


You are right anarchy, the complete breakdown or order and thug rule is even worse than excessive government.

Disclaimer:  The above message is not a 'recital of propaganda' from left, middle or right but the author's own opinion arrived at through experience and a really quite impressive WQ (wisdom quotient (copyright)).


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf
> 
> Just like business, governments can't afford to give away the goods and services that they produce. A concept that most conservatives struggle with and a complete obscurity to Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government doesn't produce goods.
> 
> Tell me what product have you ever bought that was produced by the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is mostly services. But there are goods like the Interstate Highway System as well.
Click to expand...


Highways aren't goods. And they are not for sale.


----------



## Descartes

I would say a fair number for the highest tax bracket is 75%. I'm talking about people who are making hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. The problem with our country is that we have completely lost a recognizable middle class. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. There are people who are what you could consider upper middle class or lower middle class, but there just isn't a large, strong middle class anymore. The middle class is what makes our country strong. Throughout American history, we have boom times when the gap between the rich and the poor is small and the middle class is large. When we go through recessions, like the current one we are in, the gap between the rich and the poor is similar to the gap of a third world country and the middle class is very weak. The tax code we have right now just isn't working. This whole trickle-down economics idea just doesn't work and our current economy is evidence of that. Like Alexander Hamilton said, pretty much all people are motivated by self interest, which translates to personal economic gain. If the rich have an opportunity to get richer, they will act in their own self-interest and they will leave as little as possible to "trickle down" to the poor. The path we are on is a dangerous one and has led to revolutions countless times throughout history. We must rebuild the middle class and close the gap between the rich and poor if America is to remain successful. A new tax code would be a good first step in this process.


----------



## Descartes

RKMBrown said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
Click to expand...


Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.


----------



## zeke

Descartes said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Explain to me *how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
Click to expand...


LMAO. Hey pardner, I see you're new around here. Let me mention this to you to save you some aggravation.

The right wing whack jobs on here don't do "explanations" and they don't answer "questions" (unless they use their famous answer a question with a question). But they do have a lot of asshole opinions that they never back up with facts.

Other than that, have fun with these right wing whackos. They are good for the occasional laugh.


----------



## Descartes

zeke said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Explain to me *how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. Hey pardner, I see you're new around here. Let me mention this to you to save you some aggravation.
> 
> The right wing whack jobs on here don't do "explanations" and they don't answer "questions" (unless they use their famous answer a question with a question). But they do have a lot of asshole opinions that they never back up with facts.
> 
> Other than that, have fun with these right wing whackos. They are good for the occasional laugh.
Click to expand...


Haha this is what I encounter when I talk to my conservatives friends in person as well! There has to be some Republican out there who can explain to me why they think taxing the poor more than the rich would create more jobs and stimulate the economy!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Peterf said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.
Click to expand...


Why do you let words like that offend you?

Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?

People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.

I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lonestar_logic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you let words like that offend you?
> 
> Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?
> 
> People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.
> 
> I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.
Click to expand...


Methinks if one feels the need to get one's panties in a ruffle every time the language goes beyond kindergarten, and one immediately begins looking for a teacher or playground monitor to tattle to or otherwise trying to control said language, perhaps a nice knitting/crafts message board would be better suited than a political one.

Just sayin' . . .


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the Afghan warlords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "lord" is the leader of a government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.  Join the warlords and teach them anarchy.  Tell them nobody has power.  Tell them that everyone is free.
> 
> Report back on the results.  Let us know what nobody in charge leads to. Tell them that it will be just like a corporation with nobody in charge.   Everybody's the boss.
Click to expand...


Someone is in charge, the Lord - the guy with the army.  Ethiopia is a Feudal state which is divided up by numerous warring warlords.  It's the farthest thing you could get from no government.


----------



## bripat9643

Valox said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While we are at it, lets subsidize the rich...oh wait, we already do that.
Click to expand...


No we don't.  The rich carry the load for all the liberal parasites.


----------



## bripat9643

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government doesn't produce goods.
> 
> Tell me what product have you ever bought that was produced by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is mostly services. But there are goods like the Interstate Highway System as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Highways aren't goods. And they are not for sale.
Click to expand...


The claim that we "own" the interstate highways is absurd because we can't sell our shares.  If you can't sell it, you don't own it.


----------



## bripat9643

Descartes said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
Click to expand...


Why would the bosses work, or even more important, why would they risk their capital, if they had to pay a 76% tax rate on their earnings?  Why wouldn't they prefer to go lay on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere?


----------



## bripat9643

Lonestar_logic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you let words like that offend you?
> 
> Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?
> 
> People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.
> 
> I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.
Click to expand...


I only use it with particular liberal assholes like PMS because he was offensive from day one.


----------



## zeke

Descartes said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Explain to me *how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Hey pardner, I see you're new around here. Let me mention this to you to save you some aggravation.
> 
> The right wing whack jobs on here don't do "explanations" and they don't answer "questions" (unless they use their famous answer a question with a question). But they do have a lot of asshole opinions that they never back up with facts.
> 
> Other than that, have fun with these right wing whackos. They are good for the occasional laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha this is what I encounter when I talk to my conservatives friends in person as well! *There has to be some Republican out there who can explain to me why they think taxing the poor more than the rich would create more jobs and stimulate the economy!*
Click to expand...



No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.

But I like your optimism.

And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.

It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.


----------



## bripat9643

zeke said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO. Hey pardner, I see you're new around here. Let me mention this to you to save you some aggravation.
> 
> The right wing whack jobs on here don't do "explanations" and they don't answer "questions" (unless they use their famous answer a question with a question). But they do have a lot of asshole opinions that they never back up with facts.
> 
> Other than that, have fun with these right wing whackos. They are good for the occasional laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha this is what I encounter when I talk to my conservatives friends in person as well! *There has to be some Republican out there who can explain to me why they think taxing the poor more than the rich would create more jobs and stimulate the economy!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.
> 
> But I like your optimism.
> 
> And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.
> 
> It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.
Click to expand...


That's why I don't have liberal friends.   I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama.  I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.


----------



## Descartes

bripat9643 said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the bosses work, or even more important, why would they risk their capital, if they had to pay a 76% tax rate on their earnings?  Why wouldn't they prefer to go lay on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere?
Click to expand...


The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.


----------



## Spiderman

Descartes said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the bosses work, or even more important, why would they risk their capital, if they had to pay a 76% tax rate on their earnings?  Why wouldn't they prefer to go lay on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
Click to expand...


Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.


----------



## zeke

bripat9643 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha this is what I encounter when I talk to my conservatives friends in person as well! *There has to be some Republican out there who can explain to me why they think taxing the poor more than the rich would create more jobs and stimulate the economy!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.
> 
> But I like your optimism.
> 
> And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.
> 
> It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I don't have liberal friends.   I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama.  I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.
Click to expand...


(For me) It took a Repub President invading a country that didn't attack us for me to understand that Repubs were to be considered untrustworthy.

It took you seven years later when a black dude was elected President for you to decide that the black guy couldn't be trusted.

See ANY difference? Of course not. It's just politics as usual with you.


----------



## zeke

Spiderman said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the bosses work, or even more important, why would they risk their capital, if they had to pay a 76% tax rate on their earnings?  Why wouldn't they prefer to go lay on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
Click to expand...


Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.

You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

zeke said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.
> 
> But I like your optimism.
> 
> And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.
> 
> It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I don't have liberal friends.   I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama.  I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (For me) It took a Repub President invading a country that didn't attack us for me to understand that Repubs were to be considered untrustworthy.
> 
> It took you seven years later when a black dude was elected President for you to decide that the black guy couldn't be trusted.
> 
> See ANY difference? Of course not. It's just politics as usual with you.
Click to expand...


Just ignore the Democrat controlled Congress that authorized it and the many Democrats that supported it.


----------



## Descartes

Spiderman said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the bosses work, or even more important, why would they risk their capital, if they had to pay a 76% tax rate on their earnings?  Why wouldn't they prefer to go lay on a beach in the Caribbean somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
Click to expand...


You are correct in saying that. I'm not saying only the rich should pay taxes. Return all of the tax brackets to were they were in the 1950s. It would still close the gap between the rich and the poor immensely. Taxes used to and should be a huge revenue creator for the government, but the tax rates today don't give the national government any were near the amount of revenue that it needs from taxes to be successful. Raises the tax rates for all of the tax brackets. That would go a long way in recreating that strong middle class we had in the 50s.


----------



## Descartes

zeke said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
Click to expand...


You are exactly right. The "official" tax rate for the rich is 39.6%, but they don't pay anywhere near that because of the ridiculous amount of loopholes in the tax code. The tax code is outdated and just simply needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't be a way for the rich to pay lawyers to find loopholes so they pay more like a 15-20% tax rate.


----------



## Redfish

Descartes said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exactly right. The "official" tax rate for the rich is 39.6%, but they don't pay anywhere near that because of the ridiculous amount of loopholes in the tax code. The tax code is outdated and just simply needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't be a way for the rich to pay lawyers to find loopholes so they pay more like a 15-20% tax rate.
Click to expand...



OK,  so you want to stick it to the rich, great.    Would you still allow 50% of the population to pay zero federal income taxes?    

BTW, the cap gains tax and other so-called loopholes were put into the tax code to incentivize investment in business in order to grow the economy.   When people with money buy stock they help businesses start up or grow,  that creates jobs and govt revenue.  

the answer is not as simple as 'screw the rich'


----------



## zeke

Lonestar_logic said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I don't have liberal friends.   I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama.  I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (For me) It took a Repub President invading a country that didn't attack us for me to understand that Repubs were to be considered untrustworthy.
> 
> It took you seven years later when a black dude was elected President for you to decide that the black guy couldn't be trusted.
> 
> See ANY difference? Of course not. It's just politics as usual with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just ignore the Democrat controlled Congress that authorized it and the many Democrats that supported it.
Click to expand...


As you Repubs like to remind everyone and of course I agree. The buck stops at the White House. For both a Repub President and a Dem President. That's why they are the leaders of their respective parties. To take the blame and the credit.

And of course you want to shift the blame for the disaster known as Iraq, as far away from the Repubs as possible. You all have been doing that ever since it was known that the war in Iraq was a bad bad mistake.

Why are you repubs not PROUD of the disaster in Iraq. You all wanted it so bad that you sold the idea of invading Iraq to the rest of the country. Be proud of your mistakes. After all, you break it, you own it. (who said that)?


----------



## zeke

Redfish said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right. The "official" tax rate for the rich is 39.6%, but they don't pay anywhere near that because of the ridiculous amount of loopholes in the tax code. The tax code is outdated and just simply needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't be a way for the rich to pay lawyers to find loopholes so they pay more like a 15-20% tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK,  so you want to stick it to the rich, great.    Would you still allow 50% of the population to pay zero federal income taxes?
> 
> BTW, the cap gains tax and other so-called loopholes were put into the tax code to incentivize investment in business in order to grow the economy.   When people with money buy stock they help businesses start up or grow,  that creates jobs and govt revenue.
> 
> the answer is not as simple as 'screw the rich'
Click to expand...


I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.

You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?

You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?

I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.

That sound about right to you?


----------



## Redfish

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right. The "official" tax rate for the rich is 39.6%, but they don't pay anywhere near that because of the ridiculous amount of loopholes in the tax code. The tax code is outdated and just simply needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't be a way for the rich to pay lawyers to find loopholes so they pay more like a 15-20% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK,  so you want to stick it to the rich, great.    Would you still allow 50% of the population to pay zero federal income taxes?
> 
> BTW, the cap gains tax and other so-called loopholes were put into the tax code to incentivize investment in business in order to grow the economy.   When people with money buy stock they help businesses start up or grow,  that creates jobs and govt revenue.
> 
> the answer is not as simple as 'screw the rich'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
Click to expand...


eliminating EIC is a good idea, we agree.

the mortgage interest deduction exists as an incentive for people to own their homes rather than renting.   It is a positive thing for the country.

I have said many times that govt spending should be cut across the board by 1/4 to 1/3.  Cut every agency and program by the same %.   balance spending to income.  

collecting more taxes is not the answer, unless you think that govt can spend YOUR money better than you can.

and grow with the juvenile insults,   it makes you look like a fool.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right. The "official" tax rate for the rich is 39.6%, but they don't pay anywhere near that because of the ridiculous amount of loopholes in the tax code. The tax code is outdated and just simply needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't be a way for the rich to pay lawyers to find loopholes so they pay more like a 15-20% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK,  so you want to stick it to the rich, great.    Would you still allow 50% of the population to pay zero federal income taxes?
> 
> BTW, the cap gains tax and other so-called loopholes were put into the tax code to incentivize investment in business in order to grow the economy.   When people with money buy stock they help businesses start up or grow,  that creates jobs and govt revenue.
> 
> the answer is not as simple as 'screw the rich'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
Click to expand...


The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO


----------



## Redfish

Lonestar_logic said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK,  so you want to stick it to the rich, great.    Would you still allow 50% of the population to pay zero federal income taxes?
> 
> BTW, the cap gains tax and other so-called loopholes were put into the tax code to incentivize investment in business in order to grow the economy.   When people with money buy stock they help businesses start up or grow,  that creates jobs and govt revenue.
> 
> the answer is not as simple as 'screw the rich'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO
Click to expand...


the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.  

I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.


----------



## dcraelin

something both liberals and conservatives could agree on is the elimination of tax-exempt bonds. These bonds go into boondoggle after boondoggle at the local level. There elimination would at least slow down this idiotic spending by crooked local politicians, while also bringing in some more revenue to help pay down our colossal national debt.


----------



## Spiderman

zeke said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
Click to expand...


Tax all dollars exactly the same just like every gallon of gas is taxed exactly the same.

Get rid of all deductions including personal and dependent deductions and lower the rate.

Institute a tax specifically targeted for debt and abolish it once the debt is paid off.

Cap government spending at 18% of GDP.


----------



## DiamondDave

Descartes said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in saying that. I'm not saying only the rich should pay taxes. Return all of the tax brackets to were they were in the 1950s. It would still close the gap between the rich and the poor immensely. Taxes used to and should be a huge revenue creator for the government, but the tax rates today don't give the national government any were near the amount of revenue that it needs from taxes to be successful. Raises the tax rates for all of the tax brackets. That would go a long way in recreating that strong middle class we had in the 50s.
Click to expand...


It is not government's job to equalize outcome in a free society

Do you also realize that with the deductions, what was considered income, etc.. that the 90% tax rate in the 50's was a MYTH and that the EFFECTIVE tax rate was almost the same as it is today

And all citizens, regardless of how much or how little they make, should be paying income tax.. preferably at the same exact rate without deduction, exemption, or exception...

We don't have a revenue problem. we have an extreme government SPENDING problem


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Redfish said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.
> 
> I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.
Click to expand...


I think every voting citizen should have some skin in the game no matter their income.

You have 47 percent of the population that doesn't pay federal income tax but vote on issues that affect the lives of those that do.


----------



## Spiderman

Descartes said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exactly right. The "official" tax rate for the rich is 39.6%, but they don't pay anywhere near that because of the ridiculous amount of loopholes in the tax code. The tax code is outdated and just simply needs to be rewritten. There shouldn't be a way for the rich to pay lawyers to find loopholes so they pay more like a 15-20% tax rate.
Click to expand...


You don't understand marginal tax rates do you?

No one pays the top marginal rate they fall into because the first dollar you earn is taxed differently than the last.


----------



## DiamondDave

Redfish said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.
> 
> I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.
Click to expand...


Such a proposal (tax floor) is simply a disguised progressive tax... I have shown this many times before with simple mathematics.. but for a quick view, let me just give a small example

Assume a salary floor of 10K and flat rate of 10%

Person A making 10K pays an effective 0% rate
Person B making 20K pays tax on 10K for a total of $1K and a 5% effective rate
Person C making 100K pays tax on $90K for a total of $9K for an effective rate of 9%
Person D making 1M pays tax on $990K for a total of $99K for an effective rate of 9.9%

So basically you have a falsely named flat tax...


----------



## DiamondDave

Lonestar_logic said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.
> 
> I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think every voting citizen should have some skin in the game no matter their income.
> 
> You have 47 percent of the population that doesn't pay federal income tax but vote on issues that affect the lives of those that do.
Click to expand...


No citizen making even $1 should be exempt from income tax on that $1


----------



## Katzndogz

Descartes said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in saying that. I'm not saying only the rich should pay taxes. Return all of the tax brackets to were they were in the 1950s. It would still close the gap between the rich and the poor immensely. Taxes used to and should be a huge revenue creator for the government, but the tax rates today don't give the national government any were near the amount of revenue that it needs from taxes to be successful. Raises the tax rates for all of the tax brackets. That would go a long way in recreating that strong middle class we had in the 50s.
Click to expand...


You can't have the same tax structure as we had in the 50s because we don't have the same economic conditions that we had in the 50s.  In the 50s, most of the world was destroyed.   The United States had the only functioning economy and the only functioning manufacturing sector.  High taxes did not cause economic prosperity.  High taxes were possible because of economic prosperity.   We cannot have the same taxes as we had because the world is not destroyed today.   No one is tied to manufacturing in the United States because the factories in Europe and Japan were bombed out of existence.  China is no longer a rice paddy.  India is not a colony of Great Britian, it is a player, a big player.


----------



## Bern80

Descartes said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct in saying that. I'm not saying only the rich should pay taxes. Return all of the tax brackets to were they were in the 1950s. It would still close the gap between the rich and the poor immensely. Taxes used to and should be a huge revenue creator for the government, but the tax rates today don't give the national government any were near the amount of revenue that it needs from taxes to be successful. Raises the tax rates for all of the tax brackets. That would go a long way in recreating that strong middle class we had in the 50s.
Click to expand...


Really? You actually believe the government 'needs' more money? To be successful at what?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...
> 
> As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
Click to expand...


Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."  

On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.

You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.


----------



## PMZ

Liberalism has displaced conservatism primarily because conservatism in practice failed miserably.  Look at the trajectory of the country under Bush policies.  Look at the country under Obama's.  Of course,  in order to do that one has to turn off Fox and turn on news.  

Conservatism failed because it's a completely self serving religion.  It has no consideration for national issues.  And national issues are what we have government for. 

While it's just plain fun messing with conservative minds here,  most of what's said is simple truth. 

Fox is Republican 24/7/365 propaganda.  

Government and business are complementary to each other.  

We do have wealth inequality here that is extreme to the point of dysfunction. 

We do have a mediocre health care non-system here that is a huge economic anchor and ACA is an effective first step in addressing it. 

AGW is real and costly and the IPCC is the body of science that will empower politics to find the least expensive path by it.  

The transition to fuel and waste free energy is necessary,  and a very long and expensive project,  and we've run out of time to waste. 

These are all simple but inconvenient truths. The Fox propaganda obscures them.  That's why it has and will fail.  And why conservative politicians are nationally unelectable. 

They earned the disrespect that they are shown daily by the American people.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...
> 
> As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
Click to expand...


The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do,  and the same for the poor,  is because the wealthy,  as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution. 

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth. 

Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.


----------



## PMZ

One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here,  we have a business problem.  

All of the problems argued here  would be alleviated if business would return to growing,  and provide a well paying job for every worker.  

The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.  

Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing.  Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today,  on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...
> 
> As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
Click to expand...


''50% get more money back than they paid in''

Love to see how this works.  A negative income tax.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do,  and the same for the poor,  is because the wealthy,  as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.
Click to expand...


That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''50% get more money back than they paid in''
> 
> Love to see how this works.  A negative income tax.
Click to expand...


Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits."  You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1.5 trillion deficits, a $15 trillion national debt, a downgrade for our deficits and debts as a percent of GDP...
> 
> As I said, you're really not following DC very closely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that you'll avoid learning,  but if I'm wrong here's how your whine came about. 

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do,  and the same for the poor,  is because the wealthy,  as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.
Click to expand...


''That number is so cooked'' = don't  confuse me with facts.  I know what I want to be true.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''50% get more money back than they paid in''
> 
> Love to see how this works.  A negative income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits."  You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.
Click to expand...


And you believe that half of the population gets them.


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''50% get more money back than they paid in''
> 
> Love to see how this works.  A negative income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits."  You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you believe that half of the population gets them.
Click to expand...


Yes.. close to half gets more FROM government than they pay in... at one time, it was (if I am not mistaken) 46% or 47%..

And these folks will continue to vote for those who will keep up the government practice that gives them free shit and makes others pay for it

Funny how people would most likely have a different view of government, and government spending, if they actually had an equal % stake in the game


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do,  and the same for the poor,  is because the wealthy,  as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.
Click to expand...


There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.


----------



## PMZ

Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

DiamondDave said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fair solution is a flat tax. IMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.
> 
> I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a proposal (tax floor) is simply a disguised progressive tax... I have shown this many times before with simple mathematics.. but for a quick view, let me just give a small example
> 
> Assume a salary floor of 10K and flat rate of 10%
> 
> Person A making 10K pays an effective 0% rate
> Person B making 20K pays tax on 10K for a total of $1K and a 5% effective rate
> Person C making 100K pays tax on $90K for a total of $9K for an effective rate of 9%
> Person D making 1M pays tax on $990K for a total of $99K for an effective rate of 9.9%
> 
> So basically you have a falsely named flat tax...
Click to expand...



I think you're numbers are fucked up.


Person B making 20k pays taxes on 20k for a total of 2k @ten percent . You don't pay taxes on half your income.

If one person earned $50,000 a year and another earned $300,000 a year, both would pay 17 percent of their income to the federal government. 

This effective rate nonsense is just more bureaucratic bullshit.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

DiamondDave said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libs don't like that because their voting base would have to start paying something.
> 
> I like the flat tax idea, and would include a provision that if your income was under $X you pay no taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think every voting citizen should have some skin in the game no matter their income.
> 
> You have 47 percent of the population that doesn't pay federal income tax but vote on issues that affect the lives of those that do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No citizen making even $1 should be exempt from income tax on that $1
Click to expand...


You're beginning to sound more like a liberal with each post.

Talk to me when you get back to reality.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are called "refundable tax credits."  You seriously don't follow what's going on in DC, I didn't think anyone didn't know about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that half of the population gets them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.. close to half gets more FROM government than they pay in... at one time, it was (if I am not mistaken) 46% or 47%..
> 
> And these folks will continue to vote for those who will keep up the government practice that gives them free shit and makes others pay for it
> 
> Funny how people would most likely have a different view of government, and government spending, if they actually had an equal % stake in the game
Click to expand...


Refundable Tax Credits
By William Perez, About.com Guide
Definition: A refundable tax credit is a tax credit that is treated as a payment and thus can be refunded to the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service. Refundable credits can be used strategically to help offset certain types of taxes that normally cannot be reduced, and they can produce a federal tax refund that is larger than the amount of money a person actually paid in during the year.
Refundable credits are contrasted with nonrefundable tax credits. The vast majority of tax credits are nonrefundable: meaning that these credits can reduce your federal income tax liability to zero, and any remaining credits won't be refunded to the taxpayer.

Refundable tax credits available to individual taxpayers include:

the earned income credit,
the adoption tax credit for the years 2010 and 2011 only,
a portion of the child tax credit,
a portion of the American opportunity credit for college expenses,
the homebuyer credit,
the making work pay credit,
credit for excess Social Security withholding, and
the health coverage credit.
Naturally, withholding for federal income taxes and estimated taxes are also refundable credits, as these are prepayments towards a person's tax liability. Refundable tax credits, like payments, are applied towards a person's tax obligations, and any over-payments are refunded back to the taxpayer.


From   http://taxes.about.com/od/taxglossary/g/refundable-tax-credits.htm


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.



Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.


----------



## Foxfyre

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to see the problem though.  PMZ and others of his ilk--not that I believe for a mnute he is posting anything he actually believes here because he contradicts hmself too much--but they honestly believe the communist view that all business and all resources belong to the people.  They don't really believe in private ownership or unalienable rights related to property at all.

So the bottom line for a communist is that a 'fair share' is 100%.  The government should have the right to take it all and then redistribute it according to what people need at the time.   And the corporation will work to support the people rather than for its own profits.  And butterflies will emerge from unicorn butts, blue birds will sing, and all trouble and want will disappear from the face of the Earth.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do,  and the same for the poor,  is because the wealthy,  as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
Click to expand...


Yes comrade, the proletariat is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Our politician comrades, who only care about us and hate that they must live in ostentatious opulence, need to decide which businesses are primarily serving the interest of the State, which means they are serving the people, and remove the ones who do not.  Only through complete subjugation to a State with ubiquitous power can we be free.

You're a Marxist.  That's fine, just be honest about it.


----------



## Peterf

Lonestar_logic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have an army, then you're the government, dipshit.  What do you think government is?
> 
> When are  you moving to Cuba, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you let words like that offend you?
> 
> Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?
> 
> People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.
> 
> I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.
Click to expand...


Vulgarities don't offend me.   But when they are used by people broadly on my side of an argument they worry me.   Because they make my potential allies seem ignorant and linguistically challenged; quite unable to make a point in an interesting, intelligent or even amusing way.   By using the same 'lingo' you drag down your apparent IQ by ten percentage points.   You diminish yourself not the person you are addressing.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here,  we have a business problem.
> 
> All of the problems argued here  would be alleviated if business would return to growing,  and provide a well paying job for every worker.
> 
> The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.
> 
> Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing.  Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today,  on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage



Society at large has no business rewarding or not rewarding businesses. You, as a third party, are not supposed to get a vote in agreed upon transactions between two parties. 

And your shrink to success idea is laughable. There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs. 

As a big government type it's interesting that you mention the importance of a business growing seeing as how the ever expansion of government from its taxes to its regulations serve as direct impediments to that growth.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
Click to expand...


Only if you are a country hating conservative.  And that's why they fail so badly at governance.  

Shareholders are people who gamble on stock prices.  They really don't care or know anything about the company,  or benefit it beyond their sell target. 

Costumers can only choose to buy your product or from your competition or do without.  They are the easiest people to fool with today's advertising. 

So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.  

The Supreme Court says that they are American citizens just like you and I.  If so  they,  like conservatives,  are irresponsible citizens.


----------



## g5000

There is nothing wrong with a progressive tax.  None other than conservative idol Thomas Jefferson insisted that is the kind of tax system we should have.

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond



> I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one.* Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.*



You hear that?  Old Tom was perfectly fine with lower income people not paying any taxes!  He also said we need a progressive tax system!



What is outrageous in this country is the fact that people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of income tax.  And that is because of the massive entitlement mentality of all Americans, each demanding their own subsidy.  Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

Mortgage subsidies are among the biggest and worst of such subsidies.  The mortgage subsidy is a hugely regressive tax.  The richer you are, the bigger the mortgage you can get, which means the bigger the subsidy you get from the government.

Since when is a federal subsidy for your mortgage a conservative princple?  Since when is government intervention in the housing market a conservative principle?

The Right was screaming itself bloody over government intervention in the housing market when the economy collapsed. So why aren't they screaming for the mortgage interest subsidy to be eliminated?

When one person is paying more income taxes than another person earning the same income, "fair share" is not even in the same Universe.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes comrade, the proletariat is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Our politician comrades, who only care about us and hate that they must live in ostentatious opulence, need to decide which businesses are primarily serving the interest of the State, which means they are serving the people, and remove the ones who do not.  Only through complete subjugation to a State with ubiquitous power can we be free.
> 
> You're a Marxist.  That's fine, just be honest about it.
Click to expand...


I am in no way a Marxist.  I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy. But I know that Fox propaganda has given you scapegoats and names to call them and you do what you're told to.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to see the problem though.  PMZ and others of his ilk--not that I believe for a mnute he is posting anything he actually believes here because he contradicts hmself too much--but they honestly believe the communist view that all business and all resources belong to the people.  They don't really believe in private ownership or unalienable rights related to property at all.
> 
> So the bottom line for a communist is that a 'fair share' is 100%.  The government should have the right to take it all and then redistribute it according to what people need at the time.   And the corporation will work to support the people rather than for its own profits.  And butterflies will emerge from unicorn butts, blue birds will sing, and all trouble and want will disappear from the face of the Earth.
Click to expand...


Nice Fox recital.  You're nothing if not a reliable minion. 

I believe that people should support  their country or find one they can. What you fall for every day went out with caves and clubs,  hunting and gathering.  

I don't think that there's a country left on earth for you but I do know a tribe of lowland gorillas that might take you if you work on your education some.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you are a country hating conservative.  And that's why they fail so badly at governance.
Click to expand...


That's crap and can you even try to think beyond meaningless labels?
My business doesn't owe you anything.  All I have to do is live up to my responsibilities for my tenants.  If you are not one of my tenants I don't owe you shit and neither does any other company that you have nothing to do with.  



> Shareholders are people who gamble on stock prices.  They really don't care or know anything about the company,  or benefit it beyond their sell target.



Shows how much you know about investing.  The most successful investors buy and hold.



> Costumers can only choose to buy your product or from your competition or do without.  They are the easiest people to fool with today's advertising.



Only?  That choice is the ultimate power. And there are many things being sold today that people can do without.  It's that they don't want to do without that makes most people live beyond their means and whose fault is that?



> So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.



They are accountable to the board and the shareholders just like they always have been. Nothing's changed there.  No business is accountable to you personally unless you have a stake in it.

I'm willing to bet you don't have a stake in every business in the country or even a couple for that matter.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here,  we have a business problem.
> 
> All of the problems argued here  would be alleviated if business would return to growing,  and provide a well paying job for every worker.
> 
> The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.
> 
> Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing.  Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today,  on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society at large has no business rewarding or not rewarding businesses. You, as a third party, are not supposed to get a vote in agreed upon transactions between two parties.
> 
> And your shrink to success idea is laughable. There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs.
> 
> As a big government type it's interesting that you mention the importance of a business growing seeing as how the ever expansion of government from its taxes to its regulations serve as direct impediments to that growth.
Click to expand...


I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.  

The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business.  I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts. 

The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes comrade, the proletariat is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Our politician comrades, who only care about us and hate that they must live in ostentatious opulence, need to decide which businesses are primarily serving the interest of the State, which means they are serving the people, and remove the ones who do not.  Only through complete subjugation to a State with ubiquitous power can we be free.
> 
> You're a Marxist.  That's fine, just be honest about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am in no way a Marxist.  I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy. But I know that Fox propaganda has given you scapegoats and names to call them and you do what you're told to.
Click to expand...




Why does the word "Marxist" bother you, comrade?   It's accurate, so what's the issue with it?


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a country hating conservative.  And that's why they fail so badly at governance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's crap and can you even try to think beyond meaningless labels?
> My business doesn't owe you anything.  All I have to do is live up to my responsibilities for my tenants.  If you are not one of my tenants I don't owe you shit and neither does any other company that you have nothing to do with.
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how much you know about investing.  The most successful investors buy and hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Costumers can only choose to buy your product or from your competition or do without.  They are the easiest people to fool with today's advertising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only?  That choice is the ultimate power. And there are many things being sold today that people can do without.  It's that they don't want to do without that makes most people live beyond their means and whose fault is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are accountable to the board and the shareholders just like they always have been. Nothing's changed there.  No business is accountable to you personally unless you have a stake in it.
> 
> I'm willing to bet you don't have a stake in every business in the country or even a couple for that matter.
Click to expand...


I know success. It's a great teacher for those who learn.  Then there are those that think that the world owes them whatever they want.  Conservatism dragged America down but not out and we are recovering despite you. 

And we will continue to leave you behind.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes comrade, the proletariat is being oppressed by the bourgeoisie.  Our politician comrades, who only care about us and hate that they must live in ostentatious opulence, need to decide which businesses are primarily serving the interest of the State, which means they are serving the people, and remove the ones who do not.  Only through complete subjugation to a State with ubiquitous power can we be free.
> 
> You're a Marxist.  That's fine, just be honest about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way a Marxist.  I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy. But I know that Fox propaganda has given you scapegoats and names to call them and you do what you're told to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the word "Marxist" bother you, comrade?   It's accurate, so what's the issue with it?
Click to expand...


It's not at all accurate. It's what you wish was true.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way a Marxist.  I'm the world's biggest fan of democracy. But I know that Fox propaganda has given you scapegoats and names to call them and you do what you're told to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the word "Marxist" bother you, comrade?   It's accurate, so what's the issue with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not at all accurate. It's what you wish was true.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  Actually I wish people who live in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man would appreciate what capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, has brought us and they were not consumed in greed and wealth envy like you are.

I believe in equal opportunity.  You believe in equal results.  You don't care how big the pie is or the amount of pie you get, you just want to have all the slices the same size, except for your leaders who get big slabs for the sacrifice they have to make to have ubiquitous power.

You question how much a CEO contributes to the economy, you do not question how much a politician destroys the economy.  Most CEOs are good.  The bad ones lose their jobs.  Bad politicians preaching greed and wealth envy get elected to a second term as President.


----------



## PMZ

Do you really think that more of what you wish was true denies it somehow? 

I don't know anyone here who doesn't believe that capitalism is a great tool.  Like a hammer.  What would we do without hammers. Of course quite marginalized on screws. 

I believe in accountability. Demonstrated success that can be rewarded with more responsibility.  Thats why I love democracy. The ultimate in political accountability. 

Business at the moment is failing the country.  By the only measure that really counts,  growth.  But instead of accountability,  what do we hear?  Pitiful whining by the professional mourners recruited by Fox propaganda for their business partners,  the Republican Party. 

Even worse,  we are rewarding failed and failing business leaders lavishly.  Like royalty.  For screwing customers and employees for the one group that adds zero value.  Shareholders.  

Business is broken.  Government was, but has been recovering.  

Of course as a Fox addict,  you have no idea of what's going on.  You hear the opposite of what's going on 24/7/365. Why?  That makes you useful to the people who are failing,  so that they can avoid accountability. 

In today's competitive world,  America can't afford failure.  The path away from it involves massive accountability changes.  

That's what informed people in America are working on.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Even worse,  we are rewarding failed and failing business leaders lavishly.  Like royalty.  For screwing customers and employees for the one group that adds zero value.  Shareholders.



And it's up to you and unaccountable government to make that decision, isn't it comrade?

You don't know the difference between business leaders who compete in a marketplace where if they fail they die and politicians who just plunder and get away with it endlessly and when they fail they plunder more.  Our businesses have done an outstanding job as our government goes more and more Marxist.  Obamacare is yet another atrocity where government forces social health care policy to be the provided by employers.  Government control over companies in a government controlled health care marketplace.

Yet you advocate further power of the plunderers over the plundered while you alibi your beliefs by blaming the victim for your crimes.  And like Marxists call your countries things like "Democratic Republic" which they are anything but, you call your Marxist economic policies a belief in capitalism.  You just want to fix it.  With Marxism.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse,  we are rewarding failed and failing business leaders lavishly.  Like royalty.  For screwing customers and employees for the one group that adds zero value.  Shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's up to you and unaccountable government to make that decision, isn't it comrade?
> 
> *Why no Fuhrer.  We are a democracy. The politicians are fully accountable to we the people.  They serve at our behest.  Business leaders are only accountable to their golfing buddies on the BOD.  Quid pro quo.*
> 
> You don't know the difference between business leaders who compete in a marketplace where if they fail they die and politicians who just plunder and get away with it endlessly and when they fail they plunder more.  Our businesses have done an outstanding job as our government goes more and more Marxist.  Obamacare is yet another atrocity where government forces social health care policy to be the provided by employers.  Government control over companies in a government controlled health care marketplace.
> 
> *See,  this what I'm talking about.  Whining from professional mourners recruited by Fox to support their business partners,  the GOP.
> 
> What happened to good old American cognitive independence?
> *
> Yet you advocate further power of the plunderers over the plundered while you alibi your beliefs by blaming the victim for your crimes.  And like Marxists call your countries things like "Democratic Republic" which they are anything but, you call your Marxist economic policies a belief in capitalism.  You just want to fix it.  With Marxism.
Click to expand...


*Fuhrer,  I know how you like others to be accountable to you but are so uncomfortable with we,  the people holding you accountable.  That's the way that American business leaders have become.  And they hire Fox to recruit whiners to avoid that.  Who can blame them. 

But,  this is the country that we,  the people,  are the BOD of.  We know how to keep the government accountable.  We just need to apply that lesson to business*.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:
			
		

> Fuhrer,  I know how you like others to be accountable to you but are so uncomfortable with we,  the people holding you accountable.


Business leaders being accountable to politicians isn't liberty, it's tyranny.  They are accountable to the owners of the company, which is the shareholders.



			
				PMZ said:
			
		

> That's the way that American business leaders have become.  And they hire Fox to recruit whiners to avoid that.  Who can blame them.


I don't care what MS-NBC told you



			
				PMZ said:
			
		

> But,  this is the country that we,  the people,  are the BOD of.  We know how to keep the government accountable.  We just need to apply that lesson to business[/B].


Businesses are accountable, just not to politicians.  At least not in a free country.  If you had a sense of priority you'd be looking at our endless trillion dollar debts and be worried about the politicians.  They are the ones destroying us.  And you want to give them MORE power to decide what businesses are acting in the interest of the politicians?

Dude, self help starts with admitting you have a problem.  Repeat after me.  I am PMZ, and I am a Marxist.  Only then can you start to get help...


----------



## PMZ

Fuhrer,  I don't think that you understand the concept of democracy.  We,  the people,  are the BOD.  We do the hiring and firing.  Elected officials are already accountable to us.  There is not the slightest doubt about that.  

As the BOD,  we are responsible to make sure that the people accountable to us solve national problems.  

We have a national problem with business leaders failing at their one responsibility,  growth.  That lack of performance by them is responsible for about half of our national debt.  How can a BOD tolerate that performance? 

Businesses run on accountability.  Everyone but the executives who are only accountable to their golfing buddies on their BOD.  

We not only can,  but should,  have to even,  solve this national problem.  There isn't a true business person in the world who would disagree that performance problems need to be addressed by accountability.  Make business leaders not accountable to politicians but to we,  the people,  who have a much bigger stake in their performance than shareholders do. 

How,  therefore,  can you be against this?  Shouldn't we treat all leaders the same?


----------



## RKMBrown

Descartes said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich should have an effective 30% tax rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
Click to expand...


It would benefit our economy because there would be a reason for people to want to earn the right to have a lower effective tax rate.  The more you earn the lower your effective tax rate.  As I said in the subsequent post, anyone that does not pay their fair share (7500 annualy) would be put in jail.  Forced to work in a labor camp maybe.  Basically I'm arguing for a strengthening of vagrancy laws. I'm done carrying losers.  Time for them to buck up.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor should have an effective 50% tax rate. Give them a reason to want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would benefit our economy because there would be a reason for people to want to earn the right to have a lower effective tax rate.  The more you earn the lower your effective tax rate.  As I said in the subsequent post, anyone that does not pay their fair share (7500 annualy) would be put in jail.  Forced to work in a labor camp maybe.  Basically I'm arguing for a strengthening of vagrancy laws. I'm done carrying losers.  Time for them to buck up.
Click to expand...


Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would benefit our economy because there would be a reason for people to want to earn the right to have a lower effective tax rate.  The more you earn the lower your effective tax rate.  As I said in the subsequent post, anyone that does not pay their fair share (7500 annualy) would be put in jail.  Forced to work in a labor camp maybe.  Basically I'm arguing for a strengthening of vagrancy laws. I'm done carrying losers.  Time for them to buck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?
Click to expand...


If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 50%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 25%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 5%, and any hours over 40 were not taxed I'd work 60hrs a week.  

If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 0%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 5%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 25%, any hours over 40 were taxed at 50%, and anyone only working 10hrs was paid 10hrs for free.  I'd work 10hrs hrs a week.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would benefit our economy because there would be a reason for people to want to earn the right to have a lower effective tax rate.  The more you earn the lower your effective tax rate.  As I said in the subsequent post, anyone that does not pay their fair share (7500 annualy) would be put in jail.  Forced to work in a labor camp maybe.  Basically I'm arguing for a strengthening of vagrancy laws. I'm done carrying losers.  Time for them to buck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 50%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 25%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 5%, and any hours over 40 were not taxed I'd work 60hrs a week.
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 0%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 5%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 25%, any hours over 40 were taxed at 50%, and anyone only working 10hrs was paid 10hrs for free.  I'd work 10hrs hrs a week.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question.


----------



## zeke

Redfish said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK,  so you want to stick it to the rich, great.    Would you still allow 50% of the population to pay zero federal income taxes?
> 
> BTW, the cap gains tax and other so-called loopholes were put into the tax code to incentivize investment in business in order to grow the economy.   When people with money buy stock they help businesses start up or grow,  that creates jobs and govt revenue.
> 
> the answer is not as simple as 'screw the rich'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eliminating EIC is a good idea, we agree.
> 
> *the mortgage interest deduction exists as an incentive for people to own their homes rather than renting.   It is a positive thing for the country.*
> 
> I have said many times that govt spending should be cut across the board by 1/4 to 1/3.  Cut every agency and program by the same %.   balance spending to income.
> 
> collecting more taxes is not the answer, unless you think that govt can spend YOUR money better than you can.
> 
> and grow with the juvenile insults,   it makes you look like a fool.
Click to expand...



And here in is the reason people like me consider people like you a hypocrite.

You want to do anything with the massive Federal debt was the question. My suggestion had everyone feeling pain. Poor, middle, rich.
Yet you are only ok with taking away from those with the least. But don't take away YOUR home interest deduction. You like it.

Hypocrite is the word for sure.

And don't give me that bullshit that its "good for the country". Why is it the governments responsibility to worry about the private housing market? Thought you repubs wanted your "freedom from the hated government".

Just don't take away your tax goodies eh?

Hypocrite be the right wingers.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 50%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 25%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 5%, and any hours over 40 were not taxed I'd work 60hrs a week.
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 0%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 5%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 25%, any hours over 40 were taxed at 50%, and anyone only working 10hrs was paid 10hrs for free.  I'd work 10hrs hrs a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.

I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.

1) Don't piss in the wind.
2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit. 
4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

zeke said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> (For me) It took a Repub President invading a country that didn't attack us for me to understand that Repubs were to be considered untrustworthy.
> 
> It took you seven years later when a black dude was elected President for you to decide that the black guy couldn't be trusted.
> 
> See ANY difference? Of course not. It's just politics as usual with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just ignore the Democrat controlled Congress that authorized it and the many Democrats that supported it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you Repubs like to remind everyone and of course I agree. The buck stops at the White House. For both a Repub President and a Dem President. That's why they are the leaders of their respective parties. To take the blame and the credit.
> 
> And of course you want to shift the blame for the disaster known as Iraq, as far away from the Repubs as possible. You all have been doing that ever since it was known that the war in Iraq was a bad bad mistake.
> 
> Why are you repubs not PROUD of the disaster in Iraq. You all wanted it so bad that you sold the idea of invading Iraq to the rest of the country. Be proud of your mistakes. After all, you break it, you own it. (who said that)?
Click to expand...


You agree? I have yet to see you hold Obama accountable for anything.

FTR I was against the Iraq war. But I supported the troops that were ordered to go there.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Peterf said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you let words like that offend you?
> 
> Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?
> 
> People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.
> 
> I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vulgarities don't offend me.   But when they are used by people broadly on my side of an argument they worry me.   Because they make my potential allies seem ignorant and linguistically challenged; quite unable to make a point in an interesting, intelligent or even amusing way.   By using the same 'lingo' you drag down your apparent IQ by ten percentage points.   You diminish yourself not the person you are addressing.
Click to expand...


IQ is subjective. 

I win debates by focusing on the meat of the message not the delivery and by backing up my argument with facts and not allowing my emotions to control me. 

Why worry about what others do, think or feel?

That PC bullshit is in lock step with liberal thinking. Don't allow yourself to stoop that low. Be a man and rise above the petty vulgarities and win the argument using your knowledge backed with facts and if you throw in a "asshole, idiot, moron and/or dipshit", so be it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you let words like that offend you?
> 
> Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?
> 
> People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.
> 
> I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vulgarities don't offend me.   But when they are used by people broadly on my side of an argument they worry me.   Because they make my potential allies seem ignorant and linguistically challenged; quite unable to make a point in an interesting, intelligent or even amusing way.   By using the same 'lingo' you drag down your apparent IQ by ten percentage points.   You diminish yourself not the person you are addressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IQ is subjective.
> 
> I win debates by focusing on the meat of the message not the delivery and by backing up my argument with facts and not allowing my emotions to control me.
> 
> Why worry about what others do, think or feel?
> 
> That PC bullshit is in lock step with liberal thinking. Don't allow yourself to stoop that low. Be a man and rise above the petty vulgarities and win the argument using your knowledge backed with facts and if you throw in a "asshole, idiot, moron and/or dipshit", so be it.
Click to expand...


When did you ever win a debate?  I call BS.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a country hating conservative.  And that's why they fail so badly at governance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's crap and can you even try to think beyond meaningless labels?
> My business doesn't owe you anything.  All I have to do is live up to my responsibilities for my tenants.  If you are not one of my tenants I don't owe you shit and neither does any other company that you have nothing to do with.
> 
> 
> 
> Shows how much you know about investing.  The most successful investors buy and hold.
> 
> 
> 
> Only?  That choice is the ultimate power. And there are many things being sold today that people can do without.  It's that they don't want to do without that makes most people live beyond their means and whose fault is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are accountable to the board and the shareholders just like they always have been. Nothing's changed there.  No business is accountable to you personally unless you have a stake in it.
> 
> I'm willing to bet you don't have a stake in every business in the country or even a couple for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know success. It's a great teacher for those who learn.  Then there are those that think that the world owes them whatever they want.
Click to expand...


You mean like you?  The rich owe you something.  Businesses owe you something. Everyone else is keeping you down denying you your right to succeed and they must be punished with punitive taxes.

You're the parasite that feels entitled to other peoples' money.



> Conservatism dragged America down but not out and we are recovering despite you.
> 
> And we will continue to leave you behind.



Again boiling down the world to "liberal" or "conservative"

It must be hard to be so limited in your thinking.


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read your posts before. I knew you had a reading comprehension problem but wtf.
> 
> You can't or didn't read the part about getting rid of the EIC? Do you know what the EIC is?
> 
> You can't read or didn't read the part about getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
> 
> I think you agree with the last thing I wrote. You and your kind don't really want to do anything about the debt. You all just want to bitch about it.
> 
> That sound about right to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eliminating EIC is a good idea, we agree.
> 
> *the mortgage interest deduction exists as an incentive for people to own their homes rather than renting.   It is a positive thing for the country.*
> 
> I have said many times that govt spending should be cut across the board by 1/4 to 1/3.  Cut every agency and program by the same %.   balance spending to income.
> 
> collecting more taxes is not the answer, unless you think that govt can spend YOUR money better than you can.
> 
> and grow with the juvenile insults,   it makes you look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And here in is the reason people like me consider people like you a hypocrite.
> 
> You want to do anything with the massive Federal debt was the question. My suggestion had everyone feeling pain. Poor, middle, rich.
> Yet you are only ok with taking away from those with the least. But don't take away YOUR home interest deduction. You like it.
> 
> Hypocrite is the word for sure.
> 
> And don't give me that bullshit that its "good for the country". Why is it the governments responsibility to worry about the private housing market? Thought you repubs wanted your "freedom from the hated government".
> 
> Just don't take away your tax goodies eh?
> 
> Hypocrite be the right wingers.
Click to expand...


The solution to the Bush debt is very simple and obvious. 

Business growth.  Improvements in who and how businesses are run.  Accountability of executives for growth,  not laying people off and sending their jobs overseas. A return to competent,  accountable management.  

Clintonomics.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 50%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 25%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 5%, and any hours over 40 were not taxed I'd work 60hrs a week.
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 0%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 5%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 25%, any hours over 40 were taxed at 50%, and anyone only working 10hrs was paid 10hrs for free.  I'd work 10hrs hrs a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.
> 
> I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.
> 
> 1) Don't piss in the wind.
> 2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
> 3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit.
> 4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.
Click to expand...


Your cures are what caused America's economic problems to begin with.  And slowed Europe's recover from the Bush Great Recession.  Only fools would fall for any of that again. 

Business leaders need to come in from their country clubs,  sell their yachts and get to work earning their lavish pay. 

Economic growth is the only solution.  If the present business crew can't do it,  I'm sure that we can find leaders who can.


----------



## PMZ

Lonestar_logic said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just ignore the Democrat controlled Congress that authorized it and the many Democrats that supported it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you Repubs like to remind everyone and of course I agree. The buck stops at the White House. For both a Repub President and a Dem President. That's why they are the leaders of their respective parties. To take the blame and the credit.
> 
> And of course you want to shift the blame for the disaster known as Iraq, as far away from the Repubs as possible. You all have been doing that ever since it was known that the war in Iraq was a bad bad mistake.
> 
> Why are you repubs not PROUD of the disaster in Iraq. You all wanted it so bad that you sold the idea of invading Iraq to the rest of the country. Be proud of your mistakes. After all, you break it, you own it. (who said that)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You agree? I have yet to see you hold Obama accountable for anything.
> 
> FTR I was against the Iraq war. But I supported the troops that were ordered to go there.
Click to expand...


I held Obama accountable for the ending of and recovery from Bush's policies.  For ending Bush's wars.  For re-establishing America's rightful place among nations.  For standing up to the Republican 's attempts to hijack Congress.  For tackling our way too expensive and underperforming health care delivery and insurance non-system. For eliminating bin Laden.  For saving America's auto industry. For soundly defeating Romney/Ryan. For substantially lowering our deficits.  For ending conservatives reign of terror in America.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 50%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 25%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 5%, and any hours over 40 were not taxed I'd work 60hrs a week.
> 
> If the first 10hrs of work was taxed at 0%, the second 10hrs was taxed at 5%, the third 10hrs at 10%, the fourth 10hrs at 25%, any hours over 40 were taxed at 50%, and anyone only working 10hrs was paid 10hrs for free.  I'd work 10hrs hrs a week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.
> 
> I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.
> 
> 1) Don't piss in the wind.
> 2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
> 3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit.
> 4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.
Click to expand...


This is really all you are capable of?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> eliminating EIC is a good idea, we agree.
> 
> *the mortgage interest deduction exists as an incentive for people to own their homes rather than renting.   It is a positive thing for the country.*
> 
> I have said many times that govt spending should be cut across the board by 1/4 to 1/3.  Cut every agency and program by the same %.   balance spending to income.
> 
> collecting more taxes is not the answer, unless you think that govt can spend YOUR money better than you can.
> 
> and grow with the juvenile insults,   it makes you look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here in is the reason people like me consider people like you a hypocrite.
> 
> You want to do anything with the massive Federal debt was the question. My suggestion had everyone feeling pain. Poor, middle, rich.
> Yet you are only ok with taking away from those with the least. But don't take away YOUR home interest deduction. You like it.
> 
> Hypocrite is the word for sure.
> 
> And don't give me that bullshit that its "good for the country". Why is it the governments responsibility to worry about the private housing market? Thought you repubs wanted your "freedom from the hated government".
> 
> Just don't take away your tax goodies eh?
> 
> Hypocrite be the right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solution to the Bush debt is very simple and obvious.
> 
> Business growth.  Improvements in who and how businesses are run.  Accountability of executives for growth,  not laying people off and sending their jobs overseas. A return to competent,  accountable management.
> 
> Clintonomics.
Click to expand...


No job has ever "been sent" overseas.
YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them. 
Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.


----------



## Peterf

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the word "Marxist" bother you, comrade?   It's accurate, so what's the issue with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not at all accurate. It's what you wish was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Actually I wish people who live in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man would appreciate what capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, has brought us and they were not consumed in greed and wealth envy like you are.
> 
> I believe in equal opportunity.  You believe in equal results.  You don't care how big the pie is or the amount of pie you get, you just want to have all the slices the same size, except for your leaders who get big slabs for the sacrifice they have to make to have ubiquitous power.
> 
> You question how much a CEO contributes to the economy, you do not question how much a politician destroys the economy.  Most CEOs are good.  The bad ones lose their jobs.  Bad politicians preaching greed and wealth envy get elected to a second term as President.
Click to expand...


Good enough post.   Except for the 'richest' delusion.   No other country ever has been so deeply in debt to others than the US is now.   Being flat broke is one thing; having stupendous debts is something else.

If voters understood that the US is poor they might possibly choose different politicians.


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here in is the reason people like me consider people like you a hypocrite.
> 
> You want to do anything with the massive Federal debt was the question. My suggestion had everyone feeling pain. Poor, middle, rich.
> Yet you are only ok with taking away from those with the least. But don't take away YOUR home interest deduction. You like it.
> 
> Hypocrite is the word for sure.
> 
> And don't give me that bullshit that its "good for the country". Why is it the governments responsibility to worry about the private housing market? Thought you repubs wanted your "freedom from the hated government".
> 
> Just don't take away your tax goodies eh?
> 
> Hypocrite be the right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution to the Bush debt is very simple and obvious.
> 
> Business growth.  Improvements in who and how businesses are run.  Accountability of executives for growth,  not laying people off and sending their jobs overseas. A return to competent,  accountable management.
> 
> Clintonomics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No job has ever "been sent" overseas.*
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
Click to expand...



Bull shit. When a company like GM, shuts down a plant in Ohio and opens a plant in Mexico making the exact same parts, maybe the job didn't go "overseas" but the jobs sure as hell left the country.

And just where are those millions of jobs in the construction, tool and die and auto mechanics fields. How do people get trained for them and who pays for that training. Or is the training one of those "freebies" you right wingers get so upset about? Then you all would be complaining about how those leeches are getting free training. Or bitching about the fact they can't borrow money to pay for their own training.

So tell all how that training for jobs works. There are not many companies out there offering apprenticeships anymore.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.
> 
> I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.
> 
> 1) Don't piss in the wind.
> 2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
> 3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit.
> 4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your cures are what caused America's economic problems to begin with.  And slowed Europe's recover from the Bush Great Recession.  Only fools would fall for any of that again.
> 
> Business leaders need to come in from their country clubs,  sell their yachts and get to work earning their lavish pay.
> 
> Economic growth is the only solution.  If the present business crew can't do it,  I'm sure that we can find leaders who can.
Click to expand...


Liar.  My proposal has never been done.  Never.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.
> 
> I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.
> 
> 1) Don't piss in the wind.
> 2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
> 3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit.
> 4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really all you are capable of?
Click to expand...


Are you able to fashion a comprehensible sentence?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here in is the reason people like me consider people like you a hypocrite.
> 
> You want to do anything with the massive Federal debt was the question. My suggestion had everyone feeling pain. Poor, middle, rich.
> Yet you are only ok with taking away from those with the least. But don't take away YOUR home interest deduction. You like it.
> 
> Hypocrite is the word for sure.
> 
> And don't give me that bullshit that its "good for the country". Why is it the governments responsibility to worry about the private housing market? Thought you repubs wanted your "freedom from the hated government".
> 
> Just don't take away your tax goodies eh?
> 
> Hypocrite be the right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution to the Bush debt is very simple and obvious.
> 
> Business growth.  Improvements in who and how businesses are run.  Accountability of executives for growth,  not laying people off and sending their jobs overseas. A return to competent,  accountable management.
> 
> Clintonomics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No job has ever "been sent" overseas.
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
Click to expand...


What customers DEMAND is what companies offer.  Customers don't design products.  The fact that American business leadership has lost the handle on innovation,  and can only think of me too products at costs that can only be met by starvation wages,  is the problem.  

When the fat cats in the front office get off their butts and realize that their job is to grow,  satisfy more customers,  and the only way to  do that is proud,  inspired,  capable employees,  then we will get back to the American dream. 

Growth.  The business of business. What conservatives killed.  Can be resuscitated.

We,  the people need to hold people who call themselves leaders and demand lavish pay,  accountable for something beyond the failure that you describe.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution to the Bush debt is very simple and obvious.
> 
> Business growth.  Improvements in who and how businesses are run.  Accountability of executives for growth,  not laying people off and sending their jobs overseas. A return to competent,  accountable management.
> 
> Clintonomics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No job has ever "been sent" overseas.
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What customers DEMAND is what companies offer.  Customers don't design products.  The fact that American business leadership has lost the handle on innovation,  and can only think of me too products at costs that can only be met by starvation wages,  is the problem.
> 
> When the fat cats in the front office get off their butts and realize that their job is to grow,  satisfy more customers,  and the only way to  do that is proud,  inspired,  capable employees,  then we will get back to the American dream.
> 
> Growth.  The business of business. What conservatives killed.  Can be resuscitated.
> 
> We,  the people need to hold people who call themselves leaders and demand lavish pay,  accountable for something beyond the failure that you describe.
Click to expand...


You are an ignoramus.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not at all accurate. It's what you wish was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Actually I wish people who live in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man would appreciate what capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, has brought us and they were not consumed in greed and wealth envy like you are.
> 
> I believe in equal opportunity.  You believe in equal results.  You don't care how big the pie is or the amount of pie you get, you just want to have all the slices the same size, except for your leaders who get big slabs for the sacrifice they have to make to have ubiquitous power.
> 
> You question how much a CEO contributes to the economy, you do not question how much a politician destroys the economy.  Most CEOs are good.  The bad ones lose their jobs.  Bad politicians preaching greed and wealth envy get elected to a second term as President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good enough post.   Except for the 'richest' delusion.   No other country ever has been so deeply in debt to others than the US is now.   Being flat broke is one thing; having stupendous debts is something else.
> 
> If voters understood that the US is poor they might possibly choose different politicians.
Click to expand...


How about the European countries that swallowed the austerity pill?

The Bush debt is a load that there is one solution  to.  GDP.  The business of business


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Actually I wish people who live in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man would appreciate what capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, has brought us and they were not consumed in greed and wealth envy like you are.
> 
> I believe in equal opportunity.  You believe in equal results.  You don't care how big the pie is or the amount of pie you get, you just want to have all the slices the same size, except for your leaders who get big slabs for the sacrifice they have to make to have ubiquitous power.
> 
> You question how much a CEO contributes to the economy, you do not question how much a politician destroys the economy.  Most CEOs are good.  The bad ones lose their jobs.  Bad politicians preaching greed and wealth envy get elected to a second term as President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good enough post.   Except for the 'richest' delusion.   No other country ever has been so deeply in debt to others than the US is now.   Being flat broke is one thing; having stupendous debts is something else.
> 
> If voters understood that the US is poor they might possibly choose different politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the European countries that swallowed the austerity pill?
> 
> The Bush debt is a load that there is one solution  to.  GDP.  The business of business
Click to expand...


Get back on your meds, you have gone off the deep end.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.
> 
> I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.
> 
> 1) Don't piss in the wind.
> 2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
> 3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit.
> 4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really all you are capable of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you able to fashion a comprehensible sentence?
Click to expand...


Are you capable of a cogent thought?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No job has ever "been sent" overseas.
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What customers DEMAND is what companies offer.  Customers don't design products.  The fact that American business leadership has lost the handle on innovation,  and can only think of me too products at costs that can only be met by starvation wages,  is the problem.
> 
> When the fat cats in the front office get off their butts and realize that their job is to grow,  satisfy more customers,  and the only way to  do that is proud,  inspired,  capable employees,  then we will get back to the American dream.
> 
> Growth.  The business of business. What conservatives killed.  Can be resuscitated.
> 
> We,  the people need to hold people who call themselves leaders and demand lavish pay,  accountable for something beyond the failure that you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an ignoramus.
Click to expand...


And you claim to be one of the failed business leaders with zero comprehension of how economies really work.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  If you can't see your 50% tax rate in my response, I can't help you, you need glasses.
> 
> I'll leave you with some sayings to consider.
> 
> 1) Don't piss in the wind.
> 2) When sailing it's easier to sail downwind than up-wind.
> 3) It's easier to dig a hole if you toss the sand out of the pit.
> 4) If you want a dog to bark at intruders you don't kick him when he barks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your cures are what caused America's economic problems to begin with.  And slowed Europe's recover from the Bush Great Recession.  Only fools would fall for any of that again.
> 
> Business leaders need to come in from their country clubs,  sell their yachts and get to work earning their lavish pay.
> 
> Economic growth is the only solution.  If the present business crew can't do it,  I'm sure that we can find leaders who can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  My proposal has never been done.  Never.
Click to expand...


There's a reason for that.  It's merely a scheme to make the poor poorer and therefore supportive of conservative's march to create a banana republic from the largest economy in the world.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good enough post.   Except for the 'richest' delusion.   No other country ever has been so deeply in debt to others than the US is now.   Being flat broke is one thing; having stupendous debts is something else.
> 
> If voters understood that the US is poor they might possibly choose different politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the European countries that swallowed the austerity pill?
> 
> The Bush debt is a load that there is one solution  to.  GDP.  The business of business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get back on your meds, you have gone off the deep end.
Click to expand...


Another contentless post.  Is there no end?


----------



## Gadawg73

zeke said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution to the Bush debt is very simple and obvious.
> 
> Business growth.  Improvements in who and how businesses are run.  Accountability of executives for growth,  not laying people off and sending their jobs overseas. A return to competent,  accountable management.
> 
> Clintonomics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No job has ever "been sent" overseas.*
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. When a company like GM, shuts down a plant in Ohio and opens a plant in Mexico making the exact same parts, maybe the job didn't go "overseas" but the jobs sure as hell left the country.
> 
> And just where are those millions of jobs in the construction, tool and die and auto mechanics fields. How do people get trained for them and who pays for that training. Or is the training one of those "freebies" you right wingers get so upset about? Then you all would be complaining about how those leeches are getting free training. Or bitching about the fact they can't borrow money to pay for their own training.
> 
> So tell all how that training for jobs works. There are not many companies out there offering apprenticeships anymore.
Click to expand...


It is YOUR responsibility to train yourself so quit making excuses and get off your ass.
GM was forced BY YOU to go to Mexico as you demand a car that YOU can afford.
The massive benefit program for the fat and lazy GM retirees ate up ALL of the money allocated for health benefits so GM goes bankrupt.
Tell is why did GM go bankrupt? Why was that? How can other car companies come here and make a PROFIT yet GM goes bankrupt.
Econ 101 is available at your local community college.
In Georgia and many states the vocational training is 100% either government loan or in Georgia most all of it is paid for by HOPE. 
4th year average for HVAC tech in Ga. now is over 45K. Not a bad wage for a 22 year old.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No job has ever "been sent" overseas.
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What customers DEMAND is what companies offer.  Customers don't design products.  The fact that American business leadership has lost the handle on innovation,  and can only think of me too products at costs that can only be met by starvation wages,  is the problem.
> 
> When the fat cats in the front office get off their butts and realize that their job is to grow,  satisfy more customers,  and the only way to  do that is proud,  inspired,  capable employees,  then we will get back to the American dream.
> 
> Growth.  The business of business. What conservatives killed.  Can be resuscitated.
> 
> We,  the people need to hold people who call themselves leaders and demand lavish pay,  accountable for something beyond the failure that you describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an ignoramus.
Click to expand...


No, he is a dumb ass partisan hack.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What customers DEMAND is what companies offer.  Customers don't design products.  The fact that American business leadership has lost the handle on innovation,  and can only think of me too products at costs that can only be met by starvation wages,  is the problem.
> 
> When the fat cats in the front office get off their butts and realize that their job is to grow,  satisfy more customers,  and the only way to  do that is proud,  inspired,  capable employees,  then we will get back to the American dream.
> 
> Growth.  The business of business. What conservatives killed.  Can be resuscitated.
> 
> We,  the people need to hold people who call themselves leaders and demand lavish pay,  accountable for something beyond the failure that you describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you claim to be one of the failed business leaders with zero comprehension of how economies really work.
Click to expand...

That is a lie, and you are a lying piece of shit.  Completely incapable of telling the truth on any subject.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No job has ever "been sent" overseas.*
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. When a company like GM, shuts down a plant in Ohio and opens a plant in Mexico making the exact same parts, maybe the job didn't go "overseas" but the jobs sure as hell left the country.
> 
> And just where are those millions of jobs in the construction, tool and die and auto mechanics fields. How do people get trained for them and who pays for that training. Or is the training one of those "freebies" you right wingers get so upset about? Then you all would be complaining about how those leeches are getting free training. Or bitching about the fact they can't borrow money to pay for their own training.
> 
> So tell all how that training for jobs works. There are not many companies out there offering apprenticeships anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is YOUR responsibility to train yourself so quit making excuses and get off your ass.
> GM was forced BY YOU to go to Mexico as you demand a car that YOU can afford.
> The massive benefit program for the fat and lazy GM retirees ate up ALL of the money allocated for health benefits so GM goes bankrupt.
> Tell is why did GM go bankrupt? Why was that? How can other car companies come here and make a PROFIT yet GM goes bankrupt.
> Econ 101 is available at your local community college.
> In Georgia and many states the vocational training is 100% either government loan or in Georgia most all of it is paid for by HOPE.
> 4th year average for HVAC tech in Ga. now is over 45K. Not a bad wage for a 22 year old.
Click to expand...


Sure.  The problems with business leadership are customers and the American electorate.  

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to be one of the failed business leaders with zero comprehension of how economies really work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a lie, and you are a lying piece of shit.  Completely incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
Click to expand...


You can't stand the truth.


----------



## zeke

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No job has ever "been sent" overseas.*
> YOU demanded they leave when you buy the shoes on your feet right now. You have a choice and YOU chose to have the shoes made in another country where someone with a 4th grade education can be taught to make them.
> Called a global economy where an American worker with a high school diploma that wants $25 a hour in wages and benefits as a "living wage" CAN NOT compete with the competition of that Chinaman with a 4th grade education making the shoes.
> Add in the anti business climate of the current administration, the high taxes and the growth of the moocher class no way YOU will pay $160 for a pair of shoes you now pay $45 for made in China.
> This is a good thing as Americans need to get off their asses, educate themselves in the tech jobs where there is massive growth and fill the millions of jobs we have now unfilled in HVAC, plumbing, tool and die, auto mechanics and 3 dozen other technical jobs taught at vocational schools.
> Or sit and cry about how it is unfair that someone that educates themselves in what the economy here DEMANDS, finds a job that the consumer DEMANDS and from working their ass off makes a dollar more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. When a company like GM, shuts down a plant in Ohio and opens a plant in Mexico making the exact same parts, maybe the job didn't go "overseas" but the jobs sure as hell left the country.
> 
> And just where are those millions of jobs in the construction, tool and die and auto mechanics fields. How do people get trained for them and who pays for that training. Or is the training one of those "freebies" you right wingers get so upset about? Then you all would be complaining about how those leeches are getting free training. Or bitching about the fact they can't borrow money to pay for their own training.
> 
> So tell all how that training for jobs works. There are not many companies out there offering apprenticeships anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is YOUR responsibility to train yourself so quit making excuses and get off your ass.
> GM was forced BY YOU to go to Mexico as you demand a car that YOU can afford.
> The massive benefit program for the fat and lazy GM retirees ate up ALL of the money allocated for health benefits so GM goes bankrupt.
> Tell is why did GM go bankrupt? Why was that? How can other car companies come here and make a PROFIT yet GM goes bankrupt.
> Econ 101 is available at your local community college.
> In Georgia and many states the vocational training is 100% either government loan or in Georgia most all of it is paid for by HOPE.
> 4th year average for HVAC tech in Ga. now is over 45K. Not a bad wage for a 22 year old.
Click to expand...



More horseshit. GM was on a union busting program for a long time. I can afford a car made by union workers. How about you? You ever notice that the car companies coming into this country pay almost union scale. You know why that is? Fuk no you have no clue.

And calling GM retirees fat and lazy seems to make you either jealous or just a fucked up individual. Which is it?

 How low has the Georgia UE number dropped. You know, with all those HVAC jobs and all those apprenticeships. And what is HOPE. Is that another one of the government programs giving away money? Thought you all hated those programs.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your cures are what caused America's economic problems to begin with.  And slowed Europe's recover from the Bush Great Recession.  Only fools would fall for any of that again.
> 
> Business leaders need to come in from their country clubs,  sell their yachts and get to work earning their lavish pay.
> 
> Economic growth is the only solution.  If the present business crew can't do it,  I'm sure that we can find leaders who can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.  My proposal has never been done.  Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a reason for that.  It's merely a scheme to make the poor poorer and therefore supportive of conservative's march to create a banana republic from the largest economy in the world.
Click to expand...


You are nothing but a piece of shit liar.  First you say the 50% is not there, then you say it's been tried before, now you agree it's never been tried before because it's designed to create a banana republic.

The scheme would work just fine.  Your problem is your ability to think is no longer above the level of a cockroach's ability to think.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you claim to be one of the failed business leaders with zero comprehension of how economies really work.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie, and you are a lying piece of shit.  Completely incapable of telling the truth on any subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't stand the truth.
Click to expand...


I can't stand lying pieces of shit like you, and you don't speak for me prick.


----------



## PMZ

If you ever want to rid your house of conservatives,  and who doesn't,  just speak the 'A'  word.  Accountability.  It has the same effect as a cross to a werewolf. They run,  screaming. 

It's fun to watch and oh,  so useful.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> If you ever want to rid your house of conservatives,  and who doesn't,  just speak the 'A'  word.  Accountability.  It has the same effect as a cross to a werewolf. They run,  screaming.
> 
> It's fun to watch and oh,  so useful.



Troll.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. When a company like GM, shuts down a plant in Ohio and opens a plant in Mexico making the exact same parts, maybe the job didn't go "overseas" but the jobs sure as hell left the country.
> 
> And just where are those millions of jobs in the construction, tool and die and auto mechanics fields. How do people get trained for them and who pays for that training. Or is the training one of those "freebies" you right wingers get so upset about? Then you all would be complaining about how those leeches are getting free training. Or bitching about the fact they can't borrow money to pay for their own training.
> 
> So tell all how that training for jobs works. There are not many companies out there offering apprenticeships anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is YOUR responsibility to train yourself so quit making excuses and get off your ass.
> GM was forced BY YOU to go to Mexico as you demand a car that YOU can afford.
> The massive benefit program for the fat and lazy GM retirees ate up ALL of the money allocated for health benefits so GM goes bankrupt.
> Tell is why did GM go bankrupt? Why was that? How can other car companies come here and make a PROFIT yet GM goes bankrupt.
> Econ 101 is available at your local community college.
> In Georgia and many states the vocational training is 100% either government loan or in Georgia most all of it is paid for by HOPE.
> 4th year average for HVAC tech in Ga. now is over 45K. Not a bad wage for a 22 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problems with business leadership are customers and the American electorate.
> 
> ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
Click to expand...


Where did I say that you liar?


----------



## PMZ

I doubt if Brown's claims of businesses success are true


----------



## Gadawg73

zeke said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. When a company like GM, shuts down a plant in Ohio and opens a plant in Mexico making the exact same parts, maybe the job didn't go "overseas" but the jobs sure as hell left the country.
> 
> And just where are those millions of jobs in the construction, tool and die and auto mechanics fields. How do people get trained for them and who pays for that training. Or is the training one of those "freebies" you right wingers get so upset about? Then you all would be complaining about how those leeches are getting free training. Or bitching about the fact they can't borrow money to pay for their own training.
> 
> So tell all how that training for jobs works. There are not many companies out there offering apprenticeships anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is YOUR responsibility to train yourself so quit making excuses and get off your ass.
> GM was forced BY YOU to go to Mexico as you demand a car that YOU can afford.
> The massive benefit program for the fat and lazy GM retirees ate up ALL of the money allocated for health benefits so GM goes bankrupt.
> Tell is why did GM go bankrupt? Why was that? How can other car companies come here and make a PROFIT yet GM goes bankrupt.
> Econ 101 is available at your local community college.
> In Georgia and many states the vocational training is 100% either government loan or in Georgia most all of it is paid for by HOPE.
> 4th year average for HVAC tech in Ga. now is over 45K. Not a bad wage for a 22 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More horseshit. GM was on a union busting program for a long time. I can afford a car made by union workers. How about you? You ever notice that the car companies coming into this country pay almost union scale. You know why that is? Fuk no you have no clue.
> 
> And calling GM retirees fat and lazy seems to make you either jealous or just a fucked up individual. Which is it?
> 
> How low has the Georgia UE number dropped. You know, with all those HVAC jobs and all those apprenticeships. And what is HOPE. Is that another one of the government programs giving away money? Thought you all hated those programs.
Click to expand...


GM spent 5 billion on health care costs in 2008 and you claim those costs were for a healthy retirement population?
Got it.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is YOUR responsibility to train yourself so quit making excuses and get off your ass.
> GM was forced BY YOU to go to Mexico as you demand a car that YOU can afford.
> The massive benefit program for the fat and lazy GM retirees ate up ALL of the money allocated for health benefits so GM goes bankrupt.
> Tell is why did GM go bankrupt? Why was that? How can other car companies come here and make a PROFIT yet GM goes bankrupt.
> Econ 101 is available at your local community college.
> In Georgia and many states the vocational training is 100% either government loan or in Georgia most all of it is paid for by HOPE.
> 4th year average for HVAC tech in Ga. now is over 45K. Not a bad wage for a 22 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problems with business leadership are customers and the American electorate.
> 
> ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say that you liar?
Click to expand...


Which Alzheimers unit are you posting from?


----------



## Gadawg73

HOPE is from the lottery money, not one cent of government money.
Friend of my son who was raised not to be a whiny bitch went to HVAC tech school at age 18 in 2004. Graduated with a certification which is what you get, apprenticeship is 1940s union gobbly gook, and started at $12 a hour at age 19. Within 2 years he was making almost twice that. He moved to Florida where the demand for HVAC techs is soaring. He made 70K last year as in the summer months he can make as much as $2000+ a week easy just doing maintenance service calls.
Same with plumbing, auto mechanics, tool and die and dozens of tech jobs. 
Or sit on one's ass and expect SOMEONE ELSE to give you an apprenticeship, training and help.
Not opposed to European style apprenticeship programs where they CLASSIFY you in high school as to your skill set. How do you think the left would take to that here?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  The problems with business leadership are customers and the American electorate.
> 
> ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that you liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Alzheimers unit are you posting from?
Click to expand...


Is that all you have? 
Whenever the left is beat they first twist, distort and change the subject.
They next call names like a 5th grader.


----------



## PMZ

But,  if I'm wrong,  he's a fine example of businesses leaders who may have enriched themselves,  but only at the expense of everyone else.  Wealth sewers,  not creators.  

His problem is that he knows little about economics,  and it's mostly wrong.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that you liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Alzheimers unit are you posting from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that all you have?
> Whenever the left is beat they first twist, distort and change the subject.
> They next call names like a 5th grader.
Click to expand...


Beat by the claim that you don't remember what was in your previous post??????


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.



You're right. If they need help from government to stay afloat they shouldn't be in business. I'm sure you like me, would agree we should not have bailed out the auto industry, right? However, if you think you're right about what conservatism says about how to best run a business, by all means prove it.  



PMZ said:


> The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business.  I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts.



Fool you? I agree with almost all of that. I don't know why you want to continue to argue against a strawman on this.



PMZ said:


> The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.



Wow! Projecting much? The evidence simply doesn't bare this out. The evidence is it is LIBERALS who can't see the consequences of their own actions. You advocate for crap like a living wage. Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare. Look at how many people we have dependent on government in entitlement programs. All LIBERAL policies.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> HOPE is from the lottery money, not one cent of government money.
> Friend of my son who was raised not to be a whiny bitch went to HVAC tech school at age 18 in 2004. Graduated with a certification which is what you get, apprenticeship is 1940s union gobbly gook, and started at $12 a hour at age 19. Within 2 years he was making almost twice that. He moved to Florida where the demand for HVAC techs is soaring. He made 70K last year as in the summer months he can make as much as $2000+ a week easy just doing maintenance service calls.
> Same with plumbing, auto mechanics, tool and die and dozens of tech jobs.
> Or sit on one's ass and expect SOMEONE ELSE to give you an apprenticeship, training and help.
> Not opposed to European style apprenticeship programs where they CLASSIFY you in high school as to your skill set. How do you think the left would take to that here?



I worked for a Swiss company.  They had a huge apprentice program compared to their size.  It was essentially a partnership with canton (state)  government.  It was absolutely a win,  win,  win arrangement.  The students,  the company,  the canton. The whole community. 

But it was based on mutual respect and cooperation.  Something that Rush and his friends have pretty much killed here.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. If they need help from government to stay afloat they shouldn't be in business. I'm sure you like me, would agree we should not have bailed out the auto industry, right? However, if you think you're right about what conservatism says about how to best run a business, by all means prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business.  I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fool you? I agree with almost all of that. I don't know why you want to continue to argue against a strawman on this.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Projecting much? The evidence simply doesn't bare this out. The evidence is it is LIBERALS who can't see the consequences of their own actions. You advocate for crap like a living wage. Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare. Look at how many people we have dependent on government in entitlement programs. All LIBERAL policies.
Click to expand...


Again,  you continue to recite Republican propaganda from Fox,  and believe that it's news.  It's not.  It's what they want you to believe to be useful to the party.  

Believe it or not,  I'm not trying to insult you,  but wake you up.  This is merely simple well documented truth.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how this would benefit our economy please. Why would anyone work if they had to pay more taxes than their greedy bosses who are already severely underpaying them. This would cause a revolution. But I want to hear what you think this would do please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would benefit our economy because there would be a reason for people to want to earn the right to have a lower effective tax rate.  The more you earn the lower your effective tax rate.  As I said in the subsequent post, anyone that does not pay their fair share (7500 annualy) would be put in jail.  Forced to work in a labor camp maybe.  Basically I'm arguing for a strengthening of vagrancy laws. I'm done carrying losers.  Time for them to buck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?
Click to expand...


No, it's not even necessary.
if govt were limited to what it is supposed to do,
we'd only need 10% tax and maybe just sales tax.

Right now, with income tax, I would reward people/business with tax breaks
for directly investing/building sustainable solutions to shift burdens OFF govt
and taxpayers, and to pay taxpayers BACK for PAST govt misspending/abuses
to pay for the work instead of charging us more to fix messes they made!

We should hold national contests to solve problems, similar to TED conferences
and compete for the business, where taxpayers vote where they want to invest
their funds and subtract from taxes. So the best solutions get funded and those
responsibilities shift off govt into local programs that work effectively and sustainably.

as model programs are proven to work, more ppl would invest or duplicate those models.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.



Seriously troll, the shit you spew.

You have no fucking idea of what you spew - you just get programmed by the Soros hate sites and regurgitate it here.

Somalia is in a state of civil war, shit fer brains. It absolutely does have a government - one your boss would approve of, based on Sharia dictatorship. 

Further, you fucking lying sack of shit, I've corrected your lying ass on this before.

{Per the Transitional Federal Charter of the Somali Republic,[35] Prime Minister Mohamed named a new Cabinet on 12 November 2010,[36] which was lauded by the international community.[37][38] As had been expected, the allotted ministerial positions were significantly reduced in numbers from 39 to 18.[36][39] Only two Ministers from the previous Cabinet were reappointed: Hussein Abdi Halane, the former Minister of Finance (Finance and Treasury) and Mohamud Abdi Ibrahim (Commerce and Industry).[40] Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a, a moderate Sufi group and an important military ally of the TFG, became Minister of the Interior and Labour ministries.[39][40] The remaining ministerial positions were largely assigned to technocrats new to the Somali political arena.[41]}

Politics of Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're a scumbag and a fuckwad - i.e. a typical democrat.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Valox said:


> While we are at it, lets subsidize the rich...oh wait, we already do that.



^^^^^^^^^^^

Stupidity: the foundation of leftism!


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. If they need help from government to stay afloat they shouldn't be in business. I'm sure you like me, would agree we should not have bailed out the auto industry, right? However, if you think you're right about what conservatism says about how to best run a business, by all means prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fool you? I agree with almost all of that. I don't know why you want to continue to argue against a strawman on this.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! Projecting much? The evidence simply doesn't bare this out. The evidence is it is LIBERALS who can't see the consequences of their own actions. You advocate for crap like a living wage. Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare. Look at how many people we have dependent on government in entitlement programs. All LIBERAL policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again,  you continue to recite Republican propaganda from Fox,  and believe that it's news.  It's not.  It's what they want you to believe to be useful to the party.
> 
> Believe it or not,  I'm not trying to insult you,  but wake you up.  This is merely simple well documented truth.
Click to expand...


It's documented proof that I'm using FOX news talking points? I don't watch FOX News. The reason I think what I think is because I have an objective, rationale brain. Get off your high horse. Take your own advice a muster a modicum of objectivty and honesty. The above doesn't even begin to refute what I said. You're the one clearly out of answers. Perhaps you are the one that needs to watch a little MSNBC to get some more liberal talking points at the very least. The above response is laughable. The crux of your argument isn't even against my ideas. It's an attempt to attack credibility by association based on an argument you can't prove. It's really quite pathetic.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would benefit our economy because there would be a reason for people to want to earn the right to have a lower effective tax rate.  The more you earn the lower your effective tax rate.  As I said in the subsequent post, anyone that does not pay their fair share (7500 annualy) would be put in jail.  Forced to work in a labor camp maybe.  Basically I'm arguing for a strengthening of vagrancy laws. I'm done carrying losers.  Time for them to buck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not even necessary.
> if govt were limited to what it is supposed to do,
> we'd only need 10% tax and maybe just sales tax.
> 
> Right now, with income tax, I would reward people/business with tax breaks
> for directly investing/building sustainable solutions to shift burdens OFF govt
> and taxpayers, and to pay taxpayers BACK for PAST govt misspending/abuses
> to pay for the work instead of charging us more to fix messes they made!
> 
> We should hold national contests to solve problems, similar to TED conferences
> and compete for the business, where taxpayers vote where they want to invest
> their funds and subtract from taxes. So the best solutions get funded and those
> responsibilities shift off govt into local programs that work effectively and sustainably.
> 
> as model programs are proven to work, more ppl would invest or duplicate those models.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do? 

Assuming that you're not,  the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them,  get to keep their jobs. 

The good news for you is that you get to vote.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. If they need help from government to stay afloat they shouldn't be in business. I'm sure you like me, would agree we should not have bailed out the auto industry, right? However, if you think you're right about what conservatism says about how to best run a business, by all means prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Fool you? I agree with almost all of that. I don't know why you want to continue to argue against a strawman on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Projecting much? The evidence simply doesn't bare this out. The evidence is it is LIBERALS who can't see the consequences of their own actions. You advocate for crap like a living wage. Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare. Look at how many people we have dependent on government in entitlement programs. All LIBERAL policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  you continue to recite Republican propaganda from Fox,  and believe that it's news.  It's not.  It's what they want you to believe to be useful to the party.
> 
> Believe it or not,  I'm not trying to insult you,  but wake you up.  This is merely simple well documented truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's documented proof that I'm using FOX news talking points? I don't watch FOX News. The reason I think what I think is because I have an objective, rationale brain. Okay. Show it to me. Get off your high horse. Take your own advice a muster a modicum of objectivty and honesty. The above doesn't even begin to refute what I said. You're the one clearly out of answers. Perhaps you are the one that needs to watch a little MSNBC to get some more liberal talking points at the very least. The above response is laughable.
Click to expand...


I know lots of people who are misinformed in the same ways that you are.  They all absorb massive doses of Fox News daily.  Just  saying.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again,  you continue to recite Republican propaganda from Fox,  and believe that it's news.  It's not.  It's what they want you to believe to be useful to the party.
> 
> Believe it or not,  I'm not trying to insult you,  but wake you up.  This is merely simple well documented truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's documented proof that I'm using FOX news talking points? I don't watch FOX News. The reason I think what I think is because I have an objective, rationale brain. Okay. Show it to me. Get off your high horse. Take your own advice a muster a modicum of objectivty and honesty. The above doesn't even begin to refute what I said. You're the one clearly out of answers. Perhaps you are the one that needs to watch a little MSNBC to get some more liberal talking points at the very least. The above response is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of people who are misinformed in the same ways that you are.  They all absorb massive doses of Fox News daily.  Just  saying.
Click to expand...


Look at your own argument. It rests on dismantling credibility based on an association you can't prove and have no real basis for and calling me a liar which you also can't prove. 

if you can present a coherent argument on what specifically I'm misinformed on and specifically why, I'm happy to listen, but the above is rather pathetic.


----------



## PMZ

Fox News says the we shouldn't have bailed out Detroit Auto.  That opinion seems to have no basis other than trying to drag popular opinion of our government to new lows. 

In truth there is only one way to get the remaining way out of the valley of Bush. GDP.  Growth.  The business of business. That's what will pay the bills that his policies left in their wake. 

Detroit Auto is part of that solution. 

More 'news' from Fox. '' You advocate for crap like a living wage.''

How radical.  Pay people enough to live on so they don't need welfare.  Create jobs that put people into taxable income.  How are companies going to do that and pay executives as royalty? 

''Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare.''

The mess?  System start up problems?  How many years of updates does a new windows or IOS take before they're running right?  

Empowering consumers with competitive information? How radical is that?  Making insurance companies compete above board. Simply communistic. 

The only thing that the present GOP has to offer is very well done propaganda.  

They will either dump dixiecrats and end propaganda or go extinct.


----------



## kaz

Peterf said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not at all accurate. It's what you wish was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Actually I wish people who live in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man would appreciate what capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, has brought us and they were not consumed in greed and wealth envy like you are.
> 
> I believe in equal opportunity.  You believe in equal results.  You don't care how big the pie is or the amount of pie you get, you just want to have all the slices the same size, except for your leaders who get big slabs for the sacrifice they have to make to have ubiquitous power.
> 
> You question how much a CEO contributes to the economy, you do not question how much a politician destroys the economy.  Most CEOs are good.  The bad ones lose their jobs.  Bad politicians preaching greed and wealth envy get elected to a second term as President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good enough post.   Except for the 'richest' delusion.   No other country ever has been so deeply in debt to others than the US is now.   Being flat broke is one thing; having stupendous debts is something else.
> 
> If voters understood that the US is poor they might possibly choose different politicians.
Click to expand...


I am not talking about the American government.  Now granted the massive deficits will eventually bring the rest of us down, but I think you took the statement to be too narrow.  And at least at this point if we learn and correct our ways, it's still fixable.  Granted I see no hope for that, but it's not too late.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> I doubt if Brown's claims of businesses success are true



How much? 100bucks? 500?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Actually I wish people who live in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man would appreciate what capitalism, which is simply economic freedom, has brought us and they were not consumed in greed and wealth envy like you are.
> 
> I believe in equal opportunity.  You believe in equal results.  You don't care how big the pie is or the amount of pie you get, you just want to have all the slices the same size, except for your leaders who get big slabs for the sacrifice they have to make to have ubiquitous power.
> 
> You question how much a CEO contributes to the economy, you do not question how much a politician destroys the economy.  Most CEOs are good.  The bad ones lose their jobs.  Bad politicians preaching greed and wealth envy get elected to a second term as President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good enough post.   Except for the 'richest' delusion.   No other country ever has been so deeply in debt to others than the US is now.   Being flat broke is one thing; having stupendous debts is something else.
> 
> If voters understood that the US is poor they might possibly choose different politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not talking about the American government.  Now granted the massive deficits will eventually bring the rest of us down, but I think you took the statement to be too narrow.  And at least at this point if we learn and correct our ways, it's still fixable.  Granted I see no hope for that, but it's not too late.
Click to expand...


Here is an analysis of the 2001 CBO report that concluded that if Bush had continued Clintonomics the US would have been debt free by 2006.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFi...ic_Policy/drivers_federal_debt_since_2001.pdf

The magic of GDP growth.  Business being successful. Full employment. 

What we need are ways to reward or disincent business leaders against national goals like job growth.  That used to be assumed to be a driver of every successful business person. But,  we've lost it. 

We need it back.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if Brown's claims of businesses success are true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much? 100bucks? 500?
Click to expand...


I told you,  I don't need your money.  I'm not for sale to anybody.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Here is an analysis of the 2001 CBO report...





CBO, LOL.  I have a story for you, a true story.  Do you know how CBO projections work?  Don't sweat that one, it was rhetorical, I know you don't.  Congress got tired of the CBO not telling them what they want to hear.  Congress wanted to believe their own idiotic lies about how economics work.  But the CBO kept telling them that they had to factor in that people do things like try to not pay taxes and that sort of thing in the real world.  Congress kept getting mad because the CBO projections, which were based on the field of economics, didn't match what lawyers said which would happen, which was based on their being liars and idiots.  So congress got frustrated.



Then Congress had an idea.  Let's pass a law that the economy has to work the way we say it will!  



Even they realized that might not work, so they went to the next best thing.  Let's pass a law forcing the CBO to project the economy will work the way we say it will.  And they did.  Which is why no projection is as meaningless as a CBO projection.  Here's the way it works.  The CBO must project that no one will react in any way to a change in regulation or tax policy.  No companies will lay anyone off.  If they raise a tax by 10 times nobody will buy less of the product.  Nobody will try to evade taxes or make different investment decisions because of taxes.  Therefore, every tax plan will work.

Yeah, it's that stupid.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason that you are still here is that you are as ignorant of Somalia as you are of the US.
> 
> No government.  Tribal rule.  You can have your own army.  In fact,  even better,  you need your own army for protection.  NO TAXES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously troll, the shit you spew.
> 
> You have no fucking idea of what you spew - you just get programmed by the Soros hate sites and regurgitate it here.
> 
> Somalia is in a state of civil war, shit fer brains. It absolutely does have a government - one your boss would approve of, based on Sharia dictatorship.
> 
> Further, you fucking lying sack of shit, I've corrected your lying ass on this before.
> 
> {Per the Transitional Federal Charter of the Somali Republic,[35] Prime Minister Mohamed named a new Cabinet on 12 November 2010,[36] which was lauded by the international community.[37][38] As had been expected, the allotted ministerial positions were significantly reduced in numbers from 39 to 18.[36][39] Only two Ministers from the previous Cabinet were reappointed: Hussein Abdi Halane, the former Minister of Finance (Finance and Treasury) and Mohamud Abdi Ibrahim (Commerce and Industry).[40] Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a, a moderate Sufi group and an important military ally of the TFG, became Minister of the Interior and Labour ministries.[39][40] The remaining ministerial positions were largely assigned to technocrats new to the Somali political arena.[41]}
> 
> Politics of Somalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You're a scumbag and a fuckwad - i.e. a typical democrat.
Click to expand...


From your reference. 

''The politics of Somalia have gone through various periods of change. Following the outbreak of the civil war and the ensuing collapse of the Siad Barre regime in the early 1990s, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law. A few autonomous regions, including the Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug administrations, emerged in the north in the ensuing process of decentralization. The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations. The Transitional National Government (TNG) was established in 2000 followed by the formation of its successor the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004, which reestablished national institutions such as the Military of Somalia.[1][2][3] In 2006, the TFG, assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation's southern conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU subsequently splintered into more radical groups such as Al-Shabaab, which battled the TFG and its AMISOM allies for control of the region,[1] with the insurgents losing most of the territory that they had seized by mid-2012. In 2011-2012, a Roadmap political process providing clear benchmarks leading toward the establishment of permanent democratic institutions was launched.[4] Within this administrative framework, a new Provisional Constitution was passed in August 2012,[5][6] which designates Somalia as a federation.[7] Following the end of the TFG's interim mandate the same month, the Federal Government of Somalia, the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war, was also formed.[8] The nation has concurrently experienced a period of intense reconstruction, particularly in the capital, Mogadishu.[4][9]''

The dream of anarchist conservatives for America.


----------



## National Socialist

Don't need to tax rich more really. Just allow Unions for workers to have the upper hand. You should not be allowed to sit on billions as your workers selling and making YOUR CRAP have to apply for welfare to make ends meet. If that don't work take 75% of their wealth. Fine with me.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if Brown's claims of businesses success are true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much? 100bucks? 500?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you,  I don't need your money.  I'm not for sale to anybody.
Click to expand...




Does that mean you suck Obama for free, or you just don't count your welfare checks as welfare since whoever's money it was didn't have a choice when Obama took it from them and gave it to you?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an analysis of the 2001 CBO report...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBO, LOL.  I have a story for you, a true story.  Do you know how CBO projections work?  Don't sweat that one, it was rhetorical, I know you don't.  Congress got tired of the CBO not telling them what they want to hear.  Congress wanted to believe their own idiotic lies about how economics work.  But the CBO kept telling them that they had to factor in that people do things like try to not pay taxes and that sort of thing in the real world.  Congress kept getting mad because the CBO projections, which were based on the field of economics, didn't match what lawyers said which would happen, which was based on their being liars and idiots.  So congress got frustrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Congress had an idea.  Let's pass a law that the economy has to work the way we say it will!
> 
> 
> 
> Even they realized that might not work, so they went to the next best thing.  Let's pass a law forcing the CBO to project the economy will work the way we say it will.  And they did.  Which is why no projection is as meaningless as a CBO projection.  Here's the way it works.  The CBO must project that no one will react in any way to a change in regulation or tax policy.  No companies will lay anyone off.  If they raise a tax by 10 times nobody will buy less of the product.  Nobody will try to evade taxes or make different investment decisions because of taxes.  Therefore, every tax plan will work.
> 
> Yeah, it's that stupid.
Click to expand...


It's not.  You are.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much? 100bucks? 500?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you,  I don't need your money.  I'm not for sale to anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean you suck Obama for free, or you just don't count your welfare checks as welfare since whoever's money it was didn't have a choice when Obama took it from them and gave it to you?
Click to expand...


I think that you do more for liberalism than any other poster here.


----------



## PMZ

National Socialist said:


> Don't need to tax rich more really. Just allow Unions for workers to have the upper hand. You should not be allowed to sit on billions as your workers selling and making YOUR CRAP have to apply for welfare to make ends meet. If that don't work take 75% of their wealth. Fine with me.



Unions are corporations with the product of representing workers in negotiations.  Not unlike the lawyers that executives hire to negotiate their compensation. 

In my opinion they served a useful role as a solution to the ruthless tactics of people like Henry Ford who employed corporate police to threaten employees.  

Then for awhile the need largely went away. 

Now I see a return to the corporate behavior that caused the original need. 

Conservatives,  through extreme wealth redistribution, have brought back class warfare that most thought that we'd gotten past. 

Government is not the only force that can solve that problem.  

In the end it will be a race between government redistribution,  the return of unions,  or civil disorder for solutions.  All,  very expensive waste compared to the problem having been avoided to start with.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an analysis of the 2001 CBO report...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBO, LOL.  I have a story for you, a true story.  Do you know how CBO projections work?  Don't sweat that one, it was rhetorical, I know you don't.  Congress got tired of the CBO not telling them what they want to hear.  Congress wanted to believe their own idiotic lies about how economics work.  But the CBO kept telling them that they had to factor in that people do things like try to not pay taxes and that sort of thing in the real world.  Congress kept getting mad because the CBO projections, which were based on the field of economics, didn't match what lawyers said which would happen, which was based on their being liars and idiots.  So congress got frustrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Congress had an idea.  Let's pass a law that the economy has to work the way we say it will!
> 
> 
> 
> Even they realized that might not work, so they went to the next best thing.  Let's pass a law forcing the CBO to project the economy will work the way we say it will.  And they did.  Which is why no projection is as meaningless as a CBO projection.  Here's the way it works.  The CBO must project that no one will react in any way to a change in regulation or tax policy.  No companies will lay anyone off.  If they raise a tax by 10 times nobody will buy less of the product.  Nobody will try to evade taxes or make different investment decisions because of taxes.  Therefore, every tax plan will work.
> 
> Yeah, it's that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not.  You are.
Click to expand...


Google is not a friend of liberals.  Information at anyone's finger tips immediately dispelling your lies.  And your own laziness to learn anything on constant display.

Are CBO Estimates Really The Gold Standard Of Accuracy? - Forbes


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if Brown's claims of businesses success are true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much? 100bucks? 500?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you,  I don't need your money.  I'm not for sale to anybody.
Click to expand...


Retard.  You accused me of lying about my personal credentials, twice now. Put your money where your mouth is jerk.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would a,  50% tax rate give you a reason to want to work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not even necessary.
> if govt were limited to what it is supposed to do,
> we'd only need 10% tax and maybe just sales tax.
> 
> Right now, with income tax, I would reward people/business with tax breaks
> for directly investing/building sustainable solutions to shift burdens OFF govt
> and taxpayers, and to pay taxpayers BACK for PAST govt misspending/abuses
> to pay for the work instead of charging us more to fix messes they made!
> 
> We should hold national contests to solve problems, similar to TED conferences
> and compete for the business, where taxpayers vote where they want to invest
> their funds and subtract from taxes. So the best solutions get funded and those
> responsibilities shift off govt into local programs that work effectively and sustainably.
> 
> as model programs are proven to work, more ppl would invest or duplicate those models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do?
> 
> Assuming that you're not,  the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them,  get to keep their jobs.
> 
> The good news for you is that you get to vote.
Click to expand...


If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.

That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.


----------



## bripat9643

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's documented proof that I'm using FOX news talking points? I don't watch FOX News. The reason I think what I think is because I have an objective, rationale brain. Okay. Show it to me. Get off your high horse. Take your own advice a muster a modicum of objectivty and honesty. The above doesn't even begin to refute what I said. You're the one clearly out of answers. Perhaps you are the one that needs to watch a little MSNBC to get some more liberal talking points at the very least. The above response is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know lots of people who are misinformed in the same ways that you are.  They all absorb massive doses of Fox News daily.  Just  saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at your own argument. It rests on dismantling credibility based on an association you can't prove and have no real basis for and calling me a liar which you also can't prove.
> 
> if you can present a coherent argument on what specifically I'm misinformed on and specifically why, I'm happy to listen, but the above is rather pathetic.
Click to expand...


PMS doesn't argue or use logic.  He only posts logical fallacies and insults his critics.  That's his conception of "debate."


----------



## Foxfyre

The Founders never intended the federal government to do anything other than what it absolutely had to do to provide the common defense, secure our rights, and enact sufficient policy and regulation so that the various states could function as one cohesive nation.  They saw a real danger in a government allowed much, if any, more authority than that.  They knew a government given too much authority would eventually assume total authority and would become a huge, expensive, authoritarian, freedom sucking, economic vacuum that would slowly but surely suck all concept of liberty and material assets into itself as its sole purpose for existence would be to perpetuate itself.  That was the precise situation the Constitution was intended to liberate us from.

How right they were.

A 'Fair Share' should be all citizens contributing equally the modest amount required to fund a federal government restricted to its original intent.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBO, LOL.  I have a story for you, a true story.  Do you know how CBO projections work?  Don't sweat that one, it was rhetorical, I know you don't.  Congress got tired of the CBO not telling them what they want to hear.  Congress wanted to believe their own idiotic lies about how economics work.  But the CBO kept telling them that they had to factor in that people do things like try to not pay taxes and that sort of thing in the real world.  Congress kept getting mad because the CBO projections, which were based on the field of economics, didn't match what lawyers said which would happen, which was based on their being liars and idiots.  So congress got frustrated.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Congress had an idea.  Let's pass a law that the economy has to work the way we say it will!
> 
> 
> 
> Even they realized that might not work, so they went to the next best thing.  Let's pass a law forcing the CBO to project the economy will work the way we say it will.  And they did.  Which is why no projection is as meaningless as a CBO projection.  Here's the way it works.  The CBO must project that no one will react in any way to a change in regulation or tax policy.  No companies will lay anyone off.  If they raise a tax by 10 times nobody will buy less of the product.  Nobody will try to evade taxes or make different investment decisions because of taxes.  Therefore, every tax plan will work.
> 
> Yeah, it's that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not.  You are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google is not a friend of liberals.  Information at anyone's finger tips immediately dispelling your lies.  And your own laziness to learn anything on constant display.
> 
> Are CBO Estimates Really The Gold Standard Of Accuracy? - Forbes
Click to expand...


Your reference shows conclusively that different economists have different opinions.  

This comes as a surprise to you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much? 100bucks? 500?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you,  I don't need your money.  I'm not for sale to anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Retard.  You accused me of lying about my personal credentials, twice now. Put your money where your mouth is jerk.
Click to expand...


I said that I had my doubts from the evidence if your behavior.  Thats a true statement.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not even necessary.
> if govt were limited to what it is supposed to do,
> we'd only need 10% tax and maybe just sales tax.
> 
> Right now, with income tax, I would reward people/business with tax breaks
> for directly investing/building sustainable solutions to shift burdens OFF govt
> and taxpayers, and to pay taxpayers BACK for PAST govt misspending/abuses
> to pay for the work instead of charging us more to fix messes they made!
> 
> We should hold national contests to solve problems, similar to TED conferences
> and compete for the business, where taxpayers vote where they want to invest
> their funds and subtract from taxes. So the best solutions get funded and those
> responsibilities shift off govt into local programs that work effectively and sustainably.
> 
> as model programs are proven to work, more ppl would invest or duplicate those models.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do?
> 
> Assuming that you're not,  the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them,  get to keep their jobs.
> 
> The good news for you is that you get to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
> 
> That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.
Click to expand...


Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> The Founders never intended the federal government to do anything other than what it absolutely had to do to provide the common defense, secure our rights, and enact sufficient policy and regulation so that the various states could function as one cohesive nation.  They saw a real danger in a government allowed much, if any, more authority than that.  They knew a government given too much authority would eventually assume total authority and would become a huge, expensive, authoritarian, freedom sucking, economic vacuum that would slowly but surely suck all concept of liberty and material assets into itself as its sole purpose for existence would be to perpetuate itself.  That was the precise situation the Constitution was intended to liberate us from.
> 
> How right they were.
> 
> A 'Fair Share' should be all citizens contributing equally the modest amount required to fund a federal government restricted to its original intent.



I get the biggest kick about your intimate relationship with the founders.  If you are empowered to represent them you'd think that they would have mentioned your name at least someplace. 

As they didn't,  I guess you're stuck with our Constitution,  Supreme Court,  and democracy.  

If you think that there's a better government in the world,  give it a try.


----------



## PMZ

More evidence that conservatives are basically un-American.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know lots of people who are misinformed in the same ways that you are.  They all absorb massive doses of Fox News daily.  Just  saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own argument. It rests on dismantling credibility based on an association you can't prove and have no real basis for and calling me a liar which you also can't prove.
> 
> if you can present a coherent argument on what specifically I'm misinformed on and specifically why, I'm happy to listen, but the above is rather pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMS doesn't argue or use logic.  He only posts logical fallacies and insults his critics.  That's his conception of "debate."
Click to expand...


Is this post your conception of ''debate''?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> From your reference.
> 
> ''The politics of Somalia have gone through various periods of change. Following the outbreak of the civil war and the ensuing collapse of the Siad Barre regime in the early 1990s, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law. A few autonomous regions, including the Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug administrations, emerged in the north in the ensuing process of decentralization. The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations. The Transitional National Government (TNG) was established in 2000 followed by the formation of its successor the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004, which reestablished national institutions such as the Military of Somalia.[1][2][3] In 2006, the TFG, assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation's southern conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU subsequently splintered into more radical groups such as Al-Shabaab, which battled the TFG and its AMISOM allies for control of the region,[1] with the insurgents losing most of the territory that they had seized by mid-2012. In 2011-2012, a Roadmap political process providing clear benchmarks leading toward the establishment of permanent democratic institutions was launched.[4] Within this administrative framework, a new Provisional Constitution was passed in August 2012,[5][6] which designates Somalia as a federation.[7] Following the end of the TFG's interim mandate the same month, the Federal Government of Somalia, the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war, was also formed.[8] The nation has concurrently experienced a period of intense reconstruction, particularly in the capital, Mogadishu.[4][9]''



I'm sure you were trying to make some point, you're just not sure what it might be...



> The dream of anarchist conservatives for America.



Somalia is an Islamic shit hole - more the dream of leftist scumbags.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Is this post your conception of ''debate''?



I've never seen you "debate" anything.

You post talking points from the Soros hate sites, then when called on your bullshit, you hem, haw, and post MORE talking points. 

About 70% of what you post is factually wrong. Another 20% is opinion, and the rest is just hatred spewed at the enemies of your shameful party.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your reference.
> 
> ''The politics of Somalia have gone through various periods of change. Following the outbreak of the civil war and the ensuing collapse of the Siad Barre regime in the early 1990s, Somalia's residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of civil law, religious law and customary law. A few autonomous regions, including the Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug administrations, emerged in the north in the ensuing process of decentralization. The early 2000s saw the creation of fledgling interim federal administrations. The Transitional National Government (TNG) was established in 2000 followed by the formation of its successor the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004, which reestablished national institutions such as the Military of Somalia.[1][2][3] In 2006, the TFG, assisted by Ethiopian troops, assumed control of most of the nation's southern conflict zones from the newly formed Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU subsequently splintered into more radical groups such as Al-Shabaab, which battled the TFG and its AMISOM allies for control of the region,[1] with the insurgents losing most of the territory that they had seized by mid-2012. In 2011-2012, a Roadmap political process providing clear benchmarks leading toward the establishment of permanent democratic institutions was launched.[4] Within this administrative framework, a new Provisional Constitution was passed in August 2012,[5][6] which designates Somalia as a federation.[7] Following the end of the TFG's interim mandate the same month, the Federal Government of Somalia, the first permanent central government in the country since the start of the civil war, was also formed.[8] The nation has concurrently experienced a period of intense reconstruction, particularly in the capital, Mogadishu.[4][9]''
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you were trying to make some point, you're just not sure what it might be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dream of anarchist conservatives for America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia is an Islamic shit hole - more the dream of leftist scumbags.
Click to expand...


Problematic Muslims are extreme right wingers.  Same as dixiecrats.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Problematic Muslims are extreme right wingers.  Same as dixiecrats.



Case in point!

You spew mindless slogans from the hate sites. You have no capacity for rational thought.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this post your conception of ''debate''?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen you "debate" anything.
> 
> You post talking points from the Soros hate sites, then when called on your bullshit, you hem, haw, and post MORE talking points.
> 
> About 70% of what you post is factually wrong. Another 20% is opinion, and the rest is just hatred spewed at the enemies of your shameful party.
Click to expand...


One would think that you'd have some evidence that what you want to be true actually was.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> One would think that you'd have some evidence that what you want to be true actually was.



I am aware that you are poorly educated.

I'm not just picking apart your inability to construct a sentence, but highlighting the fact that you are not capable of rational thought. 

The gobbledygook you posted above is typical of your posting; meaningless and self-contradictory.


What is it I want to be true?
If it is merely a "want," how could there be evidence?
If there is evidence, then it becomes a statement of fact.
Where is the indication that what a allegedly want is not fact?


----------



## Foxfyre

I'll have to admit that whoever is paying PMZ to be their seminar poster to distrupt the thread are definitely getting their money's worth.  Can we next expect him to be elected to the U.S. Senate as a professional fillibuster-er?

He is bound to take some time off eventually and then maybe the rest of us will have opportunity to actually discuss what a 'fair share' of taxes actually might be.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One would think that you'd have some evidence that what you want to be true actually was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware that you are poorly educated.
> 
> I'm not just picking apart your inability to construct a sentence, but highlighting the fact that you are not capable of rational thought.
> 
> The gobbledygook you posted above is typical of your posting; meaningless and self-contradictory.
> 
> 
> What is it I want to be true?
> If it is merely a "want," how could there be evidence?
> If there is evidence, then it becomes a statement of fact.
> Where is the indication that what a allegedly want is not fact?
Click to expand...


Is there anybody who cares what you think about anything?  

I can't imagine it.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> But,  if I'm wrong,  he's a fine example of businesses leaders who may have enriched themselves,  but only at the expense of everyone else.  Wealth sewers,  not creators.
> 
> His problem is that he knows little about economics,  and it's mostly wrong.



So people only get rich "at the expense of everyone else"?
Who did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry fuck in the ass after their wealth went over 100 million?

Wealth creates demand for that wealth and that creates jobs.
How else are jobs created?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Is there anybody who cares what you think about anything?
> 
> I can't imagine it.



And you reiterate my point.

You are a troll, a shit flinging feral baboon. You are not here to "debate," you're here to fling poo.








Get thee to a baboonary.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But,  if I'm wrong,  he's a fine example of businesses leaders who may have enriched themselves,  but only at the expense of everyone else.  Wealth sewers,  not creators.
> 
> His problem is that he knows little about economics,  and it's mostly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So people only get rich "at the expense of everyone else"?
> Who did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry fuck in the ass after their wealth went over 100 million?
> 
> Wealth creates demand for that wealth and that creates jobs.
> How else are jobs created?
Click to expand...


Jobs are created by offering compelling,  innovative goods and services.  Better satisfying more customers.  

Specific to your question,  I have no idea. Do you?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anybody who cares what you think about anything?
> 
> I can't imagine it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you reiterate my point.
> 
> You are a troll, a shit flinging feral baboon. You are not here to "debate," you're here to fling poo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get thee to a baboonary.
Click to expand...


Is this point your argument that your opinions are relevant or even interesting to someone?  Anyone?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Jobs are created by offering compelling,  innovative goods and services.  Better satisfying more customers.
> 
> Specific to your question,  I have no idea. Do you?



In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)

(Apparently she liked it...)


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Is this point your argument that your opinions are relevant or even interesting to someone?  Anyone?



Rather that Mr. Soros opinions, that you spew, are not....


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are created by offering compelling,  innovative goods and services.  Better satisfying more customers.
> 
> Specific to your question,  I have no idea. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)
> 
> (Apparently she liked it...)
Click to expand...


Certainly marrying wealth works for many people.  

There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.  That defines the pot that we all have to divide up.  More and more the people who create wealth are not the ones that keep the major share of the value that they add.  Lots of parasites living off of every worker.  A few of them are politicians.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this point your argument that your opinions are relevant or even interesting to someone?  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather that Mr. Soros opinions, that you spew, are not....
Click to expand...


I don't believe that I've ever seen or heard or read him.  Nor know anybody who has.  Does he rely on mental telepathy?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.



Ah, you mean like government does?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you,  I don't need your money.  I'm not for sale to anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard.  You accused me of lying about my personal credentials, twice now. Put your money where your mouth is jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that I had my doubts from the evidence if your behavior.  That&#8217;s a true statement.
Click to expand...


That's understandable.  I assure you I was understating my credentials, and my behavior is not representative. Just having fun venting back at you for your venting behavior, trying to make you feel at home so to speak


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you mean like government does?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are created by offering compelling,  innovative goods and services.  Better satisfying more customers.
> 
> Specific to your question,  I have no idea. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)
> 
> (Apparently she liked it...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly marrying wealth works for many people.
> 
> There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.  That defines the pot that we all have to divide up.  More and more the people who create wealth are not the ones that keep the major share of the value that they add.  Lots of parasites living off of every worker.  A few of them are politicians.
Click to expand...


My net worth is about 2 million give or take. I earned ALL OF IT.
Tell me specifically who I stole it from and who suffered as a result of me having a net worth of 2 million.
Specifics.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you mean like government does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But,  if I'm wrong,  he's a fine example of businesses leaders who may have enriched themselves,  but only at the expense of everyone else.  Wealth sewers,  not creators.
> 
> His problem is that he knows little about economics,  and it's mostly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So people only get rich "at the expense of everyone else"?
> Who did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry fuck in the ass after their wealth went over 100 million?
> 
> Wealth creates demand for that wealth and that creates jobs.
> How else are jobs created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs are created by offering compelling,  innovative goods and services.  Better satisfying more customers.
> 
> Specific to your question,  I have no idea. Do you?
Click to expand...


LOL, so the consumer demand has nothing to do with it?
So when someone wipes their ass after taking a dump there is no demand for more shit paper when they run out.
Instead of that they seek "innovative goods and services".
Dude, you have no clue.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha this is what I encounter when I talk to my conservatives friends in person as well! *There has to be some Republican out there who can explain to me why they think taxing the poor more than the rich would create more jobs and stimulate the economy!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.
> 
> But I like your optimism.
> 
> And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.
> 
> It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why I don't have liberal friends.   I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama.  I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.
Click to expand...


My sister still posts Daily Kos quotes on Facebook, and then gets her panties in a bunch because I tear her apart like a pitbull with a hambone in front of everyone.  Well, dimwit, you have my phone number.  You COULD discuss this in private.

Sadly, even my superior DNA cannot overcome the overwhelming "stuck on stupid" that is liberalism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

zeke said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Descartes said:
> 
> 
> 
> The taxes were higher than 76% in the in the mid-1900s, when our economy was at its peak and America was experiencing the greatest boom it has ever had. Would there be some bosses who move to the Caribbean? I'm sure some would, but very few. The few that move are probably the bosses that are sending American jobs overseas by the thousands so they can make even more money and screw over the poor. The greed of the rich in our society today is disgusting. In the 1950s, the rich were happy too pay higher taxes for the good of the country. We could use that attitude right about now. And what happened to our economy when the rich's tax rate was 90%? Did our economy implode? No! Our middle class was huge which made our economy the strongest it had ever been and we were on top of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
Click to expand...


1)  No matter how much you hate anyone who doesn't live hand-to-mouth on a minimum-wage job like you do, it doesn't make everyone who benefits from the current capital gains rates "ultra-rich".  Being richer than you is likely not a high bar to clear.  And vastly more people who are NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination invest, or sell property, or any of a number of other activities to which the capital gains tax is applied.  Think 401k plans, teacher and police pension funds . . .

2)  Even if we allowed you to confiscate all the wealth and income from the hated "ultra-rich", it wouldn't "do anything about the debt".  Capital gains taxes right now raise less than five percent of federal revenue.  Do the math, and you realize that raising them to 100 percent, even if no change in economic activity occurred (which, of course, it would) would only provide a drop in the bucket for our debt.

So what you're advocating is NOT "doing something about the debt".  What you're advocating is doing something meaningless and symbolic that will harm other people, provide no benefit, but satisfy your jealousy and vindictiveness.  Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who's not.  Our entire debt came from Bush conservative policies.  His wars.  His refusal to collect taxes from wealthy friends and family.  Recovery from his Great Recession.  All instead of paying off,  off,  off the entire national debt as the CBO said would happen if he had continued Clintonomics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five years into Obama W is still responsible for our "entire debt."
> 
> On taxes, the top 1% pay 40% of taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the bottom 50% get more money back than they paid in.
> 
> You're a kook-aid swilling dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you'll avoid learning,  but if I'm wrong here's how your whine came about.
> 
> Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Click to expand...


Explain to me first why I should be any more interested in what a sociology professor has to say about economics than I am about any other dumbass on the street who isn't an economist.

I know you leftists are swooningly impressed with anyone who has a degree - especially if they work in academia as opposed to having a real job - but you DO realize that a degree in one field does NOT make one an expert in ALL fields, right?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason that the wealthy pay the taxes that they do,  and the same for the poor,  is because the wealthy,  as expected, have outplayed the poor in wealth redistribution.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.
> 
> Anybody who expects that the 80% who share the 15% of the wealth to have money to pay taxes doesn't do arithmetic very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
Click to expand...


PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Peterf said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> You often make good debating points but then ruin them by childish use of words like 'dipshit' and 'asshole'.   Why do you do it?   It just make you look stupid and deters potential friends from supporting you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you let words like that offend you?
> 
> Are you an "asshole" or a "dipshit"?
> 
> People like you are part of the problem. You're so worried about being offended that you disregard the message.
> 
> I use the same lingo as Bripat when talking with liberals because it has been my experience that most are assholes and/or dipshits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vulgarities don't offend me.   But when they are used by people broadly on my side of an argument they worry me.   Because they make my potential allies seem ignorant and linguistically challenged; quite unable to make a point in an interesting, intelligent or even amusing way.   By using the same 'lingo' you drag down your apparent IQ by ten percentage points.   You diminish yourself not the person you are addressing.
Click to expand...


Sweet cheeks, I hope I'm not the first person to suggest this to you, but you're not the universal arbiter of intelligence or appropriateness.  You DID know that, right?

It's one thing for your mommy to have told you that bad language makes you sound stupid when you were a child.   It's another thing entirely for you to try to blindly impose those nursery-school standards on the adult world at large.

Let me kindly and gently suggest to you that it is time for you to grow up, butch up, and learn to hear something beyond, "He said a bad word!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of how different this country would be if business leaders were accountable to we,  the people,  as government leaders are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you are a country hating conservative.  And that's why they fail so badly at governance.
> 
> Shareholders are people who gamble on stock prices.  They really don't care or know anything about the company,  or benefit it beyond their sell target.
Click to expand...


Wow.  You REALLY know nothing about how corporations are run.  I'm just . . . wow.



PMZ said:


> Costumers can only choose to buy your product or from your competition or do without.  They are the easiest people to fool with today's advertising.



Costumers?

I'm just going to let that one sit for everyone to stare at for a bit.



PMZ said:


> So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.



So what you're saying is that "the Board" - whose actual relationship to the company you apparently know nothing about - just decides to give millions of dollars to some guy and let him run the company into the ground because they play golf together on Saturdays?  Is THAT the business theory you're expounding here?

And "business has failed us"?  Who is this "us", and what precisely is it that you think "business" owed you all and failed at providing?



PMZ said:


> The Supreme Court says that they are American citizens just like you and I.  If so  they,  like conservatives,  are irresponsible citizens.



Kinda the same question.  What "responsibility" is it that you seem to think businesses - or conservatives - have to you, exactly?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the many truths that Fox obscures is that we don't now have a government problem here,  we have a business problem.
> 
> All of the problems argued here  would be alleviated if business would return to growing,  and provide a well paying job for every worker.
> 
> The fact that conservatives made shrink to success fashionable is the problem.
> 
> Business leaders should be rewarded for one thing.  Growth of the economy. Their present performance in that measure today,  on average, wouldn't earn them minimum wage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Society at large has no business rewarding or not rewarding businesses. You, as a third party, are not supposed to get a vote in agreed upon transactions between two parties.
> 
> And your shrink to success idea is laughable. There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs.
> 
> As a big government type it's interesting that you mention the importance of a business growing seeing as how the ever expansion of government from its taxes to its regulations serve as direct impediments to that growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.
> 
> The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business.  I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts.
> 
> The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.
Click to expand...


Conservatives whine about the need to get government more involved in business?  Really?   WHICH conservatives?  When?  Show me quotes.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In John Kerry's case, I'd say it was Theresa Heinz he fucked in the ass. (as well as elsewhere.)
> 
> (Apparently she liked it...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly marrying wealth works for many people.
> 
> There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.  That defines the pot that we all have to divide up.  More and more the people who create wealth are not the ones that keep the major share of the value that they add.  Lots of parasites living off of every worker.  A few of them are politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My net worth is about 2 million give or take. I earned ALL OF IT.
> Tell me specifically who I stole it from and who suffered as a result of me having a net worth of 2 million.
> Specifics.
Click to expand...


I don't even know you.  I don't know what business you're in.  I don't know what you're invested in. 

Let's say you got some of it trading stocks.  That doesn't mean that you stole it.  It does mean that no wealth was created in the process of making it.  No good or service was produced. 

Same with gambling or lottery or marrying it. 

See?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you mean like government does?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...
Click to expand...


It's an inaccurate insult.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So people only get rich "at the expense of everyone else"?
> Who did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry fuck in the ass after their wealth went over 100 million?
> 
> Wealth creates demand for that wealth and that creates jobs.
> How else are jobs created?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jobs are created by offering compelling,  innovative goods and services.  Better satisfying more customers.
> 
> Specific to your question,  I have no idea. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, so the consumer demand has nothing to do with it?
> So when someone wipes their ass after taking a dump there is no demand for more shit paper when they run out.
> Instead of that they seek "innovative goods and services".
> Dude, you have no clue.
Click to expand...


The only way to grow in the ass wipe business is more asses right?


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there doesn't have to be a Repub that can offer an explanation that makes sense. Because the premise doesn't make sense.
> 
> But I like your optimism.
> 
> And you still have friends that are conservatives? I gave up on all those kinds of "friends" a long time ago. They went all bat shit crazy on me. It really started downhill when they wanted to invade Iraq.
> 
> It's way to hard to call someone a "friend" when the policies they (purported friend) support would harm your own family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I don't have liberal friends.   I'm not on good terms with any family members who voted for Obama.  I told them where to get off. Of course, now they all hate Obama as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My sister still posts Daily Kos quotes on Facebook, and then gets her panties in a bunch because I tear her apart like a pitbull with a hambone in front of everyone.  Well, dimwit, you have my phone number.  You COULD discuss this in private.
> 
> Sadly, even my superior DNA cannot overcome the overwhelming "stuck on stupid" that is liberalism.
Click to expand...


You sure haven't shown anything even average here.  You're a Fox News reciter.  Parrots can do that.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that even the lowest tax brackets were much higher so returning to the good old days would raise taxes on the lower incomes as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the EIC, get rid of the home interest deduction, raise the tax rate on the top earners to 45%. Tax all income as earned income.( No cap gains no deferred comp) None of the bullshit mechanisms that the ultra rich use to avoid taxes. Cut government spending 10% across the board.
> 
> You want to do ANYTHING about the debt or is it better to have the debt as something to bitch about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  No matter how much you hate anyone who doesn't live hand-to-mouth on a minimum-wage job like you do, it doesn't make everyone who benefits from the current capital gains rates "ultra-rich".  Being richer than you is likely not a high bar to clear.  And vastly more people who are NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination invest, or sell property, or any of a number of other activities to which the capital gains tax is applied.  Think 401k plans, teacher and police pension funds . . .
> 
> 2)  Even if we allowed you to confiscate all the wealth and income from the hated "ultra-rich", it wouldn't "do anything about the debt".  Capital gains taxes right now raise less than five percent of federal revenue.  Do the math, and you realize that raising them to 100 percent, even if no change in economic activity occurred (which, of course, it would) would only provide a drop in the bucket for our debt.
> 
> So what you're advocating is NOT "doing something about the debt".  What you're advocating is doing something meaningless and symbolic that will harm other people, provide no benefit, but satisfy your jealousy and vindictiveness.  Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason.
Click to expand...


Why should having wealth be rewarded over creating wealth through work?


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That number is so cooked.  And everyone should pay taxes, it's the difference between being a citizen who feels invested in our country and a leach who lives off it.  And anyone can acquire wealth, you spend less than you earn.  People need to take some personal responsibility.  Not just run around saying it's not fair, government needs to redistribute money to them when they don't make good choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
Click to expand...


Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are accountable to their customers and stock holders.  if you are not a customer or stock holder then that business owes you nothing and you have no say in how they operate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you are a country hating conservative.  And that's why they fail so badly at governance.
> 
> Shareholders are people who gamble on stock prices.  They really don't care or know anything about the company,  or benefit it beyond their sell target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  You REALLY know nothing about how corporations are run.  I'm just . . . wow.
> 
> 
> 
> Costumers?
> 
> I'm just going to let that one sit for everyone to stare at for a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So CEOs today are really not accountable to anyone except their buddies on the board and that's a big reason why business has failed us so badly lately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that "the Board" - whose actual relationship to the company you apparently know nothing about - just decides to give millions of dollars to some guy and let him run the company into the ground because they play golf together on Saturdays?  Is THAT the business theory you're expounding here?
> 
> And "business has failed us"?  Who is this "us", and what precisely is it that you think "business" owed you all and failed at providing?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court says that they are American citizens just like you and I.  If so  they,  like conservatives,  are irresponsible citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda the same question.  What "responsibility" is it that you seem to think businesses - or conservatives - have to you, exactly?
Click to expand...


Hopefully,  this is not indicative of your superior DNA.  

You are probably not aware that we are a democracy,  right?  Also we are consumers.  We are the BOD of America. Business and government serve us,  not vice versa.  

Business has let America down.  They've become not very good at their jobs. We are paying for their incompetence. 

When government let us down we voted conservatives out,  a trend that will surely continue. 

Next we'll use our power as voters and consumers to go after business until we get conservatives out of there as well.  

No conservative business leaders = growth.  Growth = we can pay off the bills that Bush's policies left us. And we can move more rapidly on the biggest project mankind has ever taken on.  The conversion to sustainable  energy. 

It's certainly not rocket science but I suspect well above your pay grade.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Society at large has no business rewarding or not rewarding businesses. You, as a third party, are not supposed to get a vote in agreed upon transactions between two parties.
> 
> And your shrink to success idea is laughable. There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs.
> 
> As a big government type it's interesting that you mention the importance of a business growing seeing as how the ever expansion of government from its taxes to its regulations serve as direct impediments to that growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.
> 
> The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business.  I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts.
> 
> The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives whine about the need to get government more involved in business?  Really?   WHICH conservatives?  When?  Show me quotes.
Click to expand...


How about unemployment is something the government needs to fix. Make sense to you?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
Click to expand...


How many board of directors have you sat on and what companies have you ever been an executive at?
Executives do not sit on the board of directors. 
What is your definition of an executive? What do they do? What does the board of directors do?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of business excusing their failure by putting on the 'we can't be successful without the help of government'  act,  a typical conservative whine.  And your 'There is no tenent of conservatism that says the best way to have a successful business is to cut out all unncessary costs' is laughable.
> 
> The reason that you can't fool me with your bullshit is that I've had too much experience with business.  I've worked with intelligent CEOs with the ability to create growth and a recognition of the synergy between their company and the community in which they are permitted to operate. People who respect employees and customers and know where those people live and raise their families. People who know that innovative products and processes are what makes companies grow and they come from treating people like humans rather than interchangeable parts.
> 
> The abject failure of conservatism is their inability to see beyond today and focus on yesterday. That makes them parasitic to success and harbingers of failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives whine about the need to get government more involved in business?  Really?   WHICH conservatives?  When?  Show me quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about unemployment is something the government needs to fix. Make sense to you?
Click to expand...


How does government "fix" unemployment other than taking money from raising taxes?
How many times in the history of this nation has government fixed unemployment long term?
Do you believe this administration could fix anything much less unemployment?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly marrying wealth works for many people.
> 
> There's a big difference between having and creating wealth.  Creating it comes from actually producing goods and services.  That defines the pot that we all have to divide up.  More and more the people who create wealth are not the ones that keep the major share of the value that they add.  Lots of parasites living off of every worker.  A few of them are politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My net worth is about 2 million give or take. I earned ALL OF IT.
> Tell me specifically who I stole it from and who suffered as a result of me having a net worth of 2 million.
> Specifics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even know you.  I don't know what business you're in.  I don't know what you're invested in.
> 
> Let's say you got some of it trading stocks.  That doesn't mean that you stole it.  It does mean that no wealth was created in the process of making it.  No good or service was produced.
> 
> Same with gambling or lottery or marrying it.
> 
> See?
Click to expand...


I own a detective agency for 34 years by myself. I work for attorneys and corporations and do no domestic work. I own an investment company that has bought raw land for the last 15 years and sat on it. I have sold land before in the past.
Who did I steal it from and made worse by becoming wealthy?
That is what you stated earlier as how people become wealthy. You claim that wealth is stolen from someone else.
Who did I steal it from? I
If I did make it trading stocks most certainly wealth is created in the process of making it. The person that bought the stock now has an interest in the company that he owns a stake in doing well. If he paid more than what I paid for it then that is an indication that company is doing very well.
You do know that when a stock price rises the company is doing well and when the price goes down and investors lose money that means that the company is not doing so good.
High stock price is a good indicator of increases in sales and that means more jobs.
Not always as many times when a company downsizes AFTER they have lost money their stock goes up. Of course the dumb masses on the left that have no business sense scream about that as they would rather see a company go bankrupt and everyone lose their entire investment in the company instead of one job being cut.


----------



## Foxfyre

This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.

Just off the top of my head recalling the news reports over the last five years, it has encouraged American businesses to keep trillions in investment capital sidelined by constantly threatening to impose higher and more punative taxes on that money.

It shut down thousands of jobs in the Gulf.

It has stalled thousands of jobs by blocking the Keystone Pipeline.

It has killed uncountable jobs with volumes of new restrictions and regulations imposed on private industry.  Coal took a particularly big hit there.

It has outsourced jobs to other countries for a lot of green energy projects, and while this technically didn't increase U.S. unemployment, it certainly did little or nothing to 'fix' it.

It has provided assistance and support to other countries to boost their oil production while imposing greater restrictions on our own oil exploration and production.

It has killed tens of thousands of jobs with Obamacare and I fear we have only begun to see the beginning of the carnage there.

I have lived a long life now and have seen a lot of Presidents come and go.  But I have never seen an Administration that even begins to compare to this one as being totally American business unfriendly and hostile to free enterprise and/or private sector solutions.

This administration has no intention of endorsing or allowing a 'fair share' concept when it comes to taxes.  It will continue to push more and bigger and more authoritarian and more intrusive and more expensive government toward a goal of effectively killing the private sector so that government controls everything.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many board of directors have you sat on and what companies have you ever been an executive at?
> Executives do not sit on the board of directors.
> What is your definition of an executive? What do they do? What does the board of directors do?
Click to expand...


CEOs are compensated by other CEOs who sit on their BOD.  It's a club.  You scratch my back and I will scratch yours.  

CEOs control the compensation of their executive team.  They reward loyalty by compensation almost as lavish as theirs.  

Then everyone uses the Republican propaganda service to reel in people like you to say,  executives are Gods. They deserve to be treated like royalty.  They create wealth,  not workers.  

And it's all wealth created by middle class workers. Who get very little of it.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives whine about the need to get government more involved in business?  Really?   WHICH conservatives?  When?  Show me quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about unemployment is something the government needs to fix. Make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does government "fix" unemployment other than taking money from raising taxes?
> How many times in the history of this nation has government fixed unemployment long term?
> Do you believe this administration could fix anything much less unemployment?
Click to expand...


The government can only put a floor under recession by making up the spending of unemployed workers. And continuing to employ their workers. 

Other than that,  it's product developers that create economic growth.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many board of directors have you sat on and what companies have you ever been an executive at?
> Executives do not sit on the board of directors.
> What is your definition of an executive? What do they do? What does the board of directors do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CEOs are compensated by other CEOs who sit on their BOD.  It's a club.  You scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
> 
> CEOs control the compensation of their executive team.  They reward loyalty by compensation almost as lavish as theirs.
> 
> Then everyone uses the Republican propaganda service to reel in people like you to say,  executives are Gods. They deserve to be treated like royalty.  They create wealth,  not workers.
> 
> And it's all wealth created by middle class workers. Who get very little of it.
Click to expand...


You have no clue. What you post is all false. 
Many directors receive ONLY company stock and NO other compensation. Why? Because that is an incentive to do what is right for the COMPANY first as if the stock rises then their compensation is higher. A rising tide lifts all ships. Many corporations pick their directors based on how much money that individual has ALREADY risked in their corporation. Hint to the uninformed here including you: Someone that has a lot of their hard earned money at risk knows a lot about already how the company works top to bottom. Mr. X has 500K of his own money at risk in the company so he will be a good fit as a director. Expenses of the directors are always paid by the company. Additional cash stipend based on company performance ONLY is also included with many companies. 
Of course there are high flying dicks that have a lot of cash around and have their brother in laws in charge. That is the exception and not the norm.
Every company that earns a profit does so with a good and ethical board of directors most all of the time.
The competition where we are and you need to open your eyes to is very competitive aswe are now in a global economy and there is very little if any wiggle room anymore for weak and unorganized board of directors. They earn every bit of their pay and in most instances if a company loses money the executive staff who is delegated a good deal of power in operating the company lobbies the shareholders to vote them out.
Real world, please join us in it.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about unemployment is something the government needs to fix. Make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does government "fix" unemployment other than taking money from raising taxes?
> How many times in the history of this nation has government fixed unemployment long term?
> Do you believe this administration could fix anything much less unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government can only put a floor under recession by making up the spending of unemployed workers. And continuing to employ their workers.
> 
> Other than that,  it's product developers that create economic growth.
Click to expand...


Hey now, there is some truth to that. 
So where is that growth in developing products?
Horse and buggies or technical applications that require an educated work force that is trained for what the market DEMANDS?
We spend too much time and money appeasing the uneducated masses that time has passed by bitching about low skilled jobs gone to Timbuktu.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My net worth is about 2 million give or take. I earned ALL OF IT.
> Tell me specifically who I stole it from and who suffered as a result of me having a net worth of 2 million.
> Specifics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know you.  I don't know what business you're in.  I don't know what you're invested in.
> 
> Let's say you got some of it trading stocks.  That doesn't mean that you stole it.  It does mean that no wealth was created in the process of making it.  No good or service was produced.
> 
> Same with gambling or lottery or marrying it.
> 
> See?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I own a detective agency for 34 years by myself. I work for attorneys and corporations and do no domestic work. I own an investment company that has bought raw land for the last 15 years and sat on it. I have sold land before in the past.
> Who did I steal it from and made worse by becoming wealthy?
> That is what you stated earlier as how people become wealthy. You claim that wealth is stolen from someone else.
> Who did I steal it from? I
> If I did make it trading stocks most certainly wealth is created in the process of making it. The person that bought the stock now has an interest in the company that he owns a stake in doing well. If he paid more than what I paid for it then that is an indication that company is doing very well.
> You do know that when a stock price rises the company is doing well and when the price goes down and investors lose money that means that the company is not doing so good.
> High stock price is a good indicator of increases in sales and that means more jobs.
> Not always as many times when a company downsizes AFTER they have lost money their stock goes up. Of course the dumb masses on the left that have no business sense scream about that as they would rather see a company go bankrupt and everyone lose their entire investment in the company instead of one job being cut.
Click to expand...


''You claim that wealth is stolen from someone else.''

Never.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.
> 
> Just off the top of my head recalling the news reports over the last five years, it has encouraged American businesses to keep trillions in investment capital sidelined by constantly threatening to impose higher and more punative taxes on that money.
> 
> It shut down thousands of jobs in the Gulf.
> 
> It has stalled thousands of jobs by blocking the Keystone Pipeline.
> 
> It has killed uncountable jobs with volumes of new restrictions and regulations imposed on private industry.  Coal took a particularly big hit there.
> 
> It has outsourced jobs to other countries for a lot of green energy projects, and while this technically didn't increase U.S. unemployment, it certainly did little or nothing to 'fix' it.
> 
> It has provided assistance and support to other countries to boost their oil production while imposing greater restrictions on our own oil exploration and production.
> 
> It has killed tens of thousands of jobs with Obamacare and I fear we have only begun to see the beginning of the carnage there.
> 
> I have lived a long life now and have seen a lot of Presidents come and go.  But I have never seen an Administration that even begins to compare to this one as being totally American business unfriendly and hostile to free enterprise and/or private sector solutions.
> 
> This administration has no intention of endorsing or allowing a 'fair share' concept when it comes to taxes.  It will continue to push more and bigger and more authoritarian and more intrusive and more expensive government toward a goal of effectively killing the private sector so that government controls everything.



I see that you're one of those that believes that democracy sucks because people should have no say about their country.  Only business should.  We should all be guided by the one rule of business.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others. The evidence that supports this, is the success of the following countries that operate under this dictatorship of business. 

(Please list the countries.)


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does government "fix" unemployment other than taking money from raising taxes?
> How many times in the history of this nation has government fixed unemployment long term?
> Do you believe this administration could fix anything much less unemployment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government can only put a floor under recession by making up the spending of unemployed workers. And continuing to employ their workers.
> 
> Other than that,  it's product developers that create economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey now, there is some truth to that.
> So where is that growth in developing products?
> Horse and buggies or technical applications that require an educated work force that is trained for what the market DEMANDS?
> We spend too much time and money appeasing the uneducated masses that time has passed by bitching about low skilled jobs gone to Timbuktu.
Click to expand...


I'm a huge supporter of education. 

My role,  as a matter of fact, is to expose the uneducated masses who post here.  

Some of them are so uneducated that they hold government accountable for the failures of business.  Can you imagine?


----------



## PMZ

America was founded as a plutocracy but we the people, through blood,  sweat  and tears, forged a democracy from that, putting us in charge of government.  Now the forces of plutocracy have re-emerged and are attempting to deny we,  the people,  and empower wealth and business that we fought the Revolutionary and Civil wars to escape from. 

Fortunately a majority of we,  the people are not taken in by propaganda and understand that the forces of plutocracy brought on our recent holy wars,  the massive wealth redistribution away from those who create it,  and the Great Recession. 

It's our country and our responsibility to avoid a repeat.  Our predecessors fought for our power.  Democracy.  Voting.  And that's all that we need to restore common sense to government and business.  They are accountable to us,  not vice versa. 

Vote them out.


----------



## Valox

Foxfyre said:


> This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.



You mean the Republican Congress. 

The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does government "fix" unemployment other than taking money from raising taxes?
> How many times in the history of this nation has government fixed unemployment long term?
> Do you believe this administration could fix anything much less unemployment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government can only put a floor under recession by making up the spending of unemployed workers. And continuing to employ their workers.
> 
> Other than that,  it's product developers that create economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey now, there is some truth to that.
> So where is that growth in developing products?
> Horse and buggies or technical applications that require an educated work force that is trained for what the market DEMANDS?
> We spend too much time and money appeasing the uneducated masses that time has passed by bitching about low skilled jobs gone to Timbuktu.
Click to expand...


What should we do about the ''uneducated masses''? 

How about,  educate them.


----------



## Foxfyre

Valox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Republican Congress.
> 
> The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers
Click to expand...


Sorry, but we have not had a Republican congress since Obama took office or for two years prior to his taking office.  And it was not the majority of Republicans who ordered the job killing initiatives I listed up there.  And if any Republicans DID vote for any of those things, a pox on their houses too.


----------



## PMZ

Valox said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Republican Congress.
> 
> The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers
Click to expand...


From your reference. 

Posted on October 15, 2013 at 3:34 pm.
''The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy
Even as Congressional leaders and the president discuss a potential temporary solution to the current stalemate over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling, the repeated cycle of lurching from crisis to crisis has significant and real costs to the U.S. economy.

A new report, prepared by Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC for the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, examines the cost of crisis-driven fiscal policy over the past few years by looking at indicators including GDP growth, the unemployment rate and the corporate credit spread. The paper considers recent policy and political battles including the sequester, the government shutdown and brinksmanship on the debt ceiling.

Top-level findings include:

Fiscal Policy Uncertainty: Since late 2009, fiscal policy uncertainty has raised the Baa corporate bond spread by 38 basis points, lowered GDP growth by 0.3 percentage points per year, and raised the unemployment rate in 2013 by 0.6 percentage points, equivalent to 900,000 lost jobs.

Government Shutdown: A 2-week partial government shutdown would directly trim about 0.3 percentage points from 4th-quarter growth.

The Debt Ceiling: The paper considers two scenarios. The first assumes a brief, technical default that is quickly resolved, and the second assumes an extended, two-month stalemate.

In scenario one, risk aversion rises, financing costs rise, prices of risk assets fall, and the economy enters a recession. Exacerbated by the Feds inability to lower short-term interest rates, growth only begins to rebound at end of 2014 and the unemployment rate rises to a peak of 8.5% before starting to decline. At its peak, 2.5 million jobs would be lost.
Scenario two implies a longer and deeper recession than in the first scenario, but one characterized by extreme volatility. Annualized GDP growth fluctuates rapidly between plus and minus 8% until the oscillations diminish in 2015. Unemployment rises to a peak of 8.9%  equivalent to 3.1 million lost jobs  before trending down.
Discretionary Spending: Reductions in discretionary spending have reduced annual GDP growth by 0.7 percentage points since 2010 and raised the unemployment rate 0.8 percentage points, representing a cost of 1.2 million jobs.''



- See more at: http://www.macroadvisers.com/2013/10/the-cost-of-crisis-driven-fiscal-policy/#sthash.qO2tw5mp.dpuf


----------



## Peterf

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do?
> 
> Assuming that you're not,  the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them,  get to keep their jobs.
> 
> The good news for you is that you get to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
> 
> That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
Click to expand...


Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?

The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever.   (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that you are uniquely qualified to know what government is supposed to do?
> 
> Assuming that you're not,  the way that democracy handles that is through the free election of Representatives who, if they do what their constituents expect of them,  get to keep their jobs.
> 
> The good news for you is that you get to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
> 
> That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
Click to expand...


When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
> 
> That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?
> 
> The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever.   (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).
Click to expand...


My assumptions are two. One is, they will not live to see it change. Two, is, they are disingenuous. They want something not possible. They want what America cannot offer, what we have plus what they want. In fact, what they want would obliviate what we have. 

They want the freedom to impose what they want on the rest of us. 

They have to choose between freedom and power.

So, they don't want to live without freedom, so they'll stay and accept not having power. But that doesn't mean that they don't want it. So they whine and do not act. And I want to call them on that.

Shit or get off the pot. If you don't like America, leave, if you do, stay, but stop whining.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
> 
> That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?
Click to expand...


No, I like our country. That's why I don't whine about it. I like our Constitution, I like democracy, I like our President. 

You're the whiner. You and Fox. If you don't like us, find someplace else better suited to your liking. 

No balls?


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> Valox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This government has not only not done anything to 'fix' unemployment (not that any government can do that) but it has done pretty extreme stuff to ensure that unemployment has steadily increased with no light seen at the end of that tunnel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Republican Congress.
> 
> The Cost of Crisis-Driven Fiscal Policy | Macroeconomic Advisers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but we have not had a Republican congress since Obama took office or for two years prior to his taking office.  And it was not the majority of Republicans who ordered the job killing initiatives I listed up there.  And if any Republicans DID vote for any of those things, a pox on their houses too.
Click to expand...


This is what limited the House to shutting down Congress. Not passing nefarious laws.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?
> 
> The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever.   (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My assumptions are two. One is, they will not live to see it change. Two, is, they are disingenuous. They want something not possible. They want what America cannot offer, what we have plus what they want. In fact, what they want would obliviate what we have.
> 
> They want the freedom to impose what they want on the rest of us.
Click to expand...


You mean like forcing people to buy health insurance? Or forcing some people to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes so people like you don't have to pay?




> They have to choose between freedom and power.
> 
> So, they don't want to live without freedom, so they'll stay and accept not having power. But that doesn't mean that they don't want it. So they whine and do not act. And I want to call them on that.



Freedom means just that.  You want to restrict people's freedom by not allowing them to keep as much of what they earn as possible.

And sorry but it's people like you that whine.  You cry that "the rich" are keeping you down and you want someone to punish them when in reality you are the one responsible for keeping yourself down.





> Shit or get off the pot. If you don't like America, leave, if you do, stay, but stop whining.



Carry your own water and stop whining.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's an inaccurate insult.
Click to expand...


The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word.  And that's my question.  Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a solution.  Business growth.  No pay for executives without evidence that their performance caused the US economy to grow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
Click to expand...


And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.

Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?

Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?


----------



## dcraelin

I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.


----------



## kaz

dcraelin said:


> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.



The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.


----------



## Foxfyre

dcraelin said:


> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.



Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats.  Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.

This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.

I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?

If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?
> 
> The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever.   (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My assumptions are two. One is, they will not live to see it change. Two, is, they are disingenuous. They want something not possible. They want what America cannot offer, what we have plus what they want. In fact, what they want would obliviate what we have.
> 
> They want the freedom to impose what they want on the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like forcing people to buy health insurance? Or forcing some people to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes so people like you don't have to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have to choose between freedom and power.
> 
> So, they don't want to live without freedom, so they'll stay and accept not having power. But that doesn't mean that they don't want it. So they whine and do not act. And I want to call them on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom means just that.  You want to restrict people's freedom by not allowing them to keep as much of what they earn as possible.
> 
> And sorry but it's people like you that whine.  You cry that "the rich" are keeping you down and you want someone to punish them when in reality you are the one responsible for keeping yourself down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit or get off the pot. If you don't like America, leave, if you do, stay, but stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carry your own water and stop whining.
Click to expand...


Apparently,  the way that conservatives feel better about themselves is put others down.  Typical of propaganda victims.  

Typical propaganda strategy is to get people angry then give them a scapegoat.  It's as old as history.  Self centered people fall for it like a ton of bricks.


----------



## PMZ

Peterf said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If emilynghiem isn't qualified, then how is the majority any more qualified?  See, that's the problem with democracy, most of the people deciding on how your life should be run aren't qualified to make that decision.  None of the doofuses that voted for Obama were qualified to evaluate his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
> 
> That bad news for everyone is that morons like you get to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should not Americans who disagree with the constitution or, more usually, its interpretation stay put in THEIR country and seek to change it?
> 
> The US constitution was written by men, not gods; and no human artifact remains perfect for ever.   (I except, of course, the works of your President, Mr Obama, who's health care bill will live through the ages as an example to all mankind).
Click to expand...


The Constitution did not set what's best about America.  While the plutocracy the founders set up was an improvement over the European models they had,  it was only remarkable by the provisions for the people to amend it. 

We the people created the freedom of democracy that made it remarkable. 

If you thought that there was a movement set on subjecting you to their control,  wouldn't you act? 

The beauty of democracy is that it tolerates all ideas and any movement can offer votes in support of it.  

But look,  as an example, at Republican behavior in Congress. Anti-American. Anti democracy.  Plutocratic. 

I'm quite serious about citizenship being a free market in today's world.  If you don't like it here,  and I certainly wouldn't if dixiecrats were anything more than a noisy minority,  find someplace better.  

Grow a pair


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the word "Marxist" bothers you because...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an inaccurate insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word.  And that's my question.  Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?
Click to expand...


If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true. 

What would that evidence be?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
Click to expand...


I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems.  Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.  

Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt.  That's a national problem.  

Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.  

As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem. 

What we,  the people,  can hold them accountable for is,  actually,  what is in their self interests.  Grow.  Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid. 

There are an infinite number of ways to do that,  and frankly,  if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not.  Not the current set anyway. 

It's the responsibility of we,  the people,  to manage our democracy. 

Let's do it.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
Click to expand...


Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.
Click to expand...


Is there a relevant point in here someplace?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Move someplace that has a more tyrannical government if you disagree with our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I like our country. That's why I don't whine about it. I like our Constitution, I like democracy, I like our President.
Click to expand...


Of course you whine about it. You and your ilk whined constantly when Bush was in office.  You still whine that that we need to spend more money and green energy boondoggles.  You whine about "deniers."   You whine about so-called "gay rights."  You whine about granting Amnesty to illegal aliens.  You whine about the imaginary war on women.  If you're so happy, then why don't you shut your fucking yap?  Otherwise go to Cuba where the government is exactly the way you want it to be.



PMZ said:


> You're the whiner. You and Fox. If you don't like us, find someplace else better suited to your liking.
> 
> No balls?



What you call "whining" is what the Constitution calls "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances."  So basically you're just saying that you despise the First Amendment.  

Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.  

Now get the hell out of this country since you hate it so much.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats.  Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.
> 
> This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.
> 
> I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?
> 
> If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.
Click to expand...


''Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.''

As good an example of the fundamental lies of conservatism as I've  seen. 

That the purpose of taxes is to punish. 

That it's even possible to punish those with way more wealth than they can ever spend,  financially. 

That there's a magic relationship between having wealth and producing. 

That middle class workers who create everyone's wealth,  largely support the Republican Party. 

Think of how effective propaganda must be to sell to anyone,  much less a significant minority,  those lies.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMS, who do you think pays corporate executives?  And how is it, precisely, that YOU fit into that group and thus have fuck-all to say about what they're paid or why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
Click to expand...


He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO.  We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid.  Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.



kaz said:


> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?



That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for.   The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing.  That is the ultimate in Fascism.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats.  Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.
> 
> This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.
> 
> I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?
> 
> If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.
Click to expand...


Also a great example of fomenting class warfare.  The Africa like tribal warfare that is the antithesis of America.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an inaccurate insult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word.  And that's my question.  Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> What would that evidence be?
Click to expand...


That would be easy since you'd be unable to show any statement which contradicts what I said that you're a Marxist.

My question isn't why you're a Marxist, it's why the word bothers you since you are a Marxist.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.



ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.
Click to expand...


Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a relevant point in here someplace?
Click to expand...


Just that it blew your statement out of the water.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems.  Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.
> 
> Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt.  That's a national problem.
> 
> Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.
> 
> As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.
> 
> What we,  the people,  can hold them accountable for is,  actually,  what is in their self interests.  Grow.  Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.
> 
> There are an infinite number of ways to do that,  and frankly,  if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not.  Not the current set anyway.
> 
> It's the responsibility of we,  the people,  to manage our democracy.
> 
> Let's do it.
Click to expand...


And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest.  You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.

Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.  What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast.  Which is what you want, except the word.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an inaccurate insult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word.  And that's my question.  Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
Click to expand...


No he wouldn't, bonehead.  You would have to prove that it was false.  Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm.  You know less about the law than you know about climate.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you moving to Cuba since that is the government exactly to your liking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I like our country. That's why I don't whine about it. I like our Constitution, I like democracy, I like our President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you whine about it. You and your ilk whined constantly when Bush was in office.  You still whine that that we need to spend more money and green energy boondoggles.  You whine about "deniers."   You whine about so-called "gay rights."  You whine about granting Amnesty to illegal aliens.  You whine about the imaginary war on women.  If you're so happy, then why don't you shut your fucking yap?  Otherwise go to Cuba where the government is exactly the way you want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the whiner. You and Fox. If you don't like us, find someplace else better suited to your liking.
> 
> No balls?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you call "whining" is what the Constitution calls "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances."  So basically you're just saying that you despise the First Amendment.
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> Now get the hell out of this country since you hate it so much.
Click to expand...


Almost 100% of 100% of your posts boils down to,  here's what you want to be true. And almost 0% is.  Offering zero evidence or even rationale that there's any reality at all in your posts doesn't seem to bother you a bit.  Clearly the reason why the Party had so little trouble recruiting your unquestioning loyalty.  

The perfect minion.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word.  And that's my question.  Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> What would that evidence be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be easy since you'd be unable to show any statement which contradicts what I said that you're a Marxist.
> 
> My question isn't why you're a Marxist, it's why the word bothers you since you are a Marxist.
Click to expand...


In court the burden of proof would be on you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems.  Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.
> 
> Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt.  That's a national problem.
> 
> Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.
> 
> As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.
> 
> What we,  the people,  can hold them accountable for is,  actually,  what is in their self interests.  Grow.  Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.
> 
> There are an infinite number of ways to do that,  and frankly,  if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not.  Not the current set anyway.
> 
> It's the responsibility of we,  the people,  to manage our democracy.
> 
> Let's do it.
Click to expand...


Since you think you have the authority to be hold citizens "accountable," what are the welfare parasites accountable for?  What are sleazy Democrat politicians accountable for?  Is Obama "accountable" for any campaign promises he's made?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.
Click to expand...


CEO's get fired all the time, dolt.  The CEO of several of the corporations I have worked for were given the boot.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> What would that evidence be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be easy since you'd be unable to show any statement which contradicts what I said that you're a Marxist.
> 
> My question isn't why you're a Marxist, it's why the word bothers you since you are a Marxist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In court the burden of proof would be on you.
Click to expand...


You know nothing of our legal system.  If you are suing me, the burden of proof is on you.  And you'd have to show three things.

1)  What I said was false

2)  I either lied or at least had a reckless disregard for the truth

3)  It caused you material harm

You could show none of those.  It's true, we both know it's true, and it doesn't harm you it just contradicts your agenda to turn us into a Communist State.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CEO's get fired all the time, dolt.  The CEO of several of the corporations I have worked for were given the boot.
Click to expand...


He doesn't understand how public businesses are structured.  He wanted the shareholders to storm the CEO's office with torches and pitchforks and lynch them.  Anything else doesn't count.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "inaccurate" thing about is that you don't like the word.  And that's my question.  Since it accurately describes your views, why does the word bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he wouldn't, bonehead.  You would have to prove that it was false.  Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm.  You know less about the law than you know about climate.
Click to expand...


I agree with the financial harm part.  The other part is,  once again,  only what you want to be true.  

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning.  It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats.  Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.
> 
> This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.
> 
> I keep wondering if any Americans are ready to rise up and demand that be changed?
> 
> If we did, I still don't know how we would choose to define a 'fair share' of taxes necessary to fund a much smaller, more honest, more effective government, but it would be a hell of lot less than anybody's 'fair share' now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.''
> 
> As good an example of the fundamental lies of conservatism as I've  seen.
> 
> That the purpose of taxes is to punish.
Click to expand...


Your messiah even admitted as much when he said he favors raising the capital gains tax even though it would bring in less revenue.  He said raising revenue wasn't the main issue, "fairness" was.  In other words, it's about punishing those who are doing better.



PMZ said:


> That it's even possible to punish those with way more wealth than they can ever spend,  financially.



So forcing someone to pay their money to the government isn't punishment?  Then what is the point of government fines?  What is the point of the fine for not buying insurance in the Obamacare legislation?



PMZ said:


> That there's a magic relationship between having wealth and producing.



There's nothing "magic" about it.  That's where wealth comes from, the goods and services you produce.  That is, unless you are a parasite sucking off the taxpayers.



PMZ said:


> That middle class workers who create everyone's wealth,  largely support the Republican Party.



It's a documented fact, turd.



PMZ said:


> Think of how effective propaganda must be to sell to anyone,  much less a significant minority,  those lies.



Truth is always more effective than propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems.  Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.
> 
> Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt.  That's a national problem.
> 
> Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.
> 
> As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.
> 
> What we,  the people,  can hold them accountable for is,  actually,  what is in their self interests.  Grow.  Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.
> 
> There are an infinite number of ways to do that,  and frankly,  if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not.  Not the current set anyway.
> 
> It's the responsibility of we,  the people,  to manage our democracy.
> 
> Let's do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you think you have the authority to be hold citizens "accountable," what are the welfare parasites accountable for?  What are sleazy Democrat politicians accountable for?  Is Obama "accountable" for any campaign promises he's made?
Click to expand...


All politicians are accountable to we,  the people.  We hire and fire them. 

Obama was judged by we,  the people, to be more worthy than any of the alternatives released from the Republican clown car. 

People on welfare are accountable, as we all are,  to comply with our laws. If they are not they are criminals subject to the legally prescribed consequences.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he wouldn't, bonehead.  You would have to prove that it was false.  Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm.  You know less about the law than you know about climate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the financial harm part.  The other part is,  once again,  only what you want to be true.
> 
> The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning.  It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.
Click to expand...


1)  First of all you mean libel, I didn't verbally call you a Marxist, I wrote it

2)  I didn't say it to other people, I said it to  you

3)  If you would get off your lazy ass and learn to Google things before you demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity, a simple google search would show you that what I told you was correct.  You have to prove it was false, it caused harm, and I either lied or wrote it with reckless indifference to the truth.

You are a Marxist and that it counters your agenda to turn us into a Marxist country isn't harm.  What is the matter with you anyway?  Seriously.


----------



## Foxfyre

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CEO's get fired all the time, dolt.  The CEO of several of the corporations I have worked for were given the boot.
Click to expand...


Yup.  Except in the relatively rare cases of serious misconduct--think Enron or Madoff--CEO's are almost as vulnerable as NFL coaches--if they don't produce and keep the stockholders happy, they're out.  With our very modest investment, I sure want those guys to make profits and keep attracting more shareholders because that keeps my investments healthy.

The only CEO that is not vulnerable is the one who holds all or at least a controlling share of the company stock and that is your average small to mid sized business owner.  But if he doesn't turn a profit, he clobbers his own financial well being, so he has a lot of incentive to keep expenses in line as he provides products and/or services people will buy.

Unfortunately bureaucrats in government have no such incentive.  The more they spend, they more they can expect to spend and the more they spend, the more important they are and the more money they can command.  so there is zero emphasis on saving money and every effort made to spend every penny they get and find some way to ask for much more.

And Congress of course keeps itself in power by providing more and more free stuff to the people, so it has no incentive to keep expenses in line or reduce costs for government.

And all that results in what the self-serving and the idiots who worship them want to be the 'fair share' that the producers of the land will pay to keep the politicians and bureaucrats in power.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Obama was judged by we,  the people, to be more worthy than any of the alternatives released from the Republican clown car.



He was judged by you the leaches to be a more effective meal ticket for people who want handouts of other people's money.  Which is why you like him, he's the Marxist candidate.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.
Click to expand...


Shareholders vote according to the number of their shares.  Talk about a rigged election.  

Thats the Republican dream plutocracy.  Everyone votes according to their wealth.  As the top 1% has half of the wealth,  those few would run the country and the world.  The conservative wet dream.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems.  Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.
> 
> Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt.  That's a national problem.
> 
> Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.
> 
> As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.
> 
> What we,  the people,  can hold them accountable for is,  actually,  what is in their self interests.  Grow.  Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.
> 
> There are an infinite number of ways to do that,  and frankly,  if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not.  Not the current set anyway.
> 
> It's the responsibility of we,  the people,  to manage our democracy.
> 
> Let's do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest.  You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.
> 
> Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.  What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast.  Which is what you want, except the word.
Click to expand...


''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''

Perfectly wrong. 

Democracy is how we manage our capitalism.  Business complies with our laws,  not vice versa.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me an example of shareholders firing a CEO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shareholders vote according to the number of their shares.  Talk about a rigged election.
> 
> Thats the Republican dream plutocracy.  Everyone votes according to their wealth.  As the top 1% has half of the wealth,  those few would run the country and the world.  The conservative wet dream.
Click to expand...


You don't know the difference between a business and government because you are a Marxist.

I'll throw you a bone.  Foxfyre, Bipat, PMZ is a Marxist.  There you go PMZ, one of the criteria was I had to say it to someone else, not you.   Proving the truth is a lie is still going to be a bit tricky though.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a relevant point in here someplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just that it blew your statement out of the water.
Click to expand...


''The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?''

What's the answer to this question?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he wouldn't, bonehead.  You would have to prove that it was false.  Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm.  You know less about the law than you know about climate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the financial harm part.  The other part is,  once again,  only what you want to be true.
> 
> The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning.  It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.
Click to expand...


Wrong, bonehead, it's up to you to prove he is lying.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?
Click to expand...


Clinton did.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shareholders elect a board of directors and the board fires them. So every CEO who was ever fired was fired by the shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shareholders vote according to the number of their shares.  Talk about a rigged election.
> 
> Thats the Republican dream plutocracy.  Everyone votes according to their wealth.  As the top 1% has half of the wealth,  those few would run the country and the world.  The conservative wet dream.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a business and government because you are a Marxist.
> 
> I'll throw you a bone.  Foxfyre, Bipat, PMZ is a Marxist.  There you go PMZ, one of the criteria was I had to say it to someone else, not you.   Proving the truth is a lie is still going to be a bit tricky though.
Click to expand...


I also called him a Marxist, so he can sue the both of us.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton did.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Clinton benefited from the Peace Dividend, thanks to Reagan.  He never tried to pay down the debt.  He kept trying to increase it.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think for any country to prosper the citizens have to support solutions to national problems.  Otherwise it descends into an Africa like warring of tribal interests.
> 
> Bush's policies left in their wake an untenable pile of debt.  That's a national problem.
> 
> Corporations argued to the Supreme Court that they are citizens.
> 
> As citizens I think that they join us in being accountable for supporting solutions to this national problem.
> 
> What we,  the people,  can hold them accountable for is,  actually,  what is in their self interests.  Grow.  Build the GDP back to where deficits vanish and debt gets paid.
> 
> There are an infinite number of ways to do that,  and frankly,  if they were doing their jobs as business leaders, none of those solutions should be necessary. But they are not.  Not the current set anyway.
> 
> It's the responsibility of we,  the people,  to manage our democracy.
> 
> Let's do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest.  You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.
> 
> Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.  What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast.  Which is what you want, except the word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''
> 
> Perfectly wrong.
> 
> Democracy is how we manage our capitalism.  Business complies with our laws,  not vice versa.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook.  It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails.  In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.

A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority.  The minority have no freedom to chose anything.  Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority.  Like obamacare.  And then you have no capitalism.

Again, why does the word Marxist bother you?  You are clearly that.


----------



## Foxfyre

PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business.  Imagine that.  But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads.  Amazing guy this PMZ.  Quite a resume.

(Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)

But some of ya'll are absolutely right.  People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy.  He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.

And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them.   And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be.  Sounds pretty Marxist to me.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executives are normally paid by BOD compensation teams comprised of other executives on a quid pro quo basis.  You reward me and I'll  reward you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO.  We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid.  Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for.   The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing.  That is the ultimate in Fascism.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton did.
Click to expand...


Actually under Clinton the debt went up every year.  That's what happens when you give politicians blind trust.  They lie to you...


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO.  We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid.  Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for.   The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing.  That is the ultimate in Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?
Click to expand...




How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?

It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they don't make money their shareholders fire them all or the go out of business.
> 
> Do you think government should approve CEOs?  What about other executives?  What about companies in general?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO.  We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid.  Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose we had a process where every corporation ha to get an annual license from government where they get management approved and they have to submit a statement proving they benefit the economy and society as a whole or government shuts them down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for.   The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing.  That is the ultimate in Fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?
Click to expand...


Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers.  What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO.  We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid.  Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for.   The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing.  That is the ultimate in Fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers.  What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.
Click to expand...


What BriPat wants to be true.  What he believes that he's entitled to have true. 

Delusional.


----------



## PMZ

A good article about another one of our National problems that Republicans avoid as its inconvenient to have problems when you can't even imagine solutions. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalearcher/2013/09/04/could-americas-wealth-gap-lead-to-a-revolt/


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He actually does think the government should determine who should be a CEO.  We already know he thinks the government should determine how much they get paid.  Then he'll whine that he's not a Marxist.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what a lot of so-called "progressives" have called for.   The want the government to have the right to revoke a corporations charter any time the government decides it doesn't like what that corporation is doing.  That is the ultimate in Fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?
> 
> It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.
Click to expand...


Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth. 

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.


----------



## Foxfyre

It is really a simple concept.  The person who owns his business has an unalienable right to take whatever profits or assets he wants from his own property.   If he does that in a smart way, he enjoys the fruit of his own labor/investment--if he does that foolishly his business will suffer or fail.  But it is his property to do with as he wishes.

The wise investor invests in companies with an owner with a proven track record for honesty and integrity and/or the business with a proven track record for providing a good product and/or service that earns profits in most years.  Those who gamble on just anybody for short term profit--i.e. day traders--can lose their shirts and deserve to do so as they are doing nothing other than gambling.

However. . . .

If the business owner has partners or shareholders, he does not have the right to abscond with their THEIR property and, if he does so, he is committing theft and is subject to penalties of the law as well as being subject to civil suit from those he defrauds or steals from.

In my opinion, in a perfect world, the producers would be the only ones who would have the right to vote on what a 'fair share' of taxes the producers would pay when it is only the producers who will pay it.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually under Clinton the debt went up every year.  That's what happens when you give politicians blind trust.  They lie to you...
Click to expand...


Only if you do your accounting a different way than the government does. 

Remember the report that I referenced from the CBO that concluded that if Bush continued Clintonomics,  our entire national debt would have been paid off by 2006?

Think of that!  Zero debt.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Clinton benefited from the Peace Dividend, thanks to Reagan.  He never tried to pay down the debt.  He kept trying to increase it.
Click to expand...


More BriPat delusion.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's the job of politicians to manipulate you into doing it for you, and they just look out for their own interest.  You think W is the devil and Obama is our Messiah, and they are the same thing.
> 
> Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.  What you advocate leads to Communism, and you're taking us there fast.  Which is what you want, except the word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''
> 
> Perfectly wrong.
> 
> Democracy is how we manage our capitalism.  Business complies with our laws,  not vice versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook.  It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails.  In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.
> 
> A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority.  The minority have no freedom to chose anything.  Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority.  Like obamacare.  And then you have no capitalism.
> 
> Again, why does the word Marxist bother you?  You are clearly that.
Click to expand...


Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy?  Is that completely beyond your capability? 

Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws? 

I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business.  Imagine that.  But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads.  Amazing guy this PMZ.  Quite a resume.
> 
> (Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)
> 
> But some of ya'll are absolutely right.  People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy.  He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.
> 
> And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them.   And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be.  Sounds pretty Marxist to me.



I think that the Fox boobs and boobies must have implanted a chip that has programmed their subjects to believe that everything that is not plutocracy must be Marxism. And the bots who only do black and white (in computers that's called a one bit processor) all say Amen. 

A tyranny of ignorance blindly  supporting that wealth is entitled to power no matter what the French and American Revolution and the Civil wars were fought over. 

Saying forgive them,  they know not what they do is an extreme understatement.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers.  What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What BriPat wants to be true.  What he believes that he's entitled to have true.
> 
> Delusional.
Click to expand...


Huh?  What do I believe I'm entitled to have?

You're the one who thinks he's entitled to tell corporations how to run their business and how much they can pay their executives.


----------



## PMZ

janeeng said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now that's messed up!!!! and your calling us names!!! Damn!



Make more money regardless of the cost to others is sufficient only in a market where price is the only decision making criteria. Let's see if we can think of a market like that in today's world. 

Nope,  can't think of one. 

This is a problem because conservatism is based completely on that one thing that no longer even exists.  Ouch! 

I guess that they should have gone on to fifth grade to get the next level of detail.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business.  Imagine that.  But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads.  Amazing guy this PMZ.  Quite a resume.
> 
> (Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)
> 
> But some of ya'll are absolutely right.  People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy.  He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.
> 
> And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them.   And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be.  Sounds pretty Marxist to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the Fox boobs and boobies must have implanted a chip that has programmed their subjects to believe that everything that is not plutocracy must be Marxism. And the bots who only do black and white (in computers that's called a one bit processor) all say Amen.
> 
> A tyranny of ignorance blindly  supporting that wealth is entitled to power no matter what the French and American Revolution and the Civil wars were fought over.
> 
> Saying forgive them,  they know not what they do is an extreme understatement.
Click to expand...


Defending equal rights for all is not "supporting the wealthy." Believe it or not, the wealthy have the same rights as everyone else.  They aren't criminals.  the wealthy have no power other than the ability to spend money.  Government has guns that it can use to take away every dime the wealthy earn.

Who should we be afraid of?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.



No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth.  I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.

And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''
> 
> Perfectly wrong.
> 
> Democracy is how we manage our capitalism.  Business complies with our laws,  not vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook.  It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails.  In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.
> 
> A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority.  The minority have no freedom to chose anything.  Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority.  Like obamacare.  And then you have no capitalism.
> 
> Again, why does the word Marxist bother you?  You are clearly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy?  Is that completely beyond your capability?
Click to expand...


That's actually wrong.  Capitalism is also a decision making system.  It's the system were individuals make the decisions rather then some bureaucrat 2000 miles away.



PMZ said:


> Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws?
> 
> I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.



Whoever claimed businesses were exempt from the law other then Marxists like you?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually under Clinton the debt went up every year.  That's what happens when you give politicians blind trust.  They lie to you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you do your accounting a different way than the government does.
Click to expand...


Finally you said something that's true.  In my accounting, the national debt going up every year is not paying down the debt as you claimed.   In government accounting, the national debt can go up while you have a surplus.



PMZ said:


> Remember the report that I referenced from the CBO that concluded that if Bush continued Clintonomics,  our entire national debt would have been paid off by 2006?
> 
> Think of that!  Zero debt.



Remember how the CBO is required by law to create fictitious projections where instead of basing their projections on what economists say will happen based on economic models, they have to project what politicians want to happen?

I remember you did come up with the strong argument of "nuh uh," but afraid you were wrong on that.  And Clinton had nothing to do with it.  He proposed huge increases in spending and Newt said no.  And the economy was booming because of Reagan's policies.  Clinton was the guy who was sitting on the park bench when the cops caught the bank robbers and liberals gave him a medal for it.


----------



## dcraelin

kaz said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.
Click to expand...


 downgraded debt can be a moneymaker for some.  ...Dont consider myself a liberal but bankers are generally classic liberals. 



Foxfyre said:


> Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich because Republicans seek power in different ways than do leftists/Democrats.  Republicans know that you can't punish the rich without hurting the less rich, and their constituency is mostly the producers of the country rather than mostly the takers.



Thats the cover story anyway



Foxfyre said:


> This is not meant to suggest that Republicans are not every bit as corrupt as Democrats in using their office to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth, but that situation will not be corrected so long as we allow them to use our money to buy votes and keep themselves in power where they can enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest imaginations.



I agree with you here.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ''Capitalism, which just means economic freedom is how we the people manage our democracy.''
> 
> Perfectly wrong.
> 
> Democracy is how we manage our capitalism.  Business complies with our laws,  not vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook.  It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails.  In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.
> 
> A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority.  The minority have no freedom to chose anything.  Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority.  Like obamacare.  And then you have no capitalism.
> 
> Again, why does the word Marxist bother you?  You are clearly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy?  Is that completely beyond your capability?
> 
> Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws?
> 
> I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.
Click to expand...


I've met lots of Marxists.  The Democratic party is full of them.


----------



## kaz

dcraelin said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> downgraded debt can be a moneymaker for some.  ...Dont consider myself a liberal but bankers are generally classic liberals.
Click to expand...


You're right you're not a liberal, you're a leftist.

And bankers are not classic liberals, that you wrote what you did then called them classic liberals is an oxymoron.


----------



## PMZ

Foxfyre said:


> It is really a simple concept.  The person who owns his business has an unalienable right to take whatever profits or assets he wants from his own property.   If he does that in a smart way, he enjoys the fruit of his own labor/investment--if he does that foolishly his business will suffer or fail.  But it is his property to do with as he wishes.
> 
> The wise investor invests in companies with an owner with a proven track record for honesty and integrity and/or the business with a proven track record for providing a good product and/or service that earns profits in most years.  Those who gamble on just anybody for short term profit--i.e. day traders--can lose their shirts and deserve to do so as they are doing nothing other than gambling.
> 
> However. . . .
> 
> If the business owner has partners or shareholders, he does not have the right to abscond with their THEIR property and, if he does so, he is committing theft and is subject to penalties of the law as well as being subject to civil suit from those he defrauds or steals from.
> 
> In my opinion, in a perfect world, the producers would be the only ones who would have the right to vote on what a 'fair share' of taxes the producers would pay when it is only the producers who will pay it.



''In my opinion, in a perfect world, the producers would be the only ones who would have the right to vote on what a 'fair share' of taxes the producers would pay when it is only the producers who will pay it''

This is why democracy works.  The majority middle class producers of wealth are the majority and therefore,  as a group,  have the most influence.  At least they do if they are the smart ones. 

The not so smart ones are easy prey for the wealthy parasites to recruit via media propaganda. 

So the future of democracy hangs in the balance. 

Can our education system insure that there will always be enough smart workers to think independently?  

Lots of evidence that this onslaught of the living but mind dead ignorazzi is being repelled. 

American democracy is safe for now.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth.  I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.
> 
> And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.
Click to expand...


Do you understand that,  except for IPOs,  equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price?  The corporation is not involved.  Calling shareholders,  ''owners'' is delusional.  And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so.  It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing. 

CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show.  They are not. 

While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total.  Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators,  the workers.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth.  I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.
> 
> And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand that,  except for IPOs,  equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price?  The corporation is not involved.  Calling shareholders,  ''owners'' is delusional.  And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so.  It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing.
> 
> CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show.  They are not.
> 
> While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total.  Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators,  the workers.
Click to expand...


Right out of the Communist manifesto.  And yet you give politicians a pass.  LOL.

You know nothing about capitalism or how corporations operate.  Zero.  What you see is what you want to see.  The US corporations have kicked ass, it's a model that works.  It's politicians who are bringing it all down on us.  The liberal explanation for every failed liberal policy is we didn't do it enough.  Oh, and blame the victim.  Your manifesto is full of that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie Madoff broke the law by defrauding his customers.  What Democrats are talking about his shutting down corporations simply because they make too much money in the eyes of Democrats, or because they make products Democrats don't like, like tobacco companies and oil companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What BriPat wants to be true.  What he believes that he's entitled to have true.
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  What do I believe I'm entitled to have?
> 
> You're the one who thinks he's entitled to tell corporations how to run their business and how much they can pay their executives.
Click to expand...


They follow our laws.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What BriPat wants to be true.  What he believes that he's entitled to have true.
> 
> Delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  What do I believe I'm entitled to have?
> 
> You're the one who thinks he's entitled to tell corporations how to run their business and how much they can pay their executives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They follow our laws.  Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Click to expand...


They have rights just like every citizen of this country.  What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total.  Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators,  the workers.



I couldn't describe the U.S. government any better than that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ objects to those who built and finance the business having the right to vote what happens to that business.  Imagine that.  But he claims all this brilliant personal business experience--just as he claimed to be a brilliant scientist on the environmental threads.  Amazing guy this PMZ.  Quite a resume.
> 
> (Reminder. . . I still have that nice assortment of bridges to sell ya'll - sale prices this time of year.)
> 
> But some of ya'll are absolutely right.  People like Obama get elected because they promise more free stuff than the other guy.  He sure as hell didn't get elected on his resume, qualifications, or experience.
> 
> And most of those who vote for an Obama type don't WANT to be producers, but they sure as hell want what the producers have and some would even suggest that the producers have no control of any kind over their own businesses or the profits/wages they earn from them.   And they want the ability to dictate to the producers what their 'Fair Share' of taxes is gonna be.  Sounds pretty Marxist to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the Fox boobs and boobies must have implanted a chip that has programmed their subjects to believe that everything that is not plutocracy must be Marxism. And the bots who only do black and white (in computers that's called a one bit processor) all say Amen.
> 
> A tyranny of ignorance blindly  supporting that wealth is entitled to power no matter what the French and American Revolution and the Civil wars were fought over.
> 
> Saying forgive them,  they know not what they do is an extreme understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending equal rights for all is not "supporting the wealthy." Believe it or not, the wealthy have the same rights as everyone else.  They aren't criminals.  the wealthy have no power other than the ability to spend money.  Government has guns that it can use to take away every dime the wealthy earn.
> 
> Who should we be afraid of?
Click to expand...


In a democracy the government is of,  by,  for we,  the people. Should we be afraid of a majority of us? Only if a majority have been rendered supportive of actions hostile to our future interests. Could happen. 

Business runs by one rule only.  Make more money regardless of the cost to others.  There are two critical conditions that maintain that in service of we,  the people. 

Our ability to regulate.  

Competition in free markets.  

It's clearly in the service of,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  that businesses must be hostile to competition. The less competition,  the more money to be made. 

Regulation must offset that. 

So,  there is nothing to fear from a democracy and regulated businesses with robust competition.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In capitalism, people vote with their pocketbook.  It's a true democracy because the majority make the decision of who wins and who fails.  In capitalism, the minority are still free to "vote" their own picketbooks as they choose.
> 
> A democracy in government is a tyranny of the majority.  The minority have no freedom to chose anything.  Then when as you say the "democracy" manages the capitalism, they remove the choice of the minority.  Like obamacare.  And then you have no capitalism.
> 
> Again, why does the word Marxist bother you?  You are clearly that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you even comprehend that capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a decision making strategy?  Is that completely beyond your capability?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's actually wrong.  Capitalism is also a decision making system.  It's the system were individuals make the decisions rather then some bureaucrat 2000 miles away.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think that businesses are exempt from our laws?
> 
> I've never met anyone who knows less about their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever claimed businesses were exempt from the law other then Marxists like you?
Click to expand...


Fuck ups like you.


----------



## zeke

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question is "who" holds them accountable for growth.  I say the people they work for, the shareholders, you say that politicians should have ubiquitous power over them and can hold them to any standard they want.
> 
> And Madoff had nothing to do with "growth" he committed fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that,  except for IPOs, * equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price?  The corporation is not involved.  Calling shareholders,  ''owners'' is delusional. * And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so.  It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing.
> 
> CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show.  They are not.
> 
> While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total.  Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators,  the workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right out of the Communist manifesto.  And yet you give politicians a pass.  LOL.
> 
> *You know nothing about capitalism or how corporations operate.  Zero.  What you see is what you want to see.  The US corporations have kicked ass, it's a model that works.*  It's politicians who are bringing it all down on us.  The liberal explanation for every failed liberal policy is we didn't do it enough.  Oh, and blame the victim.  Your manifesto is full of that.
Click to expand...




Sounds like PMZ has a better understanding of the corporate world than maybe you.

You know why the stock market is booming? It's a reason you rethugs have had correct and should be stopped. Quantitative Easing is fueling the Ponzi scheme. Not individual stock buyers but institutional buyers playing with our play money. 

It will stop sooner or later but it won't be pretty when it does.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bankers who downgraded the US debt and their primary justification was deficits and debt as a percent of GDP?  The only reason liberalism exists is that you don't test your rhetoric against empirical data.  If you did, liberalism would go the way of the dodo bird.
Click to expand...


The bankers aren't the problem.  House Republicans are.


----------



## Spiderman

zeke said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that,  except for IPOs, * equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price?  The corporation is not involved.  Calling shareholders,  ''owners'' is delusional. * And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so.  It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing.
> 
> CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show.  They are not.
> 
> While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total.  Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators,  the workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right out of the Communist manifesto.  And yet you give politicians a pass.  LOL.
> 
> *You know nothing about capitalism or how corporations operate.  Zero.  What you see is what you want to see.  The US corporations have kicked ass, it's a model that works.*  It's politicians who are bringing it all down on us.  The liberal explanation for every failed liberal policy is we didn't do it enough.  Oh, and blame the victim.  Your manifesto is full of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like PMZ has a better understanding of the corporate world than maybe you.
> 
> You know why the stock market is booming? It's a reason you rethugs have had correct and should be stopped. Quantitative Easing is fueling the Ponzi scheme. Not individual stock buyers but institutional buyers playing with our play money.
> 
> It will stop sooner or later but it won't be pretty when it does.
Click to expand...


The stock market is booming as you say because the government via the fed is artificially holding interest rates near zero and the only place to get any return at all on your money is the stock market.  Why do you think that when there is talk of raising interest rates the market hiccups?


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that,  except for IPOs, * equity trading is merely a transaction whereby the previous owner is betting pessimistically and the potential future owner is betting optimistically and they agree on a price?  The corporation is not involved.  Calling shareholders,  ''owners'' is delusional. * And thinking that they have any real stake in the success of the corporation is even more so.  It's all a giant Ponzi scheme that only works if the economy is growing.
> 
> CEOs love to advertise that they are accountable to shareholders and overseen by a BOD but it's all a puppet show.  They are not.
> 
> While there have been some very capable people in the right place at the right time it's getting to be a small percentage of the total.  Many are merely pirates looting and plundering the wealth creators,  the workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right out of the Communist manifesto.  And yet you give politicians a pass.  LOL.
> 
> *You know nothing about capitalism or how corporations operate.  Zero.  What you see is what you want to see.  The US corporations have kicked ass, it's a model that works.*  It's politicians who are bringing it all down on us.  The liberal explanation for every failed liberal policy is we didn't do it enough.  Oh, and blame the victim.  Your manifesto is full of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like PMZ has a better understanding of the corporate world than maybe you.
> 
> You know why the stock market is booming? It's a reason you rethugs have had correct and should be stopped. Quantitative Easing is fueling the Ponzi scheme. Not individual stock buyers but institutional buyers playing with our play money.
> 
> It will stop sooner or later but it won't be pretty when it does.
Click to expand...


The question is,  where's the floor of the Great Recession?  Without stimulus,  how far would our GDP and revenue drop and what would that do to our debt and our future?


----------



## PMZ

From the beginning of our war on recession it has been acknowledged by macroeconomic experts that the crucial issue is timing.  When to remove the patient from life support.  We know the consequences from Bush of over stimulation.  We know from 2008 the consequences of too little.  

It's going to be interesting to witness the transition and how smart or dumb it makes us look.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was Kevin Phillips who wrote "The Emerging Republican majority" who also wrote in "Arrogant Capital" that history has shown the financialization of countries is their downfall. Said bankers get rich dealing in government debt and push politicians NOT to pay down debt.  This I think is true reason Republican politicians dont want to raise taxes on the rich...because they are water- carriers for those who get rich off of dealing with government debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  The idea that any politician has any desire to pay down the debt is utterly hysterical.  Were you born yesterday?
Click to expand...


did you read the post? I think we agree, politicians dont want to pay down debt.  Kevin Phillip's "Arrogant Capital" is a good book and explains what I'm trying to say better.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government can only put a floor under recession by making up the spending of unemployed workers. And continuing to employ their workers.
> 
> Other than that,  it's product developers that create economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, there is some truth to that.
> So where is that growth in developing products?
> Horse and buggies or technical applications that require an educated work force that is trained for what the market DEMANDS?
> We spend too much time and money appeasing the uneducated masses that time has passed by bitching about low skilled jobs gone to Timbuktu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What should we do about the ''uneducated masses''?
> 
> How about,  educate them.
Click to expand...


When can you start?


----------



## RKMBrown

Spiderman said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right out of the Communist manifesto.  And yet you give politicians a pass.  LOL.
> 
> *You know nothing about capitalism or how corporations operate.  Zero.  What you see is what you want to see.  The US corporations have kicked ass, it's a model that works.*  It's politicians who are bringing it all down on us.  The liberal explanation for every failed liberal policy is we didn't do it enough.  Oh, and blame the victim.  Your manifesto is full of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like PMZ has a better understanding of the corporate world than maybe you.
> 
> You know why the stock market is booming? It's a reason you rethugs have had correct and should be stopped. Quantitative Easing is fueling the Ponzi scheme. Not individual stock buyers but institutional buyers playing with our play money.
> 
> It will stop sooner or later but it won't be pretty when it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stock market is booming as you say because the government via the fed is artificially holding interest rates near zero and the only place to get any return at all on your money is the stock market.  Why do you think that when there is talk of raising interest rates the market hiccups?
Click to expand...


Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Fox News says the we shouldn't have bailed out Detroit Auto.  That opinion seems to have no basis other than trying to drag popular opinion of our government to new lows.
> 
> In truth there is only one way to get the remaining way out of the valley of Bush. GDP.  Growth.  The business of business. That's what will pay the bills that his policies left in their wake.
> 
> Detroit Auto is part of that solution.
> 
> More 'news' from Fox. '' You advocate for crap like a living wage.''
> 
> How radical.  Pay people enough to live on so they don't need welfare.  Create jobs that put people into taxable income.  How are companies going to do that and pay executives as royalty?
> 
> ''Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare.''
> 
> The mess?  System start up problems?  How many years of updates does a new windows or IOS take before they're running right?
> 
> Empowering consumers with competitive information? How radical is that?  Making insurance companies compete above board. Simply communistic.
> 
> The only thing that the present GOP has to offer is very well done propaganda.
> 
> They will either dump dixiecrats and end propaganda or go extinct.



You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea. 

FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care. 

Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.


----------



## dcraelin

Bern80 said:


> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.



This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.


----------



## Spiderman

dcraelin said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
Click to expand...


As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.

I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.

You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?

The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like PMZ has a better understanding of the corporate world than maybe you.
> 
> You know why the stock market is booming? It's a reason you rethugs have had correct and should be stopped. Quantitative Easing is fueling the Ponzi scheme. Not individual stock buyers but institutional buyers playing with our play money.
> 
> It will stop sooner or later but it won't be pretty when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is booming as you say because the government via the fed is artificially holding interest rates near zero and the only place to get any return at all on your money is the stock market.  Why do you think that when there is talk of raising interest rates the market hiccups?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.
Click to expand...


I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.
> 
> I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.
> 
> You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?
> 
> The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share. 

How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is booming as you say because the government via the fed is artificially holding interest rates near zero and the only place to get any return at all on your money is the stock market.  Why do you think that when there is talk of raising interest rates the market hiccups?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.
Click to expand...


What made the recession "great" was the policy of taking money from hard working successful people and redistributing it to failed banks and corporations that should have been forced to go through bankruptcy but instead were given bonuses.  To big to fail... was complete BS.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News says the we shouldn't have bailed out Detroit Auto.  That opinion seems to have no basis other than trying to drag popular opinion of our government to new lows.
> 
> In truth there is only one way to get the remaining way out of the valley of Bush. GDP.  Growth.  The business of business. That's what will pay the bills that his policies left in their wake.
> 
> Detroit Auto is part of that solution.
> 
> More 'news' from Fox. '' You advocate for crap like a living wage.''
> 
> How radical.  Pay people enough to live on so they don't need welfare.  Create jobs that put people into taxable income.  How are companies going to do that and pay executives as royalty?
> 
> ''Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare.''
> 
> The mess?  System start up problems?  How many years of updates does a new windows or IOS take before they're running right?
> 
> Empowering consumers with competitive information? How radical is that?  Making insurance companies compete above board. Simply communistic.
> 
> The only thing that the present GOP has to offer is very well done propaganda.
> 
> They will either dump dixiecrats and end propaganda or go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.
> 
> FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.
Click to expand...


You're now the global expert on how compensation works? 

You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.
> 
> I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.
> 
> You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?
> 
> The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


When compensation gets fixed,  and when we stop rewarding having wealth over creating wealth,  all of these problems go away.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.
> 
> I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.
> 
> You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?
> 
> The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.
> 
> How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.
Click to expand...


How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?

It's not.

And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?

And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.
> 
> I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.
> 
> You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?
> 
> The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.
> 
> How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
Click to expand...


We could apply the higher rate to all income. 

But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.
> 
> How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
Click to expand...


WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.



> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.



Subjective assumption.

Tell me why not apply that to everything?

The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?

Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those

Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....

How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.

If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.
> 
> How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
Click to expand...


I thought you were one of the Rich folks?  How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.


----------



## bripat9643

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
Click to expand...


How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business.  Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function.  You shouldn't even get into discussions like this with Nazis like PMS because all you're doing is conceding his premiss the government has the authority to determine our incomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
Click to expand...


So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?


----------



## PMZ

The most inconvenient truth for the American aristocracy is that they have been completely victorious. They have virtually all of the wealth.  What they don't have,  relatively speaking are crumbs,  floor sweepings.  

And yet,  perhaps to their surprise,  it's not enough.  

Perhaps that's because it's really not about money after all,  but power.  

And there is that wretched democracy thing that says the poorest of us theoretically has the same power over government as the wealthiest.  
Damn it! 

Of course that's only theoretical because wealth buys power at least in Republican land.  The wealthy have their very own party.  Of course the have to share it with the dixiecrats,  a despicable bunch if there ever was one,  but still having the Speaker of the House on a leash is real power. 

But still  damn it,  the poor,  have a President who believes that he represents everyone,  including the scum. 

Democracy,  what we,  the people fought tooth and nail for over the entire life of the nation has to go.  We have to return to the founders aristocracy because that's what the powerful are entitled by the god of wealth to. 

But  damn democracy is in the way.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stock market is booming as you say because the government via the fed is artificially holding interest rates near zero and the only place to get any return at all on your money is the stock market.  Why do you think that when there is talk of raising interest rates the market hiccups?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.
Click to expand...


No one expects Democrats to be smart.  The people who elected them are dumb, so it's not surprising when they are also dumb.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> The most inconvenient truth for the American aristocracy is that they have been completely victorious. They have virtually all of the wealth.  What they don't have,  relatively speaking are crumbs,  floor sweepings.



"they " have almost all the wealth yet "they" are not stopping you from increasing your net worth or wealth are they?


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one expects Democrats to be smart.  The people who elected them are dumb, so it's not surprising when they are also dumb.
Click to expand...


The democrats to watch out for are the smart ones, like Hillary.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News says the we shouldn't have bailed out Detroit Auto.  That opinion seems to have no basis other than trying to drag popular opinion of our government to new lows.
> 
> In truth there is only one way to get the remaining way out of the valley of Bush. GDP.  Growth.  The business of business. That's what will pay the bills that his policies left in their wake.
> 
> Detroit Auto is part of that solution.
> 
> More 'news' from Fox. '' You advocate for crap like a living wage.''
> 
> How radical.  Pay people enough to live on so they don't need welfare.  Create jobs that put people into taxable income.  How are companies going to do that and pay executives as royalty?
> 
> ''Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare.''
> 
> The mess?  System start up problems?  How many years of updates does a new windows or IOS take before they're running right?
> 
> Empowering consumers with competitive information? How radical is that?  Making insurance companies compete above board. Simply communistic.
> 
> The only thing that the present GOP has to offer is very well done propaganda.
> 
> They will either dump dixiecrats and end propaganda or go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.
> 
> FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
Click to expand...


What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.
> 
> I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.
> 
> You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?
> 
> The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When compensation gets fixed,  and when we stop rewarding having wealth over creating wealth,  all of these problems go away.
Click to expand...


How do we reward "having wealth?"  What wealth do burger flippers produce that makes them worth any more than $7.00/hour?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?
Click to expand...


How many wealthy are on welfare because of their ''soaking''? 

There are many poor on welfare as a result of their ''soaking'' at the pay window.  Who benefits from that?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lust for and pursuit after that last 15% of our wealth that 80% of Americans have to share.
> 
> How dare they deprive the 20% with the other 85% of that final victory for plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
Click to expand...


You mean you and the rest of the kleptocrats assume that.  I, on the other hand, assume that each person decides for himself how important each dollar he spends is.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
Click to expand...


No.  For each income class have one rate.  Affordable for that class.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.
> 
> FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...


He thinks flipping burgers at McDonalds should pay six figures and Managers, Executives, and Company owners should be paid the same amount.  And everyone will live happily ever after because we all earn the same amount.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
Click to expand...


Thats what we do with a progressive income tax.  It's the most efficient way to achieve what you suggest.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many wealthy are on welfare because of their ''soaking''?
> 
> There are many poor on welfare as a result of their ''soaking'' at the pay window.  Who benefits from that?
Click to expand...


Employers don't "soak" anyone.  That term refers to a government policy of confiscating the income of people that aren't popular.  Only government can "soak" anyone because it requires the use of guns.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were one of the Rich folks?  How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.
Click to expand...


Me too you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  For each income class have one rate.  Affordable for that class.
Click to expand...


Meaning, soak them for as much as the government can get out of them.  That's the value system of thieves and armed robbers.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business.  Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function.  You shouldn't even get into discussions like this with Nazis like PMS because all you're doing is conceding his premiss the government has the authority to determine our incomes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


You still are struggling to grasp the concept that Nazis,  like Jihadists,  and Tea Partyers are right wing extremists.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were one of the Rich folks?  How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too you.
Click to expand...


me also you? Are you drunk?  You are arguing the rich don't pay AMT.  Duh! Hello, McFly!!!  AMT


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That&#8217;s what we do with a progressive income tax.  It's the most efficient way to achieve what you suggest.
Click to expand...


It obviously went right over your head that his analogy was meant to demonstrate how absurd the logic of the progressive income tax is.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business.  Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function.  You shouldn't even get into discussions like this with Nazis like PMS because all you're doing is conceding his premiss the government has the authority to determine our incomes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still are struggling to grasp the concept that Nazis,  like Jihadists,  and Tea Partyers are right wing extremists.
Click to expand...


How do you "grasp" a claim that is patently false?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that and they are printing new bills by the billions every day and that is making the dollar worth-less thus requiring more dollars to buy tangible goods like stocks & commodities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one expects Democrats to be smart.  The people who elected them are dumb, so it's not surprising when they are also dumb.
Click to expand...


It takes a great deal of intelligence to remember what today's propaganda is from the Fox boobs and boobies,  and to recite it accurately,  even when you don't understand it,  when called upon.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most inconvenient truth for the American aristocracy is that they have been completely victorious. They have virtually all of the wealth.  What they don't have,  relatively speaking are crumbs,  floor sweepings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "they " have almost all the wealth yet "they" are not stopping you from increasing your net worth or wealth are they?
Click to expand...


No.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that it would have been smarter of us not to have created the Great Recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one expects Democrats to be smart.  The people who elected them are dumb, so it's not surprising when they are also dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats to watch out for are the smart ones, like Hillary.
Click to expand...


That's why she will be our next President.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.
> 
> FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...


I'm fine with workers retaining a significant % of the wealth that they create.  

What is dysfunctional is to ask the wealthy to divide up the wealth that workers create.


----------



## Synthaholic

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.


That's extremely regressive.  That hurts poor people, and the middle class.  It doesn't affect the wealthy at all, and keeps them from paying their fair share.


----------



## Synthaholic

I would take a stab at answering this OP's question, but I am aware that it is a waste of time, since the majority of people in this thread and on this site have no clue as to how the progressive tax system we have already actually works.

They actually think that your tax rate goes up on all of your income as your income goes up!

Until they actually know what they're talking about . . . well, I can't fix stupid.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.
> 
> I'm of the mind that income should be taxed like any other thing we tax.
> 
> You don't pay less tax on the gas you use to get to work and more on the gas used to drive to the strip clubs do you?
> 
> The idea that your last dollar earned is somehow less yours than the first dollar earned is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When compensation gets fixed,  and when we stop rewarding having wealth over creating wealth,  all of these problems go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we reward "having wealth?"  What wealth do burger flippers produce that makes them worth any more than $7.00/hour?
Click to expand...


Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source,  be rewarded by half tax rates  compared to working for it, and creating it? 

Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?


----------



## mamooth

Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation.

Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.


----------



## RKMBrown

Synthaholic said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> That's extremely regressive.  That hurts poor people, and the middle class.  It doesn't affect the wealthy at all, and keeps them from paying their fair share.
Click to expand...


Why is it regressive?  Sales tax does not apply to food products, medicine, etc.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the last dollar you earn any different from the first?
> 
> It's not.
> 
> And when you say "our wealth" do you meant the money that other people earned or the money you earned?
> 
> And FYI income is not wealth.  Net worth is wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could apply the higher rate to all income.
> 
> But instead we assume that the first dollar is spent on the most essential,  and the last on the most frivolous.  Some people don't even get out of the essential category while some just can't buy enough frivolity to spend the wealth that they have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean you and the rest of the kleptocrats assume that.  I, on the other hand, assume that each person decides for himself how important each dollar he spends is.
Click to expand...


Each dollar is only important to those with only a few.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were one of the Rich folks?  How could you not know about AMT tax? Hmm... starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> me also you? Are you drunk?  You are arguing the rich don't pay AMT.  Duh! Hello, McFly!!!  AMT
Click to expand...


No,  I'm, ''starting to think you were fibbing about that success story of yours.''


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT you want to raise taxes on the poor!!!!!!???? you greedy selfish con asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective assumption.
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> How many extra pairs of socks do you have? Extra boxers, jeans, T shirts.....? Tax those at a higher rate too.
> 
> If you have a car and buy a motorcycle the bike is way less important than your car so why not slap extra taxes on it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  For each income class have one rate.  Affordable for that class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning, soak them for as much as the government can get out of them.  That's the value system of thieves and armed robbers.
Click to expand...


Capitaliam says that everyone is entitled to the wealth that they create.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many wealthy are on welfare because of their ''soaking''?
> 
> There are many poor on welfare as a result of their ''soaking'' at the pay window.  Who benefits from that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employers don't "soak" anyone.  That term refers to a government policy of confiscating the income of people that aren't popular.  Only government can "soak" anyone because it requires the use of guns.
Click to expand...


Here's the Big Delusion sold on Fox news by employers.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When compensation gets fixed,  and when we stop rewarding having wealth over creating wealth,  all of these problems go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we reward "having wealth?"  What wealth do burger flippers produce that makes them worth any more than $7.00/hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source,  be rewarded by half tax rates  compared to working for it, and creating it?
> 
> Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?
Click to expand...


They both vote don't they?  They both live in the same country don't they?  They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they?  Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks flipping burgers at McDonalds should pay six figures and Managers, Executives, and Company owners should be paid the same amount.  And everyone will live happily ever after because we all earn the same amount.
Click to expand...


How come you can only talk about what I think?  Who speaks for what,  if anything,  you think?  

Me?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we reward "having wealth?"  What wealth do burger flippers produce that makes them worth any more than $7.00/hour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source,  be rewarded by half tax rates  compared to working for it, and creating it?
> 
> Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They both vote don't they?  They both live in the same country don't they?  They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they?  Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?
Click to expand...


He should be payed enough to pay his way.


----------



## RKMBrown

mamooth said:


> Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation.
> 
> Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.



Adam Smith wrote: 





> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"



IOW he was simply proposing rent tax would fall on the rich more so than the homeless poor, that does not mean he was proposing progressive income taxes.  He was proposing taxes of one kind of an equal % for all over taxes that hit the cost of food products.  Sales taxes that exempt food products does the same thing.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source,  be rewarded by half tax rates  compared to working for it, and creating it?
> 
> Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both vote don't they?  They both live in the same country don't they?  They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they?  Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He should be payed enough to pay his way.
Click to expand...


No he should be payed what he negotiated with his employer.  Why is it to hard for you to understand that people are responsible for themselves?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News says the we shouldn't have bailed out Detroit Auto.  That opinion seems to have no basis other than trying to drag popular opinion of our government to new lows.
> 
> In truth there is only one way to get the remaining way out of the valley of Bush. GDP.  Growth.  The business of business. That's what will pay the bills that his policies left in their wake.
> 
> Detroit Auto is part of that solution.
> 
> More 'news' from Fox. '' You advocate for crap like a living wage.''
> 
> How radical.  Pay people enough to live on so they don't need welfare.  Create jobs that put people into taxable income.  How are companies going to do that and pay executives as royalty?
> 
> ''Look at the mess we're already seeing with Obamacare.''
> 
> The mess?  System start up problems?  How many years of updates does a new windows or IOS take before they're running right?
> 
> Empowering consumers with competitive information? How radical is that?  Making insurance companies compete above board. Simply communistic.
> 
> The only thing that the present GOP has to offer is very well done propaganda.
> 
> They will either dump dixiecrats and end propaganda or go extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.
> 
> FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
Click to expand...


As labor is a commodity, yes, that's how it works. 

And no, your narrow minded option is not the only one. It is no one's responsibility but your own to ensure you have what you need to live on. THAT is the other option. People take responsibility for themselves and if they don't we allow them to suffer the consequences. Just the same way you said a business should be run.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks flipping burgers at McDonalds should pay six figures and Managers, Executives, and Company owners should be paid the same amount.  And everyone will live happily ever after because we all earn the same amount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come you can only talk about what I think?  Who speaks for what,  if anything,  you think?
> 
> Me?
Click to expand...


Is that you calling for a truce on this BS "republicans/conservatives all think" you have been spewing?


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways. You can't insist we stop crony capitalism and government doing favors for big business while saying the biggest favor of all was a good idea.
> 
> FOX news as nothing to do with the idea that a government mandated living wage is a bad idea. That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> Obamacare? Again another example of what poor problem solvers libs are. You want business to go back to doing business growing and being accountable to the customer. Look no further than Obamacare as to why government being in business doesn't work. Again the options are either you are Obama are stupid or is a liar. Because most people opposed to Obamacare saw this coming. Essentially we are lessening the cost of health care for a few at the expense of many. And if this were a business that you are so high on being about customer service, Sebelius would long since have been fired for this disastrous role out. That's why government solutions don't work. There's no accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As labor is a commodity, yes, that's how it works.
> 
> And no, your narrow minded option is not the only one. It is no one's responsibility but your own to ensure you have what you need to live on. THAT is the other option. People take responsibility for themselves and if they don't we allow them to suffer the consequences. Just the same way you said a business should be run.
Click to expand...


So,  in your mind all poverty stems from irresponsibility?  

I see no more evidence for that than the position that no poverty stems from it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks flipping burgers at McDonalds should pay six figures and Managers, Executives, and Company owners should be paid the same amount.  And everyone will live happily ever after because we all earn the same amount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come you can only talk about what I think?  Who speaks for what,  if anything,  you think?
> 
> Me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that you calling for a truce on this BS "republicans/conservatives all think" you have been spewing?
Click to expand...


Quid pro quo.


----------



## Spiderman

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most inconvenient truth for the American aristocracy is that they have been completely victorious. They have virtually all of the wealth.  What they don't have,  relatively speaking are crumbs,  floor sweepings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "they " have almost all the wealth yet "they" are not stopping you from increasing your net worth or wealth are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


So wtf are you whining about?


----------



## Spiderman

mamooth said:


> Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation.
> 
> Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.



So what?

And how does one become the founder of capitalism?  Was there no commerce trade or business before this guy was born?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both vote don't they?  They both live in the same country don't they?  They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they?  Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should be payed enough to pay his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he should be payed what he negotiated with his employer.  Why is it to hard for you to understand that people are responsible for themselves?
Click to expand...


Because there's no evidence that every man for himself works.  Thats been tried and abandoned.  It's an extremist position.  

I have been to Africa and seen tribalism first hand.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both vote don't they?  They both live in the same country don't they?  They both receive benefit from the money spent by the government on their behalf don't they?  Then why should the guy earning $7 be slapped in the face and told he's not good enough to pay his way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should be payed enough to pay his way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he should be payed what he negotiated with his employer.  Why is it to hard for you to understand that people are responsible for themselves?
Click to expand...


There's little difference between ''he should be payed what he negotiated with his employer'' and slavery.  That was the basis for slavery which worked only because the slave owners had all of the guns.  

In today's world those owning the means of production have all of the guns.  That's why they have all of the wealth, even though means without labor are worthless. 

It's about power,  not wealth.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fine with workers retaining a significant % of the wealth that they create.
> 
> What is dysfunctional is to ask the wealthy to divide up the wealth that workers create.
Click to expand...


It's OK with you if they retain a portion of their wealth?  I've never seen such an obviously Fascist point of view posted in this forum.

The workers get all the wealth they are entitled to.  The wealthy take nothing from anyone.  If you don't like the pay your employer has agreed to pay you, then go somewhere else.  You are insisting that you are entitled to hold a gun to someone's head for force them to give you what you think you are entitled to, not what they have agreed to give you.  That's what's at the bottom of all these discussions about a so-called "living wage."


----------



## bripat9643

Synthaholic said:


> I would take a stab at answering this OP's question, but I am aware that it is a waste of time, since the majority of people in this thread and on this site have no clue as to how the progressive tax system we have already actually works.
> 
> They actually think that your tax rate goes up on all of your income as your income goes up!
> 
> Until they actually know what they're talking about . . . well, I can't fix stupid.



No one thinks that, Nimrod.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When compensation gets fixed,  and when we stop rewarding having wealth over creating wealth,  all of these problems go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we reward "having wealth?"  What wealth do burger flippers produce that makes them worth any more than $7.00/hour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the mere fact of having wealth, from any source,  be rewarded by half tax rates  compared to working for it, and creating it? ?
Click to expand...


No one pays a tax simply for having money.  What you mean is why should capital gains tax be lower than income tax.  I would ask why capital gains are taxed at all since you've already been taxed on the money you invest.



PMZ said:


> [Why are you worried about the $7.00 guy compared to the $25,000 per hour guy?



I'm worried because morons like you are trying to use the $7.00 to allow the government to determine wage rates in this country.


----------



## bripat9643

mamooth said:


> Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation..



First, he isn't the "founder" of capitalism.  Second, what Adam Smith endorsed would be called extremely regressive by current commie-progressive turds like you.



mamooth said:


> Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.



Obviously, you don't know the slightest thing about Adam Smith.  All you know is what you read about him on ThinkProgress.com - utter bullshit propaganda, in other words.


----------



## francoHFW

Jeebus, poll, what ever happened to 45, 50 percent.... Seems obvious that when one group triples their wealth while everyone else and the country goes to hell, that group should pay more, ie the rich. AND SINCE THE TOP 1 PER CENT are doing even better than that, they should pay even more, just to be fair and pragmatic....so 45 per cent for top 1 per cent, 50 per cent for the top 0.1 per cent- with fewer loopholes...

CORPORATIONS ARE NOW PAYING AN EFFECTIVE 12 PER CENT, A DISGRACE. THEY USED TO PAY 35 PER CENT OF TAXES IN THE FIFTIES, NOW 10 PER CENT, SO DOUBLE THE EFFECTIVE RATE...

   NOW THAT THE RICH ARE PAYING LESS IN STATE AND LOCAL TAXES THAN THE REST, SINCE THOSE ENTITIES RAISED TAXES AND FEES TO MAKE UP FOR LOWER FEDERAL AID, MEASURE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO LOWER THE NONRICH'S SHARE. MANY FEES ARE OUT OF CONTROL...GD SHIFT KEY...


----------



## Gadawg73

My first child started school in 1991.
This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.


----------



## Gadawg73

Friend of mine is Queen Liberal that advocates $15 a hour as a "living wage" all the while she pays $10 a hour to her maid.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He should be payed enough to pay his way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he should be payed what he negotiated with his employer.  Why is it to hard for you to understand that people are responsible for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because there's no evidence that every man for himself works.  That&#8217;s been tried and abandoned.  It's an extremist position.
> 
> I have been to Africa and seen tribalism first hand.
Click to expand...


Huh?  How is personal responsibility equal to tribalism?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the "current situation" you refer to, paying people according to the market value of their skills?  I'm OK with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine with workers retaining a significant % of the wealth that they create.
> 
> What is dysfunctional is to ask the wealthy to divide up the wealth that workers create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's OK with you if they retain a portion of their wealth?  I've never seen such an obviously Fascist point of view posted in this forum.
> 
> The workers get all the wealth they are entitled to.  The wealthy take nothing from anyone.  If you don't like the pay your employer has agreed to pay you, then go somewhere else.  You are insisting that you are entitled to hold a gun to someone's head for force them to give you what you think you are entitled to, not what they have agreed to give you.  That's what's at the bottom of all these discussions about a so-called "living wage."
Click to expand...


I can picture you in 1860,  with a gun nested in your arms, giving that speech to slaves.  

''You get two meals a day.  You got a roof over your head,  some rags on your back.  Stop bitchin'. You don't have my responsibilities taking care of the big house! ''


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would take a stab at answering this OP's question, but I am aware that it is a waste of time, since the majority of people in this thread and on this site have no clue as to how the progressive tax system we have already actually works.
> 
> They actually think that your tax rate goes up on all of your income as your income goes up!
> 
> Until they actually know what they're talking about . . . well, I can't fix stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one thinks that, Nimrod.
Click to expand...


You speak for everyone now?  What an asshole.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.



My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it. 

My first lesson in liberal logic.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.



I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime.  Just like tax fraud.  Criminals should be held accountable.  

Wealth redistribution is a fact of life.  Capitalism up,  government down.  Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes. 

But it's not about money.  It's about power.  Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.  

We,  the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime.  Just like tax fraud.  Criminals should be held accountable.
> 
> Wealth redistribution is a fact of life.  Capitalism up,  government down.  Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes.
> 
> But it's not about money.  It's about power.  Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.
> 
> We,  the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.
Click to expand...


Here you go again making up stupid lies.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it.
> 
> My first lesson in liberal logic.
Click to expand...


My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.


----------



## Gadawg73

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime.  Just like tax fraud.  Criminals should be held accountable.
> 
> Wealth redistribution is a fact of life.  Capitalism up,  government down.  Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes.
> 
> But it's not about money.  It's about power.  Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.
> 
> We,  the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go again making up stupid lies.
Click to expand...


And PMZ believes we live in a democracy!


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it.
> 
> My first lesson in liberal logic.
Click to expand...


There is plenty of evidence among your posts that your performance was greatly enhanced only in your mind.  

The Viagra effect.


----------



## PMZ

janeeng said:


> Well, I will watch it Creek here and there.  My Brother John is a HUGE Vikings fan! Husband loves Giants, hahahaha, Jim of course with the steelers, and I happen to like the Cowboys! I think I have a pic of Jim in his Steelers shirt.



Zero evidence again!


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime.  Just like tax fraud.  Criminals should be held accountable.
> 
> Wealth redistribution is a fact of life.  Capitalism up,  government down.  Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes.
> 
> But it's not about money.  It's about power.  Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.
> 
> We,  the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.
Click to expand...


Dennis:  An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes-- 

Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.

Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?


----------



## PMZ

Above meant for Brown.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime.  Just like tax fraud.  Criminals should be held accountable.
> 
> Wealth redistribution is a fact of life.  Capitalism up,  government down.  Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes.
> 
> But it's not about money.  It's about power.  Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.
> 
> We,  the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again making up stupid lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And PMZ believes we live in a democracy!
Click to expand...


If you voted you'd know that I'm right.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go again making up stupid lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And PMZ believes we live in a democracy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you voted you'd know that I'm right.
Click to expand...


Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it.
> 
> My first lesson in liberal logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.
Click to expand...


Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it.
> 
> My first lesson in liberal logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is plenty of evidence among your posts that your performance was greatly enhanced only in your mind.
> 
> The Viagra effect.
Click to expand...


Sorry old man but I don't need and never have needed artificial stimulants to get it up. I was promoted at 18 to manager at that store even though I was only working part time to get my way through school.  I would generally work one day a week from 4am on Saturday to 2am the next day. I got paid overtime after 8hrs.  Good times.


----------



## dcraelin

Spiderman said:


> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....



taxing the last dollar more is a simpler way of doing just that 



bripat9643 said:


> How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business.  Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function.


The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government



bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't how compensation works. I've lost count how many liberals need explained to them an employer doesn't compensate you based on what you need. They compensate you based on your market value because labor is commodity like everything else, including health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the reason I'm not against taxing the rich more on their last dollars, as Republican Ike did at a rate of 91%.  Compensation is a function of supply and demand, for the rich as well as laborers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what does soaking the rich have to do with supply and demand?
Click to expand...


It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall. 



Spiderman said:


> As long as you realize that IKE taxed even the lowest brackets at a higher percentage than we do today and you're fine with it.



People were earning more (inflation adjusted) back then I believe, so no Im not ok with that part of it.



RKMBrown said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith, the founder of capitalism, endorsed progressive taxation.
> 
> Obviously, he was a dirty socialist. At least the kook right says so. Which just goes to show how off-the-rails the modern right is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW he was simply proposing rent tax would fall on the rich more so than the homeless poor, that does not mean he was proposing progressive income taxes.  He was proposing taxes of one kind of an equal % for all over taxes that hit the cost of food products.  Sales taxes that exempt food products does the same thing.
Click to expand...


you missed the last part of the smith quote, "not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion"


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it.
> 
> My first lesson in liberal logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.
Click to expand...


The predators are the Democrats plundering from the producers to give out to the expanding moocher class for votes.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first pay stub job back in 1978 was bagging groceries for 2.65.  I was happy to have the money and it was easier than cutting grass and keeping the mower going in the florida heat.  I got raises for effort, where the bad workers did not.  Then the people that did not earn raises got a raise and my boss told me he was sorry he could not give me another raise because he had to give that quarter's raise allotments to the workers that did not deserve it.
> 
> My first lesson in liberal logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.
Click to expand...


Adequate for those that have had the balls to suit it up and cross the lines.
Obviously that would not have included you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine with workers retaining a significant % of the wealth that they create.
> 
> What is dysfunctional is to ask the wealthy to divide up the wealth that workers create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's OK with you if they retain a portion of their wealth?  I've never seen such an obviously Fascist point of view posted in this forum.
> 
> The workers get all the wealth they are entitled to.  The wealthy take nothing from anyone.  If you don't like the pay your employer has agreed to pay you, then go somewhere else.  You are insisting that you are entitled to hold a gun to someone's head for force them to give you what you think you are entitled to, not what they have agreed to give you.  That's what's at the bottom of all these discussions about a so-called "living wage."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can picture you in 1860,  with a gun nested in your arms, giving that speech to slaves.
Click to expand...


I can picture you in 1933 wearing a brown shirt, jack boots and an armband with a swastika on it shouting "Heil Hitler!"

'





PMZ said:


> 'You get two meals a day.  You got a roof over your head,  some rags on your back.  Stop bitchin'. You don't have my responsibilities taking care of the big house! ''



You are pathetic.  Freedom of contract isn't the equivalent of slavery.  Apparently you believe black slaves gained nothing when the 13th Amendment passed.  Do you believe minimum wage is just as bad as getting flogged or having your foot amputated?  Apparently you do.

Despicable.

If you want to earn more than $7.00 an hour, no one is stopping you from gaining the skills you need to get more.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taxing the last dollar more is a simpler way of doing just that
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business.  Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall.
> 
> 
> 
> People were earning more (inflation adjusted) back then I believe, so no Im not ok with that part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW he was simply proposing rent tax would fall on the rich more so than the homeless poor, that does not mean he was proposing progressive income taxes.  He was proposing taxes of one kind of an equal % for all over taxes that hit the cost of food products.  Sales taxes that exempt food products does the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you missed the last part of the smith quote, "not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion"
Click to expand...


He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property.  Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property.  It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods.  Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taxing the last dollar more is a simpler way of doing just that
> 
> 
> The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall.
> 
> 
> 
> People were earning more (inflation adjusted) back then I believe, so no Im not ok with that part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Smith wrote:
> 
> IOW he was simply proposing rent tax would fall on the rich more so than the homeless poor, that does not mean he was proposing progressive income taxes.  He was proposing taxes of one kind of an equal % for all over taxes that hit the cost of food products.  Sales taxes that exempt food products does the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you missed the last part of the smith quote, "not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property.  Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property.  It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods.  Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.
Click to expand...


Ayup, funny how they missed that.  They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on.  But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive.  LOL  I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why not apply that to everything?
> 
> The first 2000 calories a day of food you buy are more important than the rest so why not tax the less important food?
> 
> Your second pair of shoes is less important than your first so tax those
> 
> Your second warm jacket is less important than your first.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taxing the last dollar more is a simpler way of doing just that
Click to expand...


Obviously the fact the he's trying to demonstrate why the logic of progressive taxation is stupid went right over your head as well.



dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How "important" a dollar I earn is none of the government's business.  Deciding how much of my money I get to keep is not a legitimate government function.
> 
> 
> 
> The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government
Click to expand...


So that means the government actually is the legal owner of every dollar my employer pays me?  

You aren't really that stupid, are you?

Government prints money because that allows government to debase the currency.  In other words, it allows government to steal your savings.  Private banks printed money prior to the government taking over the business.  That occurred because printing money makes it so easy to steal..



dcraelin said:


> [It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall.



It shows that you're an imbecile.  Apparently you believe a "windfall" is money that rightly belongs to the government.  You're nothing but a thug who wants to take what others have earned.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> taxing the last dollar more is a simpler way of doing just that
> 
> 
> The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall.
> 
> 
> 
> People were earning more (inflation adjusted) back then I believe, so no Im not ok with that part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> you missed the last part of the smith quote, "not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property.  Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property.  It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods.  Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayup, funny how they missed that.  They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on.  But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive.  LOL  I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.
Click to expand...


It's amazing that liberals can dress themselves in the morning, let alone solve simple math problems.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're now the global expert on how compensation works?
> 
> You're the one that wants it both ways.  You have to choose between paying all full time workers a living wage plus enough to get them on the tax roles or accept the current situation.  People aren't going to voluntarily die on the street to pay for your Rolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As labor is a commodity, yes, that's how it works.
> 
> And no, your narrow minded option is not the only one. It is no one's responsibility but your own to ensure you have what you need to live on. THAT is the other option. People take responsibility for themselves and if they don't we allow them to suffer the consequences. Just the same way you said a business should be run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  in your mind all poverty stems from irresponsibility?
> 
> I see no more evidence for that than the position that no poverty stems from it.
Click to expand...


No. The point is no one can obligate someone else to their own survival. Regardless of whether the conditions they're in are their own fault or not.


----------



## dcraelin

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property.  Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property.  It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods.  Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup, funny how they missed that.  They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on.  But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive.  LOL  I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.
Click to expand...


The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against  the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that. 



bripat9643 said:


> Obviously the fact the he's trying to demonstrate why the logic of progressive taxation is stupid went right over your head as well.



no it didnt, it just that his point didnt make any sense 



bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government creates money, its utility would be worthless without the government
> 
> 
> 
> So that means the government actually is the legal owner of every dollar my employer pays me?
Click to expand...


  every dollar?...no   Im just saying the utitilty of money is worthless without government....u people need to learn a little reading comprehension



bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [It shows that it isn't "soaking the rich" but taking a part of a windfall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows that you're an imbecile.  Apparently you believe a "windfall" is money that rightly belongs to the government.  You're nothing but a thug who wants to take what others have earned.
Click to expand...


Your resorting to name calling shows u are losing the argument. In a market economy, compensation is largely a result of Supply and Demand. The government maintains the conditions for that Market...polices it. Taxing a part of the windfall this creates for some is just a policy choice.


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property.  Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property.  It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods.  Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup, funny how they missed that.  They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on.  But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive.  LOL  I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against  the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you are having a problem understanding what he clearly said.  Not sure why you feel the need to inject modern terminology for progressive taxation into a document that is over 200years old and in which the term is not even there.

Proportion is a ratio which is a flat percentage, this proportion (flat percentage) is based on the amount of rent.  He based it on rent because he assumes the rich pay rent and the poor do not, or if they do the amount is significantly less based on their ability to pay more or less for more or less expensive properties.  Nothing in his statements even hints at a moving the rates up both in proportion to the amount of rent and also exponentially with the amount of income of the individual.  He merely selects rent for the tax based on the proportion of rich that pay rent vs the poor that don't. 

You are sooooo wrong it's not even funny but you seem to want to talk about it without name calling so ... will try.

As I already stated, he's basically continuing the theme of original Tea Party in explaining that we should not be taxing food.


----------



## zeke

RKMBrown said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup, funny how they missed that.  They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on.  But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive.  LOL  I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against  the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure why you are having a problem understanding what he clearly said.  Not sure why you feel the need to inject modern terminology for progressive taxation into a document that is over 200years old and in which the term is not even there.
> 
> *Proportion is a ratio which is a flat percentage, this proportion (flat percentage) is based on the amount of rent.  He based it on rent because he assumes the rich pay rent and the poor do not, or if they do the amount is significantly less based on their ability to pay more or less for more or less expensive properties.  Nothing in his statements even hints at a moving the rates up both in proportion to the amount of rent and also exponentially with the amount of income of the individual.  He merely selects rent for the tax based on the proportion of rich that pay rent vs the poor that don't.
> *
> You are sooooo wrong it's not even funny but you seem to want to talk about it without name calling so ... will try.
> 
> As I already stated, he's basically continuing the theme of original Tea Party in explaining that we should not be taxing food.
Click to expand...



WTF are you talking about? The rich pay rent and the poor do not. You got nothing worth saying or reading there dude. Gobbledygook. Please try again. LMAO.


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The previous sentences in the quote seem to indicate something different,...the quote certainly doesnt indicate "a straight percentage tax".....regardless it shows he was not against  the rich paying proportionately more than the common man. Not strictly an income tax but if you want to go to a progressive property tax instead I would agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are having a problem understanding what he clearly said.  Not sure why you feel the need to inject modern terminology for progressive taxation into a document that is over 200years old and in which the term is not even there.
> 
> *Proportion is a ratio which is a flat percentage, this proportion (flat percentage) is based on the amount of rent.  He based it on rent because he assumes the rich pay rent and the poor do not, or if they do the amount is significantly less based on their ability to pay more or less for more or less expensive properties.  Nothing in his statements even hints at a moving the rates up both in proportion to the amount of rent and also exponentially with the amount of income of the individual.  He merely selects rent for the tax based on the proportion of rich that pay rent vs the poor that don't.
> *
> You are sooooo wrong it's not even funny but you seem to want to talk about it without name calling so ... will try.
> 
> As I already stated, he's basically continuing the theme of original Tea Party in explaining that we should not be taxing food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? The rich pay rent and the poor do not. You got nothing worth saying or reading there dude. Gobbledygook. Please try again. LMAO.
Click to expand...


Are you mentally handicapped? We are talking about what Adam wrote douche bag.  Are you incapable of understanding a discussion about what someone else wrote without attributing what they wrote to the person discussing it?  Are you that retarded that you run out of a movie theater when someone in the movie says fire?  Or is it even worse, that you don't know the difference between 'I' and 'he'?  WTF?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first child started school in 1991.
> This is what we saw for 2 decades  as my youngest graduated high school 2011.
> Parents driving new SUVs qualifying for free school lunches.
> Parents that can work qualifying for social security disability and proud that they have received something for nothing with their handicapped car tags.
> Parents that I would see drinking pitchers of beer at the Mexican restaurant down the street registering for their kids to play for free in the rec leagues.
> Parents paying for the food with food stamps and paying cash for their Michelob Light, charcoal and Marlboro cartons of smokes.
> Section 8 housing filled with parents that have money for a boat.
> Redistribution of wealth has ruined this country and we need to redistribute work ethic.
> If you did not earn it you are not supposed to be given it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that everyone can agree that welfare abuse is a crime.  Just like tax fraud.  Criminals should be held accountable.
> 
> Wealth redistribution is a fact of life.  Capitalism up,  government down.  Capitalism has won lately to the point that half of the population doesn't even get paid enough to owe taxes.
> 
> But it's not about money.  It's about power.  Republicans want power to recreate the aristocracy that the American Revolution and Civil Wars were fought to end.
> 
> We,  the people won the wars to earn democracy, and we're going to win the war at democracies voting booths to keep what people died to give us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dennis:  An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
> 
> Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.
> 
> Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?
Click to expand...


You are slow.  Because it's a lie,  but that doesn't seem to bother you.  You must be a Republican.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And PMZ believes we live in a democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you voted you'd know that I'm right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.
Click to expand...


We are a Republic.  No monarch. 

On election days you don't vote for your choice for President,  a Senator,  and a House member? 

If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The predators are the Democrats plundering from the producers to give out to the expanding moocher class for votes.
Click to expand...


The Democrats mostly represent workers who create everyone's wealth.  

A great reality show would be CEOs in their factories trying to run them without workers.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first job in 1970 was $1.60 a hour pumping gas, washing windshields and "chek that uhl boy". Left that for an outdoor job my senior year in high school in between football and other sports seasons at a local farm baling hay, slopping hogs and such. $3 a hour for that job which was a lot in 1972. That is why I love rec sports for kids as they learn the lesson of hard work and discipline. And if you are ever able to get out there at the next level head on a swivel is what you better have. Life ain't fair 'tween the lines! Someone is going to blow you up given the chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adequate for those that have had the balls to suit it up and cross the lines.
> Obviously that would not have included you.
Click to expand...


Go back to the caves if you want. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from living like an animal except your gonads.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As labor is a commodity, yes, that's how it works.
> 
> And no, your narrow minded option is not the only one. It is no one's responsibility but your own to ensure you have what you need to live on. THAT is the other option. People take responsibility for themselves and if they don't we allow them to suffer the consequences. Just the same way you said a business should be run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  in your mind all poverty stems from irresponsibility?
> 
> I see no more evidence for that than the position that no poverty stems from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The point is no one can obligate someone else to their own survival. Regardless of whether the conditions they're in are their own fault or not.
Click to expand...


A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.  

In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.  

If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's talking about a straight percentage tax on rental property.  Rich people would pay it more because poor people don't own rental property.  It's no more "progressive" than a tax on luxury goods.  Smith never supported an income tax, period, let alone a progressive income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayup, funny how they missed that.  They see the word "proportion" and get a major hard-on.  But completely miss that it's flat by amount of rent and not progressive.  LOL  I don't think liberals actually went to math classes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing that liberals can dress themselves in the morning, let alone solve simple math problems.
Click to expand...


Of course conservatives can't without Fox.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's OK with you if they retain a portion of their wealth?  I've never seen such an obviously Fascist point of view posted in this forum.
> 
> The workers get all the wealth they are entitled to.  The wealthy take nothing from anyone.  If you don't like the pay your employer has agreed to pay you, then go somewhere else.  You are insisting that you are entitled to hold a gun to someone's head for force them to give you what you think you are entitled to, not what they have agreed to give you.  That's what's at the bottom of all these discussions about a so-called "living wage."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can picture you in 1860,  with a gun nested in your arms, giving that speech to slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can picture you in 1933 wearing a brown shirt, jack boots and an armband with a swastika on it shouting "Heil Hitler!"
> 
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'You get two meals a day.  You got a roof over your head,  some rags on your back.  Stop bitchin'. You don't have my responsibilities taking care of the big house! ''
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are pathetic.  Freedom of contract isn't the equivalent of slavery.  Apparently you believe black slaves gained nothing when the 13th Amendment passed.  Do you believe minimum wage is just as bad as getting flogged or having your foot amputated?  Apparently you do.
> 
> Despicable.
> 
> If you want to earn more than $7.00 an hour, no one is stopping you from gaining the skills you need to get more.
Click to expand...


Slave owners were obligated by their greed,  if nothing else,  to provide their slaves with survival.  Food,  housing,  clothing,  tools,  protection,  health care such as it was then. 

Employers today don't feel that obligation.


----------



## Synthaholic

RKMBrown said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> That's extremely regressive.  That hurts poor people, and the middle class.  It doesn't affect the wealthy at all, and keeps them from paying their fair share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it regressive?  Sales tax does not apply to food products, medicine, etc.
Click to expand...

Because the poor and middle-class spend a much higher proportion of their income on bought goods.

When you are making $750,000 and up, consumption taxes are chump change.  The wealthy would jump at that in a second.

The Estate Tax needs to be brought back in it's former form.  Loopholes that allow G.E. and Exxon to not only pay no taxes, but also get a tax rebate, are ridiculous.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I sued you for slander,  you would have to provide evidence, in court, that what you said was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No he wouldn't, bonehead.  You would have to prove that it was false.  Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm.  You know less about the law than you know about climate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the financial harm part.  The other part is,  once again,  only what you want to be true.
> 
> The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning.  It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have:  innocent until proven guilty.  It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime;  the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.

On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser.  Sounds consistent with liberalism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Bernie Madoff corporations should have been allowed to continue to operate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?
> 
> It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
Click to expand...


No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.  

It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.

If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis:  An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
> 
> Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.
> 
> Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are slow.  Because it's a lie,  but that doesn't seem to bother you.  You must be a Republican.
Click to expand...


When you come up with a view that isn't Marxist, get back to me.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you voted you'd know that I'm right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are a Republic.  No monarch.
> 
> On election days you don't vote for your choice for President,  a Senator,  and a House member?
> 
> If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.
Click to expand...


Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he wouldn't, bonehead.  You would have to prove that it was false.  Furthermore you would have to prove that it caused you actual financial harm.  You know less about the law than you know about climate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the financial harm part.  The other part is,  once again,  only what you want to be true.
> 
> The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning.  It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have:  innocent until proven guilty.  It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime;  the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.
> 
> On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser.  Sounds consistent with liberalism.
Click to expand...


His post is proof that he slandered me.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we're a republic, if you understood your vote, you'd know you didn't vote directly for a single National office or issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic.  No monarch.
> 
> On election days you don't vote for your choice for President,  a Senator,  and a House member?
> 
> If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
Click to expand...


I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated. 

A republic is a government without a monarch. 

Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions. 

You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged. 

Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis:  An' how'd they get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! We're living in a dictatorship. ..... A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
> 
> Yes, comrade, the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeois.
> 
> Why does the word "Marxist" bother you again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are slow.  Because it's a lie,  but that doesn't seem to bother you.  You must be a Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you come up with a view that isn't Marxist, get back to me.
Click to expand...


As I said,  lying is who you are.  Why would anyone get back to that?


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would that have been possible with him in jail and the money left distributed back to the people he swindled as happens in capitalism?
> 
> It's in fact your system that allows government and not consumers to pick winners by using money confiscated at the point of a gun to prop up losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
Click to expand...


Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.  
What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.  

The peak of ignorance.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The predators are the Democrats plundering from the producers to give out to the expanding moocher class for votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats mostly represent workers who create everyone's wealth.
> 
> A great reality show would be CEOs in their factories trying to run them without workers.
Click to expand...


They idea that the value of a product depends on the physical labor required to produce it is a purely Marxian conception.  Furthermore, it's dead wrong.

But you claim you aren't a communist.  That's strange when you believe all the exact same things that communists believe.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kill or be killed. The predators motto.  Adequate for cavemen and Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adequate for those that have had the balls to suit it up and cross the lines.
> Obviously that would not have included you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back to the caves if you want. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from living like an animal except your gonads.
Click to expand...


What's stopping you from moving to your socialist paradise in Cuba?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic.  No monarch.
> 
> On election days you don't vote for your choice for President,  a Senator,  and a House member?
> 
> If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a true statement, but there's more to it then that.  It's like saying a fish is a dog without fur.  True, but a dog without fur is not necessarily a fish.



PMZ said:


> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting.


Again, a true statement, but again, not specific enough.  A democracy is a direct vote, majority rules.  We don't even elect our President that way.  We have no national referendums.  Our republics may be democracies in ways, but our Federal government is in no way a democracy.  Did you know the term wasn't even used until the mid 20th century?



PMZ said:


> It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.


What does that mean?



PMZ said:


> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.


Right, I'm a free market libertarian who ... something Marxist, you can explain it later.



PMZ said:


> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.


Yes comrade, you mentioned the bourgeois is oppressing the proletariat.  I got it.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
Click to expand...


The government should hold him accountable for his crimes, the owners of the company should hold him accountable for his performance.

If it ain't Marxist, you don't even hear it, do you?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  in your mind all poverty stems from irresponsibility?
> 
> I see no more evidence for that than the position that no poverty stems from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The point is no one can obligate someone else to their own survival. Regardless of whether the conditions they're in are their own fault or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic.  No monarch.
> 
> On election days you don't vote for your choice for President,  a Senator,  and a House member?
> 
> If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
Click to expand...


We don't have a democracy in this country. Never have. It is not majority rule. This is a fundamental myth about our country that for whatever reason we can't shake. Our form of government is and always has been known as a democratic republic. Not a democracy.


----------



## zeke

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The point is no one can obligate someone else to their own survival. Regardless of whether the conditions they're in are their own fault or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. *Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on.* That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. *That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.*
Click to expand...




So you don't have a problem with those that make their "living" off of working the welfare system? I mean, if you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what they need to survive.

What does the employee of the company the isn't paying them enough to live on, what does that employee owe the company he works for? Nothing? Street runs both ways right?

I mean if a fast food worker messes up at the register, spits in the food, is rude to customers etc. they don't "owe" that company their best effort do they?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
Click to expand...


That's a laugher. Again which party legislates policies that absolve people of responsibility. Advocating a living wage is avoiding responsibility. Abortion on demand is avoiding responsibility. Protecting welfare is avoiding responsbility. All LIBERAL agendas.


----------



## Bern80

zeke said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. *Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on.* That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. *That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have a problem with those that make their "living" off of working the welfare system? I mean, if you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what they need to survive.
> 
> What does the employee of the company the isn't paying them enough to live on, what does that employee owe the company he works for? Nothing? Street runs both ways right?
> 
> I mean if a fast food worker messes up at the register, spits in the food, is rude to customers etc. they don't "owe" that company their best effort do they?
Click to expand...


The worker owes the company their labor in duties of the job description in exchange for the agreed upon wage and contract they sign, which I'm sure at McDonalds that does not include spitting in the food. 

Of course I have a problem with people making a living off welfare. They are doing exactly that. Obligating the tax payers to their living rather than their own skill.


----------



## dcraelin

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a democracy in this country. Never have. It is not majority rule. This is a fundamental myth about our country that for whatever reason we can't shake. Our form of government is and always has been known as a democratic republic. Not a democracy.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...cture-is-him-at-constitutional-convention.jpg


----------



## Gadawg73

zeke said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. *Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on.* That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. *That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have a problem with those that make their "living" off of working the welfare system? I mean, if you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what they need to survive.
> 
> What does the employee of the company the isn't paying them enough to live on, what does that employee owe the company he works for? Nothing? Street runs both ways right?
> 
> I mean if a fast food worker messes up at the register, spits in the food, is rude to customers etc. they don't "owe" that company their best effort do they?
Click to expand...


People are paid according to their skills and the demand for those skills. 
Something about the free market where one can go and obtain the skills they need to make more money.
Or sit and cry about how someone else has more than them.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's a true statement, but there's more to it then that.  It's like saying a fish is a dog without fur.  True, but a dog without fur is not necessarily a fish.
> 
> 
> Again, a true statement, but again, not specific enough.  A democracy is a direct vote, majority rules.  We don't even elect our President that way.  We have no national referendums.  Our republics may be democracies in ways, but our Federal government is in no way a democracy.  Did you know the term wasn't even used until the mid 20th century?
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, I'm a free market libertarian who ... something Marxist, you can explain it later.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes comrade, you mentioned the bourgeois is oppressing the proletariat.  I got it.
Click to expand...


You got the Fox propaganda down pat.  Everyone who thinks for themselves is a Marxist.  And loves Cuba.  

Robots are free. 

What makes you free?  The tyranny of minority rule. 

Wealth is the measure of capability.

Hate all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union workers,  in fact all workers,  non Christians,  immigrants legal and illegal,  all races but white,  the poor,  the middle class,  foreigners, women,  the educated,  the young and old and all government. 

Why?  They all steal your money. 

The only people you can trust are those that look,  think,  talk and smell like you. 

Creating wealth is for slaves.  Having wealth is aristocratic. 

You are entitled.  Let the others eat cake.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's a true statement, but there's more to it then that.  It's like saying a fish is a dog without fur.  True, but a dog without fur is not necessarily a fish.
> 
> 
> Again, a true statement, but again, not specific enough.  A democracy is a direct vote, majority rules.  We don't even elect our President that way.  We have no national referendums.  Our republics may be democracies in ways, but our Federal government is in no way a democracy.  Did you know the term wasn't even used until the mid 20th century?
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, I'm a free market libertarian who ... something Marxist, you can explain it later.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes comrade, you mentioned the bourgeois is oppressing the proletariat.  I got it.
Click to expand...


You don't ''get'' shit.


----------



## RKMBrown

Synthaholic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's extremely regressive.  That hurts poor people, and the middle class.  It doesn't affect the wealthy at all, and keeps them from paying their fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it regressive?  Sales tax does not apply to food products, medicine, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the poor and middle-class spend a much higher proportion of their income on bought goods.
> 
> When you are making $750,000 and up, consumption taxes are chump change.  The wealthy would jump at that in a second.
> 
> The Estate Tax needs to be brought back in it's former form.  Loopholes that allow G.E. and Exxon to not only pay no taxes, but also get a tax rebate, are ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Nah your are making that up.  Sales taxes are not regressive in any states that have sales tax.  They are not regressive because food, shelter, medicine, utilities and other basic necessities don't apply to sales tax in those states.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government should hold him accountable for his crimes, the owners of the company should hold him accountable for his performance.
> 
> If it ain't Marxist, you don't even hear it, do you?
Click to expand...


What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a true statement, but there's more to it then that.  It's like saying a fish is a dog without fur.  True, but a dog without fur is not necessarily a fish.
> 
> 
> Again, a true statement, but again, not specific enough.  A democracy is a direct vote, majority rules.  We don't even elect our President that way.  We have no national referendums.  Our republics may be democracies in ways, but our Federal government is in no way a democracy.  Did you know the term wasn't even used until the mid 20th century?
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> Right, I'm a free market libertarian who ... something Marxist, you can explain it later.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes comrade, you mentioned the bourgeois is oppressing the proletariat.  I got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got the Fox propaganda down pat.  Everyone who thinks for themselves is a Marxist.  And loves Cuba.
> 
> Robots are free.
> 
> What makes you free?  The tyranny of minority rule.
> 
> Wealth is the measure of capability.
> Hate all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union workers,  in fact all workers,  non Christians,  immigrants legal and illegal,  all races but white,  the poor,  the middle class,  foreigners, women,  the educated,  the young and old and all government.
> 
> Why?  They all steal your money.
> 
> The only people you can trust are those that look,  think,  talk and smell like you.
> 
> Creating wealth is for slaves.  Having wealth is aristocratic.
> 
> You are entitled.  Let the others eat cake.
Click to expand...

Tyranny of the minority rule.. what a blanking retard you are.  Yeah cause the majority should have the right to eat minorities.  What drugs are you on?


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The point is no one can obligate someone else to their own survival. Regardless of whether the conditions they're in are their own fault or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
Click to expand...


Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia? 

Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory. 

Good recital.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should hold him accountable for his crimes, the owners of the company should hold him accountable for his performance.
> 
> If it ain't Marxist, you don't even hear it, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
Click to expand...

You need to get to the Emergency room you are just babbling.  Probably about to have a stroke.  Workers work to earn income, normally they get paid for their work.  Owners hire people to work for them for a wage.  They pay for that wage using their own money and/or money they get from customers.


----------



## PMZ

I 





Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have a democracy in this country. Never have. It is not majority rule. This is a fundamental myth about our country that for whatever reason we can't shake. Our form of government is and always has been known as a democratic republic. Not a democracy.
Click to expand...


Look up the word democracy.  Look up the word republic.  Turn off the TV.  This ain't rocket science.

You're the biggest robot here.


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. *Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on.* That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. *That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have a problem with those that make their "living" off of working the welfare system? I mean, if you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what they need to survive.
> 
> What does the employee of the company the isn't paying them enough to live on, what does that employee owe the company he works for? Nothing? Street runs both ways right?
> 
> I mean if a fast food worker messes up at the register, spits in the food, is rude to customers etc. they don't "owe" that company their best effort do they?
Click to expand...


The Republican rule of thumb is that if you give your mind to them,  for washing,  you are freed from all responsibility and accountability.  

You and I might think that that produces zombies,  the living dead. 

Zombies feel that they are freed from the cares of life.  

They eat money I hear.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a laugher. Again which party legislates policies that absolve people of responsibility. Advocating a living wage is avoiding responsibility. Abortion on demand is avoiding responsibility. Protecting welfare is avoiding responsbility. All LIBERAL agendas.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that reciting propaganda resembles thinking?


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a democracy in this country. Never have. It is not majority rule. This is a fundamental myth about our country that for whatever reason we can't shake. Our form of government is and always has been known as a democratic republic. Not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/membe...cture-is-him-at-constitutional-convention.jpg
Click to expand...


The Founders creating a plutocracy,  a type of aristocracy, based on the models they knew from Europe. They had one good,  original idea.  They allowed their product to be amended.  By the people.  Democracy is our creation not theirs.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a laugher. Again which party legislates policies that absolve people of responsibility. Advocating a living wage is avoiding responsibility. Abortion on demand is avoiding responsibility. Protecting welfare is avoiding responsbility. All LIBERAL agendas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that reciting propaganda resembles thinking?
Click to expand...


And there he goes again... hands over his ears ... blah blah blah FOX FOX FOX propaganda propaganda propaganda, I'm not listening!!!  I'm not listening!!! I'm not listening!!!


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. *Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on.* That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. *That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't have a problem with those that make their "living" off of working the welfare system? I mean, if you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what they need to survive.
> 
> What does the employee of the company the isn't paying them enough to live on, what does that employee owe the company he works for? Nothing? Street runs both ways right?
> 
> I mean if a fast food worker messes up at the register, spits in the food, is rude to customers etc. they don't "owe" that company their best effort do they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are paid according to their skills and the demand for those skills.
> Something about the free market where one can go and obtain the skills they need to make more money.
> Or sit and cry about how someone else has more than them.
Click to expand...


Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.  

The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
Click to expand...


Personally I just thought it came from being a moral, responsible human being. You apparently don't think so. So explain to me why you or any other able bodied person, DO have the right to make someone else responsible for you having enough to live on.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a true statement, but there's more to it then that.  It's like saying a fish is a dog without fur.  True, but a dog without fur is not necessarily a fish.
> 
> 
> Again, a true statement, but again, not specific enough.  A democracy is a direct vote, majority rules.  We don't even elect our President that way.  We have no national referendums.  Our republics may be democracies in ways, but our Federal government is in no way a democracy.  Did you know the term wasn't even used until the mid 20th century?
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> 
> Right, I'm a free market libertarian who ... something Marxist, you can explain it later.
> 
> 
> Yes comrade, you mentioned the bourgeois is oppressing the proletariat.  I got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the Fox propaganda down pat.  Everyone who thinks for themselves is a Marxist.  And loves Cuba.
> 
> Robots are free.
> 
> What makes you free?  The tyranny of minority rule.
> 
> Wealth is the measure of capability.
> Hate all liberals,  Democrats,  government workers,  union workers,  in fact all workers,  non Christians,  immigrants legal and illegal,  all races but white,  the poor,  the middle class,  foreigners, women,  the educated,  the young and old and all government.
> 
> Why?  They all steal your money.
> 
> The only people you can trust are those that look,  think,  talk and smell like you.
> 
> Creating wealth is for slaves.  Having wealth is aristocratic.
> 
> You are entitled.  Let the others eat cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tyranny of the minority rule.. what a blanking retard you are.  Yeah cause the majority should have the right to eat minorities.  What drugs are you on?
Click to expand...


Tyranny is defined as minority rule.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> 
> So you don't have a problem with those that make their "living" off of working the welfare system? I mean, if you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what they need to survive.
> 
> What does the employee of the company the isn't paying them enough to live on, what does that employee owe the company he works for? Nothing? Street runs both ways right?
> 
> I mean if a fast food worker messes up at the register, spits in the food, is rude to customers etc. they don't "owe" that company their best effort do they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are paid according to their skills and the demand for those skills.
> Something about the free market where one can go and obtain the skills they need to make more money.
> Or sit and cry about how someone else has more than them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
Click to expand...


>>> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.  

Why don't you start a business and pay workers the maximum that you can up to and including selling everything you have and taking no salary whatsoever?

>>> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.

Where is the democrat party on this? When do they plan to set all executive salaries? Point me to one party plank of theirs that says how they will fix the Executive Oligopoly over Executive salaries.  They held all three branches of government and did nothing about it. NOTHING


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.



Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.  



PMZ said:


> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.



Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy. More proof that it is liberals who are anti-personal accountability. You would rather abdicate that responsibilty to government in the form of red tape and regulations as opposed to the consumers being vocal about a crooked CEO and/or not doing business with them. But you want your cake and be able to it too. You still want what he's selling, but don't like the money he's making doing it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should hold him accountable for his crimes, the owners of the company should hold him accountable for his performance.
> 
> If it ain't Marxist, you don't even hear it, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get to the Emergency room you are just babbling.  Probably about to have a stroke.  Workers work to earn income, normally they get paid for their work.  Owners hire people to work for them for a wage.  They pay for that wage using their own money and/or money they get from customers.
Click to expand...


The customers are the workers. 

Simple formula.  Charge the customers as much as possible,  pay the same people as workers as little as possible,  pocket the difference.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a laugher. Again which party legislates policies that absolve people of responsibility. Advocating a living wage is avoiding responsibility. Abortion on demand is avoiding responsibility. Protecting welfare is avoiding responsbility. All LIBERAL agendas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that reciting propaganda resembles thinking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there he goes again... hands over his ears ... blah blah blah FOX FOX FOX propaganda propaganda propaganda, I'm not listening!!!  I'm not listening!!! I'm not listening!!!
Click to expand...


Are you completely unfamiliar with thinking??????


----------



## RKMBrown

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy.
Click to expand...


Our government is supposed to break up monopolies, oligopolies, and ensure the markets are fair for the consumers.  In this case a great majority of corporations are set up such that the owners of the companies (stock holders) are not given authority to set executive salaries, nay, it is the Executives themselves that set their own salaries for the entire executive chain.. It's a bit odd and more than a small problem.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> You got the Fox propaganda down pat.


Yes, Fox, a conservative channel, it programming me to be a libertarian.  Clever bastards they are.  Most people would think conservatives if they were controlling someone would make them a conservative.  But you saw through their ruse, let's make them libertarian!

What a dumb ass.



PMZ said:


> What makes you free?  The tyranny of minority rule



My rule is a minority of one.  I believe that you and I should make our own choices over our own lives.  You believe that you should make both our choices over both our lives.  And I'm the one who supports tyranny.

Noted.  What a dumb ass.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get to the Emergency room you are just babbling.  Probably about to have a stroke.  Workers work to earn income, normally they get paid for their work.  Owners hire people to work for them for a wage.  They pay for that wage using their own money and/or money they get from customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The customers are the workers.
> 
> Simple formula.  Charge the customers as much as possible,  pay the same people as workers as little as possible,  pocket the difference.
Click to expand...

Does not work that way dufus.  Workers can move around from company to company shopping for higher pay, and they do.  Customers can shop around from company to company shopping for better deals, and they do.  

Clearly your world view is more than a little simplistic.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I just thought it came from being a moral, responsible human being. You apparently don't think so. So explain to me why you or any other able bodied person, DO have the right to make someone else responsible for you having enough to live on.
Click to expand...


Is your question,  as a moral,  responsible human being,  why do people live cooperatively and collaboratively?  

I was always taught that it's because we're moral,  responsible human beings,  and not monkeys.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?



When anyone else sells something, the buyer owns it.  If you buy a car from Ford, you own the car, Ford doesn't own it anymore.

Except with Marxists and labor.  As a business owner, I put everything on the line.  I take all the risk, if we go broke I lose all my money.  My employees get paid hell or high water.  If we go bust, they lose nothing except they have to get another job.

But you think that after I pay them to work for me, THEY still own what they produced.  Straight out of the Communist Manifesto.  Democrats are a Marxist party, but you stand out in that your arguments are even clearer in that they are right out of the words of Marx.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy. More proof that it is liberals who are anti-personal accountability. You would rather abdicate that responsibilty to government in the form of red tape and regulations as opposed to the consumers being vocal about a crooked CEO and/or not doing business with them. But you want your cake and be able to it too. You still want what he's selling, but don't like the money he's making doing it.
Click to expand...


I get it.  Accountability is the responsibility of the little people,  but the aristocracy is absolved of it. 

Gotcha.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that reciting propaganda resembles thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there he goes again... hands over his ears ... blah blah blah FOX FOX FOX propaganda propaganda propaganda, I'm not listening!!!  I'm not listening!!! I'm not listening!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you completely unfamiliar with thinking??????
Click to expand...


Your only repose to nearly every argument is to say everyone but you is an idiot that merely regurgitates propaganda.   You are the one that is incapable of independent thought.  The reason for this is your cognitive dissonance.  You panic each and every time.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Look up the word democracy.  Look up the word republic.  Turn off the TV.  This ain't rocket science.
> 
> You're the biggest robot here.



And yet you're the one who sits there with only partial knowledge of what words you are using mean and still you are too lazy to Google the full meaning.  Republic is not a monarchy, but it means more than more than just not a monarchy. Democracy involves voting, but it means more than just voting.  Seriously, what is wrong with you?  You should just write this conversation off as we already know you're a dim wit and learn the meaning so you don't look so stupid right off the bad in your next discussion on the topic.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are paid according to their skills and the demand for those skills.
> Something about the free market where one can go and obtain the skills they need to make more money.
> Or sit and cry about how someone else has more than them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> Why don't you start a business and pay workers the maximum that you can up to and including selling everything you have and taking no salary whatsoever?
> 
> >>> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Where is the democrat party on this? When do they plan to set all executive salaries? Point me to one party plank of theirs that says how they will fix the Executive Oligopoly over Executive salaries.  They held all three branches of government and did nothing about it. NOTHING
Click to expand...


Another good Republican recital. If you see a problem,  treat it exactly like you would dog shit.  Go around it. Avoid it at all costs.  Humans, except for the Fox Cult, are incapable of solving problems. And the Fox Cult are absolved from responsibility and accountability because they're aristocracy. 

Blame it on the people.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Tyranny is defined as minority rule.



Damn, if you're trying to make liberals look stupid, you're doing an excellent job, my man.  Continuing to make up word definitions when, hello, you have a browser.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get to the Emergency room you are just babbling.  Probably about to have a stroke.  Workers work to earn income, normally they get paid for their work.  Owners hire people to work for them for a wage.  They pay for that wage using their own money and/or money they get from customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The customers are the workers.
> 
> Simple formula.  Charge the customers as much as possible,  pay the same people as workers as little as possible,  pocket the difference.
Click to expand...


Liberals really should shut you up so you stop embarrassing them.

A customer is someone who PURCHASES products from a business.

Workers ARE PAID by the business.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our government is supposed to break up monopolies, oligopolies, and ensure the markets are fair for the consumers.  In this case a great majority of corporations are set up such that the owners of the companies (stock holders) are not given authority to set executive salaries, nay, it is the Executives themselves that set their own salaries for the entire executive chain.. It's a bit odd and more than a small problem.
Click to expand...


' the owners of the companies (stock holders)''

Have you really fallen for this myth?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> Why don't you start a business and pay workers the maximum that you can up to and including selling everything you have and taking no salary whatsoever?
> 
> >>> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Where is the democrat party on this? When do they plan to set all executive salaries? Point me to one party plank of theirs that says how they will fix the Executive Oligopoly over Executive salaries.  They held all three branches of government and did nothing about it. NOTHING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another good Republican recital. If you see a problem,  treat it exactly like you would dog shit.  Go around it. Avoid it at all costs.  Humans, except for the Fox Cult, are incapable of solving problems. And the Fox Cult are absolved from responsibility and accountability because they're aristocracy.
> 
> Blame it on the people.
Click to expand...


Why work for someone who does not want to pay you what you think you are worth? Oh I see, you are saying no one should own a business in this country, NO ONE, or if they do governments should tell them what they have to pay people.  So not only are you incapable of independent thought you need government to hold a gun to the head of owners and force them to pay you what you want just like you want government to put a gun to the head of the rich to force them to give you bonus checks based on the popular vote.  What a puny, weak minded, piece of shit you are.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny is defined as minority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, if you're trying to make liberals look stupid, you're doing an excellent job, my man.  Continuing to make up word definitions when, hello, you have a browser.
Click to expand...


The extreme of tyranny has always been a dictatorship.  Minority? 

More typically nowadays,  it's a ruling party.  Remember Communism?  Minority? 

Can you give us an example of an actual tyrannical government that's not minority rule? 

Thats why we're a democracy. Majority rule.  

Not rocket science.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to get to the Emergency room you are just babbling.  Probably about to have a stroke.  Workers work to earn income, normally they get paid for their work.  Owners hire people to work for them for a wage.  They pay for that wage using their own money and/or money they get from customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The customers are the workers.
> 
> Simple formula.  Charge the customers as much as possible,  pay the same people as workers as little as possible,  pocket the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals really should shut you up so you stop embarrassing them.
> 
> A customer is someone who PURCHASES products from a business.
> 
> Workers ARE PAID by the business.
Click to expand...


Right.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> Why don't you start a business and pay workers the maximum that you can up to and including selling everything you have and taking no salary whatsoever?
> 
> >>> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Where is the democrat party on this? When do they plan to set all executive salaries? Point me to one party plank of theirs that says how they will fix the Executive Oligopoly over Executive salaries.  They held all three branches of government and did nothing about it. NOTHING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good Republican recital. If you see a problem,  treat it exactly like you would dog shit.  Go around it. Avoid it at all costs.  Humans, except for the Fox Cult, are incapable of solving problems. And the Fox Cult are absolved from responsibility and accountability because they're aristocracy.
> 
> Blame it on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why work for someone who does not want to pay you what you think you are worth? Oh I see, you are saying no one should own a business in this country, NO ONE, or if they do governments should tell them what they have to pay people.  So not only are you incapable of independent thought you need government to hold a gun to the head of owners and force them to pay you what you want just like you want government to put a gun to the head of the rich to force them to give you bonus checks based on the popular vote.  What a puny, weak minded, piece of shit you are.
Click to expand...


Another great Republican propaganda recital completely devoid of original thought.  

Instead of thinking and speaking for yourself,  think and speak for all of the scapegoats that Fox told you about. 

You can make them exactly like Fox told you they were.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Can you give us an example of an actual tyrannical government that's not minority rule?



The Obama administration


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The customers are the workers.
> 
> Simple formula.  Charge the customers as much as possible,  pay the same people as workers as little as possible,  pocket the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals really should shut you up so you stop embarrassing them.
> 
> A customer is someone who PURCHASES products from a business.
> 
> Workers ARE PAID by the business.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.
Click to expand...


Can you clarify which part you didn't know?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our government is supposed to break up monopolies, oligopolies, and ensure the markets are fair for the consumers.  In this case a great majority of corporations are set up such that the owners of the companies (stock holders) are not given authority to set executive salaries, nay, it is the Executives themselves that set their own salaries for the entire executive chain.. It's a bit odd and more than a small problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ' the owners of the companies (stock holders)''
> 
> Have you really fallen for this myth?
Click to expand...

What myth?  That there are owners of companies? WTF is your problem ass hole?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our government is supposed to break up monopolies, oligopolies, and ensure the markets are fair for the consumers.  In this case a great majority of corporations are set up such that the owners of the companies (stock holders) are not given authority to set executive salaries, nay, it is the Executives themselves that set their own salaries for the entire executive chain.. It's a bit odd and more than a small problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ' the owners of the companies (stock holders)''
> 
> Have you really fallen for this myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What myth?  That there are owners of companies? WTF is your problem ass hole?
Click to expand...


The myth that people who gamble on equity prices are responsible owners of corporations.  

WTF is your problem ass hole?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals really should shut you up so you stop embarrassing them.
> 
> A customer is someone who PURCHASES products from a business.
> 
> Workers ARE PAID by the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you clarify which part you didn't know?
Click to expand...


What does ''right" mean to you?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ' the owners of the companies (stock holders)''
> 
> Have you really fallen for this myth?
> 
> 
> 
> What myth?  That there are owners of companies? WTF is your problem ass hole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The myth that people who gamble on equity prices are responsible owners of corporations.
> 
> WTF is your problem ass hole?
Click to expand...


It's none of your blanking business whether owners are responsible with their property or not, it's their blanking property not yours you communist piece of shit.


----------



## Ame®icano

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.
> 
> The issue has nothing to do with a &#8216;fair share &#8216; or some &#8216;specific number.&#8217;
> 
> The issue concerns the fallacy of &#8216;trickle-down economics,&#8217; where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, what a load of crap...

The Bush tax cuts reduced the then 39.6 percent rate to 35 percent, the 36 percent rate to 33 percent, the 31 percent rate to 28 percent, and the 28 percent rate to 25 percent. It created a new 10 percent bracket, and there was no change to the 15 percent rate. The last years fiscal cliff deal retained all those rates except the top rate, which it allowed to rise back to 39.6 percent.

Beside change in tax rates, Bush tax cuts included some other policy changes:
Doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000
Reduced the marriage penalty by doubling the standard deduction for married filers compared to single filers and doubling the income threshold for the 15 percent bracket for married filers compared to single filers
Increased the earned income tax credit (EITC)
Raised the annual contribution limit for Coverdell education savings accounts to $2,000 per year and relaxed other limitations
Extended the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance
Eliminated the 60-month rule and the disallowance for voluntary payments for the student loan deduction
Eliminated tax on certain scholarships
Reduced taxes on bonds for school construction
Increased the dependent care tax credit
Increased the adoption credit
Provided credit for employer-provided child care
Changed tax treatment of Alaska Native Settlement Trusts.

Reminder: The fiscal cliff deal made each of these policies permanent.

So explain again, how exactly taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners???


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us an example of an actual tyrannical government that's not minority rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration
Click to expand...


You're calling the President of America,  the most successful Constitutional Democratic Republic the world has ever known,  tyrannical,  because you aren't getting your way? 

I looked it up with Google,  and found that that makes you an asshole just like your friend.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us an example of an actual tyrannical government that's not minority rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration
Click to expand...


I hesitate to call Obamunism "tyranny." While the Obamunists are authoritarian and show utter contempt for the Constitution, they have not attempted dissolved congress, blockaded the Supreme Court, or ordered the arrest or the Chief Justice - all of which Abraham Lincoln did. I see that the Obamunists are on the ROAD to tyranny, and that it is they end game; but we ain't there yet - and with perseverance, never will be.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What myth?  That there are owners of companies? WTF is your problem ass hole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth that people who gamble on equity prices are responsible owners of corporations.
> 
> WTF is your problem ass hole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your blanking business whether owners are responsible with their property or not, it's their blanking property not yours you communist piece of shit.
Click to expand...


More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem. 

When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.  

The future will not be denied.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem.



Comrade, your master claims that Republicans are rich and greedy, that they do not give the proletarians there "fair share."

Yet here you are aping the words that your master puts in your mouth that "everything they touch turns to shit." Can comrade Soros explain the contradiction of these claims? 







If Republicans have all the money and hoard it in basements where they swim in gold coins, then does this not mean they are successful and that what they touch turns to gold?



> When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.



What about you communists who try and pull us back to 1917 and the gulags of the Stalinist state?



> The future will not be denied.



Good thing - since you communists are a relic of an evil past.


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give us an example of an actual tyrannical government that's not minority rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hesitate to call Obamunism "tyranny." While the Obamunists are authoritarian and show utter contempt for the Constitution, they have not attempted dissolved congress, blockaded the Supreme Court, or ordered the arrest or the Chief Justice - all of which Abraham Lincoln did. I see that the Obamunists are on the ROAD to tyranny, and that it is they end game; but we ain't there yet - and with perseverance, never will be.
Click to expand...


They trample on our Constitutional rights

The GOP majority in the House was blown away and stripped of it's Constitutional power to have a say in the budget because of a PR lynching orchestrated by the Democratic party and carried out by the liberal media.

John Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote to uphold Obamacare by knowing he would be vilified for the rest of his career if the Supreme Court struck it down.

Obama just decrees that he won't enforce immigration laws, his friends are exempt from his laws, whether energy companies can drill or not off our shores.

The Democratic party is a juggernaut that is through destruction of anyone who stands in their way seizing control of health care, financial services, energy and is burying the rest with mandates and regulations.

And that is me as a citizen.  As a business owner, the Federal government is even more belligerent and despotic than it's ever been.  And they don't use Vaseline.

If that's not tyranny to you, what would it take?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify which part you didn't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does ''right" mean to you?
Click to expand...


Sorry, my bad.  You never admitted you were wrong before, so I took it as sarcasm.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you clarify which part you didn't know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does ''right" mean to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.  You never admitted you were wrong before, so I took it as sarcasm.
Click to expand...


What was I wrong about?  

Workers and customers are what both you and I said the were but the two groups are mostly the same people. 

The one good idea that Henry Ford had was the realization that the people who built Fords were the same people who bought them. He went against all capitalist advice and started paying them $5 a day and sales skyrocketed making him wealthy. 

Real evidence showing that the oversimplified,  black and white capitalist platitudes recited here are nothing more than that.  

Business brainwashing.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I just thought it came from being a moral, responsible human being. You apparently don't think so. So explain to me why you or any other able bodied person, DO have the right to make someone else responsible for you having enough to live on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is your question,  as a moral,  responsible human being,  why do people live cooperatively and collaboratively?
> 
> I was always taught that it's because we're moral,  responsible human beings,  and not monkeys.
Click to expand...


No. The question is, why is it you think you have the right to make someone else responsible for you having a enough to live on?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to call Obamunism "tyranny." While the Obamunists are authoritarian and show utter contempt for the Constitution, they have not attempted dissolved congress, blockaded the Supreme Court, or ordered the arrest or the Chief Justice - all of which Abraham Lincoln did. I see that the Obamunists are on the ROAD to tyranny, and that it is they end game; but we ain't there yet - and with perseverance, never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They trample on our Constitutional rights
> 
> The GOP majority in the House was blown away and stripped of it's Constitutional power to have a say in the budget because of a PR lynching orchestrated by the Democratic party and carried out by the liberal media.
> 
> John Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote to uphold Obamacare by knowing he would be vilified for the rest of his career if the Supreme Court struck it down.
> 
> Obama just decrees that he won't enforce immigration laws, his friends are exempt from his laws, whether energy companies can drill or not off our shores.
> 
> The Democratic party is a juggernaut that is through destruction of anyone who stands in their way seizing control of health care, financial services, energy and is burying the rest with mandates and regulations.
> 
> And that is me as a citizen.  As a business owner, the Federal government is even more belligerent and despotic than it's ever been.  And they don't use Vaseline.
> 
> If that's not tyranny to you, what would it take?
Click to expand...


What's tyrannical are plutocracy and aristocracy. 

If a majority of Americans agreed with you, Obama would be gone.  What you are trying to do is to impose your minority misinformation on the majority. Thats tyranny. 

That's why democracy is propaganda proof.  There is typically not a majority of suckers.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade, your master claims that Republicans are rich and greedy, that they do not give the proletarians there "fair share."
> 
> Yet here you are aping the words that your master puts in your mouth that "everything they touch turns to shit." Can comrade Soros explain the contradiction of these claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Republicans have all the money and hoard it in basements where they swim in gold coins, then does this not mean they are successful and that what they touch turns to gold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about you communists who try and pull us back to 1917 and the gulags of the Stalinist state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The future will not be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing - since you communists are a relic of an evil past.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a Hitler speech.  Was it?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to call Obamunism "tyranny." While the Obamunists are authoritarian and show utter contempt for the Constitution, they have not attempted dissolved congress, blockaded the Supreme Court, or ordered the arrest or the Chief Justice - all of which Abraham Lincoln did. I see that the Obamunists are on the ROAD to tyranny, and that it is they end game; but we ain't there yet - and with perseverance, never will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They trample on our Constitutional rights
> 
> The GOP majority in the House was blown away and stripped of it's Constitutional power to have a say in the budget because of a PR lynching orchestrated by the Democratic party and carried out by the liberal media.
> 
> John Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote to uphold Obamacare by knowing he would be vilified for the rest of his career if the Supreme Court struck it down.
> 
> Obama just decrees that he won't enforce immigration laws, his friends are exempt from his laws, whether energy companies can drill or not off our shores.
> 
> The Democratic party is a juggernaut that is through destruction of anyone who stands in their way seizing control of health care, financial services, energy and is burying the rest with mandates and regulations.
> 
> And that is me as a citizen.  As a business owner, the Federal government is even more belligerent and despotic than it's ever been.  And they don't use Vaseline.
> 
> If that's not tyranny to you, what would it take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's tyrannical are plutocracy and aristocracy.
> 
> If a majority of Americans agreed with you, Obama would be gone.  What you are trying to do is to impose your minority misinformation on the majority. Thats tyranny.
> 
> That's why democracy is propaganda proof.  There is typically not a majority of suckers.
Click to expand...


I'm imposing zero on you.  I'm requiring you to do nothing.  You believe that my resisting you imposing your will on me is imposing my will on you.  Typical Bolshevik rhetoric.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does ''right" mean to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.  You never admitted you were wrong before, so I took it as sarcasm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was I wrong about?
> 
> Workers and customers are what both you and I said the were but the two groups are mostly the same people.
> 
> The one good idea that Henry Ford had was the realization that the people who built Fords were the same people who bought them. He went against all capitalist advice and started paying them $5 a day and sales skyrocketed making him wealthy.
> 
> Real evidence showing that the oversimplified,  black and white capitalist platitudes recited here are nothing more than that.
> 
> Business brainwashing.
Click to expand...


Business owners pay workers, yet the workers still own what they produce, we don't.  But if government pays workers, government owns what they produce because government is the people.  I'd say you can't make this shit up, and you can't because Marx already did.

And "I" am the one who's brainwashed.  This is your 15 minutes of fame, but you're getting tired.  We both like Marx, but I like Groucho and you like Karl.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I just thought it came from being a moral, responsible human being. You apparently don't think so. So explain to me why you or any other able bodied person, DO have the right to make someone else responsible for you having enough to live on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your question,  as a moral,  responsible human being,  why do people live cooperatively and collaboratively?
> 
> I was always taught that it's because we're moral,  responsible human beings,  and not monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The question is, why is it you think you have the right to make someone else responsible for you having a enough to live on?
Click to expand...


Because humanity solves problems.  Not merely and meekly accepts them. 

And the human experience has shown that solving problems requires cooperation,  collaboration,  education, responsibility and accountability.


----------



## dcraelin

let me try this again, 

in regard to Republic and Democracy


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your question,  as a moral,  responsible human being,  why do people live cooperatively and collaboratively?
> 
> I was always taught that it's because we're moral,  responsible human beings,  and not monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question is, why is it you think you have the right to make someone else responsible for you having a enough to live on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because humanity solves problems.  Not merely and meekly accepts them.
> 
> And the human experience has shown that solving problems requires cooperation,  collaboration,  education, responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...


Ayup, and democrats never cooperate on anything except theft,  only collaborate only with like minded people,  only believe in a backwards education, take absolutely no responsibility for anything, and never ever take accountability into account except to shift it onto others.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The myth that people who gamble on equity prices are responsible owners of corporations.
> 
> WTF is your problem ass hole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's none of your blanking business whether owners are responsible with their property or not, it's their blanking property not yours you communist piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem.
> 
> When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.
> 
> The future will not be denied.
Click to expand...


You are a liar.  Just more troll dung.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, my bad.  You never admitted you were wrong before, so I took it as sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was I wrong about?
> 
> Workers and customers are what both you and I said the were but the two groups are mostly the same people.
> 
> The one good idea that Henry Ford had was the realization that the people who built Fords were the same people who bought them. He went against all capitalist advice and started paying them $5 a day and sales skyrocketed making him wealthy.
> 
> Real evidence showing that the oversimplified,  black and white capitalist platitudes recited here are nothing more than that.
> 
> Business brainwashing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business owners pay workers, yet the workers still own what they produce, we don't.  But if government pays workers, government owns what they produce because government is the people.  I'd say you can't make this shit up, and you can't because Marx already did.
> 
> And "I" am the one who's brainwashed.  This is your 15 minutes of fame, but you're getting tired.  We both like Marx, but I like Groucho and you like Karl.
Click to expand...


The group that you label ''owners'', Adolf,  own the means of production,  which,  by themselves are worthless. 

A corporation is an organization of workers that uses means to create wealth by their work,  and to distribute and sell the wealth that they create to other people just like themselves.  In fact, often, actually themselves.  That's called a virtuous cycle.  Everybody benefits. 

If their goods and services are superior,  and create higher demand than can be supplied,  the corporation and everybody in it should prosper.  If not,  as they say,  everybody goes back to the drawing boards for another try. 

When there are many such corporations being successful,  and sharing the consequences of that success among the people who created it,  the whole economy benefits.  More workers,  higher pay,  more consumption. 

Let's say that there's a corporation with a superior product but a tyrannical organization that funnels the success to the owner of the means,  instead of the creators of the value.  There is no virtuous cycle.  The economy does not benefit. 

The reason why liberalism results in growth and conservatism results in shrinkage.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's none of your blanking business whether owners are responsible with their property or not, it's their blanking property not yours you communist piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem.
> 
> When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.
> 
> The future will not be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Just more troll dung.
Click to expand...


And you are an idiot with a profound aversion to thinking and a thugs instinct for demeaning everybody who's not you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question is, why is it you think you have the right to make someone else responsible for you having a enough to live on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because humanity solves problems.  Not merely and meekly accepts them.
> 
> And the human experience has shown that solving problems requires cooperation,  collaboration,  education, responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayup, and democrats never cooperate on anything except theft,  only collaborate only with like minded people,  only believe in a backwards education, take absolutely no responsibility for anything, and never ever take accountability into account except to shift it onto others.
Click to expand...


Breaking "news" from Fox.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem.
> 
> When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.
> 
> The future will not be denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Just more troll dung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are an idiot with a profound aversion to thinking and a thugs instinct for demeaning everybody who's not you.
Click to expand...


You are the common criminal that wants to steal the assets of business owners for your own ill-gotten gains you piece of shit.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy



See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.  

But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product. 

We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone. 

Is this a news to you?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Just more troll dung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are an idiot with a profound aversion to thinking and a thugs instinct for demeaning everybody who's not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the common criminal that wants to steal the assets of business owners for your own ill-gotten gains you piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Criminal?  What laws have I broken?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government should hold him accountable for his crimes, the owners of the company should hold him accountable for his performance.
> 
> If it ain't Marxist, you don't even hear it, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
Click to expand...


Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
Click to expand...


It's basic logic.  Explain how the mere fact of your birth imposes any obligations on me.


----------



## Ame®icano

Billo_Really said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't pay 31%....There is no 31% bracket.
> Now, you expect all forms of income to be taxed at the same rate? That's ludicrous.
> That money was taxed at the higher rate when it was earned. Are you implying that the federal government should get a second FULL bite at the apple just because someone decided to invest in a company through its stock offering? A company that without the investments of others that could not create the jobs that the investment capital provided?
> And let's discuss all the people that have 401k's and those union workers who's pension funds are all invested in those very same firms?
> Should the pensioner's allowance after he or she retires be taxed at the full rate as regular income? The 401k investor? The IRA saver?
> Are you so pissed off at anyone who made some additional income for their future or to pay for a new home or a swimming pool, or to just live more comfortably, that you would rather see government tax the shit out of them and remove all incentive to save or invest?
> IS that the kind of world in which you wish to live?
> Damn the people! Give all the cash to the government, right genius?
> Have you ever asked your parents( assuming they are still alive) or grandparents if they ever invested in GM or Coca Cola? If so, would you walk up to them and say, "I pay 31% and don't want some piece of shit like you paying 15% on capital gains and dividends."?....
> Are you are  now boiling mad as you shoot back with " that's different. They worked hard for their money!!"...? How would that be any different? Go ahead and try to explain that one.
> Now you can curse like a drunken sailor at me.
> Meanwhile your premise of full double taxation goes nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 31% of my last paycheck was deducted from the gross.
> 
> Since I have no medical, it was all government related deductions.
Click to expand...


And how much of that was FICA?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.
> 
> But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product.
> 
> We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone.
> 
> Is this a news to you?
Click to expand...


You just proved you don't know what an aristocracy is.  Under British rule, the aristocracy was governed by a different set of laws than the common folk.  The Founders setup a government where everyone was subject to the same laws.  They abolished the aristocracy.  They didn't create one.

Your definition of "aristocracy" is any country were some people earn more than others.  That's all it is.


----------



## Ame®icano

Billo_Really said:


> AmazonTania said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would actually depend on the definition of 'income' and by definition, I mean Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15% and should be taxed at 25%.
> 
> In addition, they make up the lions share of annual income for the over $250K crowd.
Click to expand...


It would be nice if you would explain what the "lions share" is.


----------



## Ame®icano

Uncensored2008 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to a fine restaurant.
> 
> The meal for my wife and I cost 10% of my wages for the week.
> 
> The man at the third table down drove a Bentley. If his meal was $300 as mine was, he was only paying 2% of his weekly wage.
> 
> So should the restaurant be required to charge a percentage of income, rather than a price for the meal, just to be fair?
> *
> Trickle through stupidity* is the basis of the left.
Click to expand...


No, restaurant sells the product to those who can pay for it. If it hurts your wallet (or ego) to eat there, don't eat there. Or earn more...


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> A corporation is an organization of workers that uses means to create wealth by their work,  and to distribute and sell the wealth that they create to other people just like themselves.  In fact, often, actually themselves.  That's called a virtuous cycle.  Everybody benefits.
> 
> If their goods and services are superior,  and create higher demand than can be supplied,  the corporation and everybody in it should prosper.  If not,  as they say,  everybody goes back to the drawing boards for another try.
> 
> When there are many such corporations being successful,  and sharing the consequences of that success among the people who created it,  the whole economy benefits.  More workers,  higher pay,  more consumption.
> 
> Let's say that there's a corporation with a superior product but a tyrannical organization that funnels the success to the owner of the means,  instead of the creators of the value.  There is no virtuous cycle.  The economy does not benefit.
> 
> The reason why liberalism results in growth and conservatism results in shrinkage.



Wow, that's amazing business analysis.  I wish you'd been one of my professors when I got my MBA at Michigan.  Having spent my career in management, management consulting and owning my own businesses and making a lot of money for my clients and myself doing it, things could have turned out really differently for me if I'd known this.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A corporation is an organization of workers that uses means to create wealth by their work,  and to distribute and sell the wealth that they create to other people just like themselves.  In fact, often, actually themselves.  That's called a virtuous cycle.  Everybody benefits.
> 
> If their goods and services are superior,  and create higher demand than can be supplied,  the corporation and everybody in it should prosper.  If not,  as they say,  everybody goes back to the drawing boards for another try.
> 
> When there are many such corporations being successful,  and sharing the consequences of that success among the people who created it,  the whole economy benefits.  More workers,  higher pay,  more consumption.
> 
> Let's say that there's a corporation with a superior product but a tyrannical organization that funnels the success to the owner of the means,  instead of the creators of the value.  There is no virtuous cycle.  The economy does not benefit.
> 
> The reason why liberalism results in growth and conservatism results in shrinkage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's amazing business analysis.  I wish you'd been one of my professors when I got my MBA at Michigan.  Having spent my career in management, management consulting and owning my own businesses and making a lot of money for my clients and myself doing it, things could have turned out really differently for me if I'd known this.
Click to expand...


Success to the lion is different than for his prey.  

You apparently believe that making money is a sign of success. I don't. 

There were many business consultants who got wealthy selling the idea to executives that they had a right to most of the wealth that the workers in their businesses created (tough sell,  right?). And the means of that harvest was to send the jobs of those wealth creators overseas. 

Massive executive bonuses,  creating high unemployment. The Great Recession. 

But if you got wealthy,  it's all good,  right?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.
> 
> But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product.
> 
> We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone.
> 
> Is this a news to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved you don't know what an aristocracy is.  Under British rule, the aristocracy was governed by a different set of laws than the common folk.  The Founders setup a government where everyone was subject to the same laws.  They abolished the aristocracy.  They didn't create one.
> 
> Your definition of "aristocracy" is any country were some people earn more than others.  That's all it is.
Click to expand...


Aristocracy is government by those who think themselves superior.  That's what the founders then,  and conservatives today,  believe in.  

Democracy is the biggest obstacle to conservative success in recreating what the founders wanted and we the people changed.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's basic logic.  Explain how the mere fact of your birth imposes any obligations on me.
Click to expand...


"Basic logic" is like 'common' sense and 'they say' and 'supposed to'. 

An explanation for the inexplicable that makes what you want or believe acceptable to others. 

Some people fall for it regularly.  Me,  never.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Sounds like a Hitler speech.  Was it?



What's sad comrade, is this really is the best you can do. Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest....

Still, you ducked the central premise;

Comrade, your master claims that Republicans are rich and greedy, that they do not give the proletarians there "fair share."

Yet here you are aping the words that your master puts in your mouth that "everything they touch turns to shit." Can comrade Soros explain the contradiction of these claims? 

JakeStarkey is a leftist who pretends to be conservative for the purpose of demeaning conservatism. Are you actually a con who seeks to make the leftists look bad through your little troll act?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should hold him accountable for his crimes, the owners of the company should hold him accountable for his performance.
> 
> If it ain't Marxist, you don't even hear it, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.
Click to expand...


As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dcraelin said:


> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy



IF he said that, which I highly doubt, he was a complete moron.

Distinguish between "monarchy" and "aristocracy" as forms of government? This is idiocy, since both are in fact classes of the governmental system known as "feudalism."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's basic logic.  Explain how the mere fact of your birth imposes any obligations on me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Basic logic" is like 'common' sense and 'they say' and 'supposed to'.
> 
> An explanation for the inexplicable that makes what you want or believe acceptable to others.
> 
> Some people fall for it regularly.  Me,  never.
Click to expand...


I deliberately avoided using the term "common sense" because what the common people believe is so often dead wrong.

You avoided answering the question:  How does the mere fact of your birth impose any obligations on me?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ame®icano;8067569 said:
			
		

> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the bullshit tax rate says on paper. The effective tax rate is the problem. The middle class pays the largest percent of their income in taxes. The rich pay lower effective tax rates and are therefore subsidized by the middle class. If you post something stupid like the rich pay the majority of this countries tax then you are clearly to retarded to understand tax subsidies & how they unleveled the playing field. Payroll taxes only penalize the middle class. Business fire the over taxed middle class US workers to maximize profit by hiring lower taxed labor in other countries. The rich do not pay payroll taxes above $100k. They also only pay the cut rate dividend income rate & not full tax earned income tax rate. Total effective tax rate must be the same top to bottom or the tax code is redistributing wealth to the rich. Because all money & investment flows to where it is taxed less & treated the best. That is why the rich have all the money & pay the most tax, but lower effective tax rate. Trickle up economics is what we have here in the USA. That shit needs to end A.S.A.P.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to a fine restaurant.
> 
> The meal for my wife and I cost 10% of my wages for the week.
> 
> The man at the third table down drove a Bentley. If his meal was $300 as mine was, he was only paying 2% of his weekly wage.
> 
> So should the restaurant be required to charge a percentage of income, rather than a price for the meal, just to be fair?
> *
> Trickle through stupidity* is the basis of the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, restaurant sells the product to those who can pay for it. If it hurts your wallet (or ego) to eat there, don't eat there. Or earn more...
Click to expand...


One suspects that you may have missed the point...


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Success to the lion is different than for his prey.
> 
> You apparently believe that making money is a sign of success. I don't.
> 
> There were many business consultants who got wealthy selling the idea to executives that they had a right to most of the wealth that the workers in their businesses created (tough sell,  right?). And the means of that harvest was to send the jobs of those wealth creators overseas.
> 
> Massive executive bonuses,  creating high unemployment. The Great Recession.
> 
> But if you got wealthy,  it's all good,  right?



This is the basic lie of Marxism about business.  Actually you make money by focusing on your customers, not ignoring them.  No business is successful following your shallow caricature of business and no management consultant is successful telling them to focus on themselves and ignore their customers.  Businesses are designed around our customer requirements, not in spit of them.  I live it every day.  You mime Marxist dogma which has been translated for your into modern prose by Democrats.  What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that doctors prescribe leeches.  You're a tool


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.
> 
> But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product.
> 
> We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you don't know what an aristocracy is.  Under British rule, the aristocracy was governed by a different set of laws than the common folk.  The Founders setup a government where everyone was subject to the same laws.  They abolished the aristocracy.  They didn't create one.
> 
> Your definition of "aristocracy" is any country were some people earn more than others.  That's all it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aristocracy is government by those who think themselves superior.
Click to expand...


Wrong, nimrod.  All politicians think they are superior, so that characteristic doesn't distinguish aristocracy from any other form of government.  The explanation I gave is correct.



PMZ said:


> That's what the founders then,  and conservatives today,  believe in.



Liberals believe it more than anyone.



PMZ said:


> Democracy is the biggest obstacle to conservative success in recreating what the founders wanted and we the people changed.



That's true enough, but it has nothing to do with your delusions.  The Founders tried to create a free country.  The Dims are turning it into a socialist tyranny.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...


Asking a Marxist to grasp private property is like asking a fish to grasp jogging.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Success to the lion is different than for his prey.
> 
> You apparently believe that making money is a sign of success. I don't.
> 
> There were many business consultants who got wealthy selling the idea to executives that they had a right to most of the wealth that the workers in their businesses created (tough sell,  right?). And the means of that harvest was to send the jobs of those wealth creators overseas.
> 
> Massive executive bonuses,  creating high unemployment. The Great Recession.
> 
> But if you got wealthy,  it's all good,  right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the basic lie of Marxism about business.  Actually you make money by focusing on your customers, not ignoring them.  No business is successful following your shallow caricature of business and no management consultant is successful telling them to focus on themselves and ignore their customers.  Businesses are designed around our customer requirements, not in spit of them.  I live it every day.  You mime Marxist dogma which has been translated for your into modern prose by Democrats.  What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that doctors prescribe leeches.  You're a tool
Click to expand...


You'll never find one word from me denying customer focus. You know that too,  but had to find some excuse to call me Marxist. 

Business is getting and maintaining customer focus by those that create and influence the products being sold.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the owner of the means of production that the workers create wealth using accountable for and to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...


We are responsible only for the obligations we choose to take on.  When did a business owner choose to become responsible for making the economy grow?


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking a Marxist to grasp private property is like asking a fish to grasp jogging.
Click to expand...


I like asking them questions that they can't answer without blowing up everything they believe.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Success to the lion is different than for his prey.
> 
> You apparently believe that making money is a sign of success. I don't.
> 
> There were many business consultants who got wealthy selling the idea to executives that they had a right to most of the wealth that the workers in their businesses created (tough sell,  right?). And the means of that harvest was to send the jobs of those wealth creators overseas.
> 
> Massive executive bonuses,  creating high unemployment. The Great Recession.
> 
> But if you got wealthy,  it's all good,  right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the basic lie of Marxism about business.  Actually you make money by focusing on your customers, not ignoring them.  No business is successful following your shallow caricature of business and no management consultant is successful telling them to focus on themselves and ignore their customers.  Businesses are designed around our customer requirements, not in spit of them.  I live it every day.  You mime Marxist dogma which has been translated for your into modern prose by Democrats.  What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that doctors prescribe leeches.  You're a tool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never find one word from me denying customer focus. You know that too,  but had to find some excuse to call me Marxist.
> 
> Business is getting and maintaining customer focus by those that create and influence the products being sold.
Click to expand...


When I finance my business, buy the materials and then pay my employees to produce products and services, why do they then still own what was produced?  Why when they sold me their time, did I in fact pay them and get nothing out of the deal?

Do you have an answer other than quoting the Communist Manifesto or is that pretty much it?


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking a Marxist to grasp private property is like asking a fish to grasp jogging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like asking them questions that they can't answer without blowing up everything they believe.
Click to expand...


Yes, except they don't answer it.  PMZ just starts ranting from the Manifesto as if he was addressing the point.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking a Marxist to grasp private property is like asking a fish to grasp jogging.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like asking them questions that they can't answer without blowing up everything they believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, except they don't answer it.  PMZ just starts ranting from the Manifesto as if he was addressing the point.
Click to expand...


I'll keep pestering him until he does answer it.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.
> 
> But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product.
> 
> We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone.
> 
> Is this a news to you?
Click to expand...


I dont know whats happening to my picture posts...cant u just copy and paste???? And I saw my second attempt on the board when I posted it but now it dont seem to be there.

anyway PMZ I think u misread it. Wilson equated Republics and Democracys, and said they mean either voting directly on issues or indirectly thru representatives.


----------



## Spiderman

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the basic lie of Marxism about business.  Actually you make money by focusing on your customers, not ignoring them.  No business is successful following your shallow caricature of business and no management consultant is successful telling them to focus on themselves and ignore their customers.  Businesses are designed around our customer requirements, not in spit of them.  I live it every day.  You mime Marxist dogma which has been translated for your into modern prose by Democrats.  What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that doctors prescribe leeches.  You're a tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never find one word from me denying customer focus. You know that too,  but had to find some excuse to call me Marxist.
> 
> Business is getting and maintaining customer focus by those that create and influence the products being sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I finance my business, buy the materials and then pay my employees to produce products and services, why do they then still own what was produced?  Why when they sold me their time, did I in fact pay them and get nothing out of the deal?
> 
> Do you have an answer other than quoting the Communist Manifesto or is that pretty much it?
Click to expand...


People who work for others agree to trade their labor for dollars so the only "wealth" they create is the money they receive for the only commodity they sell; their labor.

And it seems to me that there are too many definitions of "wealth"

A product is not wealth, income is not wealth, net worth is wealth.

A laborer can steadily increase his net worth by saving or making more by becoming a more valuable laborer.

People who buy other people's labor are not forcing others to sell their labor to them.


----------



## kaz

dcraelin said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.
> 
> But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product.
> 
> We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone.
> 
> Is this a news to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know whats happening to my picture posts...cant u just copy and paste???? And I saw my second attempt on the board when I posted it but now it dont seem to be there.
> 
> anyway PMZ I think u misread it. Wilson equated Republics and Democracys, and said they mean either voting directly on issues or indirectly thru representatives.
Click to expand...


A democracy is direct voting, that's true, but a republic is not indirect voting.  A republic is when the whole is comprised of relatively autonomous member states.  As the US was designed to be.  The Federal government had certain, enumerated powers, and the rest of the powers resided with the States (Republics) or the people.

What you are thinking of is a representative republic.  Which is correct in terms of what the US is.  The republics are represented by representatives, who they elect.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a Hitler speech.  Was it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad comrade, is this really is the best you can do. Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest....
> 
> Still, you ducked the central premise;
> 
> Comrade, your master claims that Republicans are rich and greedy, that they do not give the proletarians there "fair share."
> 
> Yet here you are aping the words that your master puts in your mouth that "everything they touch turns to shit." Can comrade Soros explain the contradiction of these claims?
> 
> JakeStarkey is a leftist who pretends to be conservative for the purpose of demeaning conservatism. Are you actually a con who seeks to make the leftists look bad through your little troll act?
Click to expand...


Well Adolf, I don't know if a majority of Republicans are rich and greedy but many of them are. And many are dixiecrats angry at losing their slaves. And the failures of the Bush administration are legend and indisputable. 

That Fox News is Republican propaganda is well known and the fact that you parrot it is a sure sign of your addiction and the ignorance to fall for it. 

So I'm pretty much right on here.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF he said that, which I highly doubt, he was a complete moron.
> 
> Distinguish between "monarchy" and "aristocracy" as forms of government? This is idiocy, since both are in fact classes of the governmental system known as "feudalism."
Click to expand...


Monarchy is rule by a monarch. 

Aristocracy is rule by a minority who consider themselves superior human beings. 

This is not rocket science.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's basic logic.  Explain how the mere fact of your birth imposes any obligations on me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Basic logic" is like 'common' sense and 'they say' and 'supposed to'.
> 
> An explanation for the inexplicable that makes what you want or believe acceptable to others.
> 
> Some people fall for it regularly.  Me,  never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I deliberately avoided using the term "common sense" because what the common people believe is so often dead wrong.
> 
> You avoided answering the question:  How does the mere fact of your birth impose any obligations on me?
Click to expand...


I was going to say because we're both human beings but I'm not sure about you.

Civilization is the realization that living cooperatively and collaboratively leads to progress and living competitively to chaos. 

We're you raised by wolves?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Monarchy is rule by a monarch.
> 
> Aristocracy is rule by a minority who consider themselves superior human beings.



You mean like Obama...


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Republican irresponsibility.  Never solve a problem.  Avoid even thinking about them.  Fox tells us that Republicans are the smartest people on earth but everything that they touch turns to shit so run,  run,  run from anything that even could be a problem.
> 
> When liberals pulling us into the future have to fight conservatives pulling us back to the past at every turn progress is slowed and made more costly but human beings who think for themselves are the same ones that overcome obstacles.
> 
> The future will not be denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Just more troll dung.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are an idiot with a profound aversion to thinking and a thugs instinct for demeaning everybody who's not you.
Click to expand...


A "thug" is someone who uses force to take your stuff or make you do what he wants.  That's a perfect description of a liberal, or a commie like you.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Basic logic" is like 'common' sense and 'they say' and 'supposed to'.
> 
> An explanation for the inexplicable that makes what you want or believe acceptable to others.
> 
> Some people fall for it regularly.  Me,  never.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deliberately avoided using the term "common sense" because what the common people believe is so often dead wrong.
> 
> You avoided answering the question:  How does the mere fact of your birth impose any obligations on me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was going to say because we're both human beings but I'm not sure about you.
> 
> Civilization is the realization that living cooperatively and collaboratively leads to progress and living competitively to chaos.
> 
> We're you raised by wolves?
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are responsible only for the obligations we choose to take on.  When did a business owner choose to become responsible for making the economy grow?
Click to expand...


When he realized that he was also part of something bigger than his business.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Basic logic" is like 'common' sense and 'they say' and 'supposed to'.
> 
> An explanation for the inexplicable that makes what you want or believe acceptable to others.
> 
> Some people fall for it regularly.  Me,  never.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deliberately avoided using the term "common sense" because what the common people believe is so often dead wrong.
> 
> You avoided answering the question:  How does the mere fact of your birth impose any obligations on me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was going to say because we're both human beings but I'm not sure about you.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I don't see the connection.  How does the fact that you're a human like me mean that your birth imposes obligations on me?



PMZ said:


> [Civilization is the realization that living cooperatively and collaboratively leads to progress and living competitively to chaos.



Government is compulsion.  It's force.  It isn't "collaboration" or "cooperation."  I have no idea what you believe "living competitively" means.  We all compete with everyone.  It's an inseparable reality of being human.



PMZ said:


> We're you raised by wolves?



We're you raised in a concentration camp?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deliberately avoided using the term "common sense" because what the common people believe is so often dead wrong.
> 
> You avoided answering the question:  How does the mere fact of your birth impose any obligations on me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to say because we're both human beings but I'm not sure about you.
> 
> Civilization is the realization that living cooperatively and collaboratively leads to progress and living competitively to chaos.
> 
> We're you raised by wolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are responsible only for the obligations we choose to take on.  When did a business owner choose to become responsible for making the economy grow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When he realized that he was also part of something bigger than his business.
Click to expand...


In other words, never.   You simply imagined it.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the basic lie of Marxism about business.  Actually you make money by focusing on your customers, not ignoring them.  No business is successful following your shallow caricature of business and no management consultant is successful telling them to focus on themselves and ignore their customers.  Businesses are designed around our customer requirements, not in spit of them.  I live it every day.  You mime Marxist dogma which has been translated for your into modern prose by Democrats.  What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that doctors prescribe leeches.  You're a tool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never find one word from me denying customer focus. You know that too,  but had to find some excuse to call me Marxist.
> 
> Business is getting and maintaining customer focus by those that create and influence the products being sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I finance my business, buy the materials and then pay my employees to produce products and services, why do they then still own what was produced?  Why when they sold me their time, did I in fact pay them and get nothing out of the deal?
> 
> Do you have an answer other than quoting the Communist Manifesto or is that pretty much it?
Click to expand...


Listen Adolf, as far as I'm concerned you can do anything legal with what you own that you want to.  You can screw your employees, your customers, your suppliers, and your country. 

In fact I have to believe that you do regularly. 

My point is that if I was a customer, employee, or supplier and you screwed me, you'd regret it. I am a citizen of the country that we share and people following your Nazi philosophy have done a great deal of damage to that country. 

Fortunately people likebme woke up in time to end your reign of terror and fire your ass. But that's only the beginning.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you don't know what an aristocracy is.  Under British rule, the aristocracy was governed by a different set of laws than the common folk.  The Founders setup a government where everyone was subject to the same laws.  They abolished the aristocracy.  They didn't create one.
> 
> Your definition of "aristocracy" is any country were some people earn more than others.  That's all it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristocracy is government by those who think themselves superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, nimrod.  All politicians think they are superior, so that characteristic doesn't distinguish aristocracy from any other form of government.  The explanation I gave is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the founders then,  and conservatives today,  believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals believe it more than anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is the biggest obstacle to conservative success in recreating what the founders wanted and we the people changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true enough, but it has nothing to do with your delusions.  The Founders tried to create a free country.  The Dims are turning it into a socialist tyranny.
Click to expand...


Your raisin sized gonads are the only things keeping you here. Man up and solve your problem. Be free rather than whining.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should he be "accountable" to anyone?  It's his property, isn't it?  It's not on loan from the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As good an explanation as possible for Republican, we are exempt from all responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking a Marxist to grasp private property is like asking a fish to grasp jogging.
Click to expand...


Asking a Nazi to be responsible is like asking a rock to breath.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me try this again,
> 
> in regard to Republic and Democracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the picture?  Those wealthy white males are called the founders.  What they founded,  all defined in a written document,  was an aristocracy of wealthy white males,  which was also a republic as they couldn't agree on royalty. They did the aristocracy thing because they believed themselves to be superior human beings.
> 
> But they did recognize that times change.  So they allowed the governed to ammend their product.
> 
> We did over several wars and 200 years.  We changed the aristocracy of wealthy white males to a democracy of everyone.
> 
> Is this a news to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont know whats happening to my picture posts...cant u just copy and paste???? And I saw my second attempt on the board when I posted it but now it dont seem to be there.
> 
> anyway PMZ I think u misread it. Wilson equated Republics and Democracys, and said they mean either voting directly on issues or indirectly thru representatives.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I was using my phone so I could see the picture but not read the words. Now I'm using the IPad so the words are clear. 

The dictionary definition of republic and democracy is pretty clear. And there are many countries around the world who call themselves republics solely because they don't have a monarch.


----------



## PMZ

Spiderman said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll never find one word from me denying customer focus. You know that too,  but had to find some excuse to call me Marxist.
> 
> Business is getting and maintaining customer focus by those that create and influence the products being sold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I finance my business, buy the materials and then pay my employees to produce products and services, why do they then still own what was produced?  Why when they sold me their time, did I in fact pay them and get nothing out of the deal?
> 
> Do you have an answer other than quoting the Communist Manifesto or is that pretty much it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who work for others agree to trade their labor for dollars so the only "wealth" they create is the money they receive for the only commodity they sell; their labor.
> 
> And it seems to me that there are too many definitions of "wealth"
> 
> A product is not wealth, income is not wealth, net worth is wealth.
> 
> A laborer can steadily increase his net worth by saving or making more by becoming a more valuable laborer.
> 
> People who buy other people's labor are not forcing others to sell their labor to them.
Click to expand...


Money is merely a token substitute for wealth. Real wealth is goods and services that workers create.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Just more troll dung.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are an idiot with a profound aversion to thinking and a thugs instinct for demeaning everybody who's not you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "thug" is someone who uses force to take your stuff or make you do what he wants.  That's a perfect description of a liberal, or a commie like you.
Click to expand...


Nazis like you were notorious thugs. Business people who screw employees, suppliers, customers and their country are thugs to me and heroes to you.


----------



## Gadawg73

Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> You can screw your employees, your customers, your suppliers, and your country.
> 
> In fact I have to believe that you do regularly.



Based on what?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I finance my business, buy the materials and then pay my employees to produce products and services, why do they then still own what was produced?  Why when they sold me their time, did I in fact pay them and get nothing out of the deal?
> 
> Do you have an answer other than quoting the Communist Manifesto or is that pretty much it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who work for others agree to trade their labor for dollars so the only "wealth" they create is the money they receive for the only commodity they sell; their labor.
> 
> And it seems to me that there are too many definitions of "wealth"
> 
> A product is not wealth, income is not wealth, net worth is wealth.
> 
> A laborer can steadily increase his net worth by saving or making more by becoming a more valuable laborer.
> 
> People who buy other people's labor are not forcing others to sell their labor to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is merely a token substitute for wealth. Real wealth is goods and services that workers create.
Click to expand...


Money is how we keep score.  You can trade it in for toys.


----------



## kaz

Gadawg73 said:


> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?



Well stated.  As someone risking my own money, I care a lot about my employees and my customers and making them happy.

Obama on the other hand doesn't give a crap about me, and I'm paying a disproportionately huge share of the cost of his agenda.

That PMZ think that means that he, Obama and Karl Marx care about people and I don't is par for his Communist course.  It's a lie, they care about themselves, and that is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well stated.  As someone risking my own money, I care a lot about my employees and my customers and making them happy.
> 
> Obama on the other hand doesn't give a crap about me, and I'm paying a disproportionately huge share of the cost of his agenda.
> 
> That PMZ think that means that he, Obama and Karl Marx care about people and I don't is par for his Communist course.  It's a lie, they care about themselves, and that is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
Click to expand...


Nobody cared as much for the German,  white,  Christian,  blond haired and blue eyed people than your hero,  Adolf.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who work for others agree to trade their labor for dollars so the only "wealth" they create is the money they receive for the only commodity they sell; their labor.
> 
> And it seems to me that there are too many definitions of "wealth"
> 
> A product is not wealth, income is not wealth, net worth is wealth.
> 
> A laborer can steadily increase his net worth by saving or making more by becoming a more valuable laborer.
> 
> People who buy other people's labor are not forcing others to sell their labor to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is merely a token substitute for wealth. Real wealth is goods and services that workers create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is how we keep score.  You can trade it in for toys.
Click to expand...


Unless you need it for survival.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can screw your employees, your customers, your suppliers, and your country.
> 
> In fact I have to believe that you do regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
Click to expand...


The attitude depict in your posts.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?



The American body of law.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American body of law.
Click to expand...


Where?
Specifics please. 
At least you admit you believe it is okay to plunder from the producers to grow the moocher class.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Well Adolf,



Comrade, can you list anything that I've posted that is consistent with the National Socialist German Workers Party?

Anything at all?

Didn't think so...

Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest, now did you?



> I don't know if a majority of Republicans are rich and greedy but many of them are.



How did they get to be rich, if everything they touch turns to shit? 



> And many are dixiecrats angry at losing their slaves.



ROFL

Yep, 1862 was just a few weeks back...



> And the failures of the Bush administration are legend and indisputable.



Flail monkey, flail....



> That Fox News is Republican propaganda is well known and the fact that you parrot it is a sure sign of your addiction and the ignorance to fall for it.



What does that have to do with your assertion that everything Republicans touch turns to shit?

Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest, now did you?



> So I'm pretty much right on here.



ROFL..

Are you mentally retarded?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is merely a token substitute for wealth. Real wealth is goods and services that workers create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is how we keep score.  You can trade it in for toys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you need it for survival.
Click to expand...


That means you're not playing the game very well.  No wonder.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Monarchy is rule by a monarch.
> 
> Aristocracy is rule by a minority who consider themselves superior human beings.
> 
> This is not rocket science.



Ah, you are as uneducated as you are ignorant.

Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest, now did you?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can screw your employees, your customers, your suppliers, and your country.
> 
> In fact I have to believe that you do regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The attitude depict in your posts.
Click to expand...


If I ran my business like you say, I'd be broke.  You know, like Obama did to the country.  The difference is I can't go to my customers and take their money with guns.


----------



## dcraelin

kaz said:


> A democracy is direct voting, that's true, but a republic is not indirect voting.  A republic is when the whole is comprised of relatively autonomous member states.  As the US was designed to be.  The Federal government had certain, enumerated powers, and the rest of the powers resided with the States (Republics) or the people.
> 
> What you are thinking of is a representative republic.  Which is correct in terms of what the US is.  The republics are represented by representatives, who they elect.



The man u are refuting was one of the most learned of Founders. A federation or Confederation is comprised of relatively autonomous member states. Republics can have direct citizen lawmaking as Wilson said, as is shown in history, and as is an option in numerous states.  



PMZ said:


> Sorry. I was using my phone so I could see the picture but not read the words. Now I'm using the IPad so the words are clear.
> 
> The dictionary definition of republic and democracy is pretty clear. And there are many countries around the world who call themselves republics solely because they don't have a monarch.



I can live with that definition tho I think it is wrong. 



Uncensored2008 said:


> IF he said that, which I highly doubt, he was a complete moron.
> 
> Distinguish between "monarchy" and "aristocracy" as forms of government? This is idiocy, since both are in fact classes of the governmental system known as "feudalism."



He said it and was one of the most learned of the Founders. On first Supreme Court And some think wrote significant parts of the constitution.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> You mean like Obama...



PMZ has trouble with even simple concepts....

{The aristocracy are, generally, people that a particular social order considers in the highest social class of that society. Specifically, in monarchies, the aristocracy are a class of people (aristocrats) who either possess hereditary titles granted by a monarch or are related to such people. In some societiessuch as Ancient Greece, Rome, and Indiaaristocratic status may derive from membership of a military caste. Aristocratic status can involve feudal or legal privileges.[1] They are usually below only the monarch of a country or nation in its social hierarchy.

The term aristocracy derives from the Greek &#7936;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#943;&#945; (aristokratia), &#7940;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#962; (aristos) "excellent," and &#954;&#961;&#940;&#964;&#959;&#962; (kratos) "power".[2] In most cases, aristocratic titles were and are hereditary, passing on death to another family member, typically the eldest son or eldest child.}

Aristocracy (class) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He confuses power structures with governmental models. A ruling aristocracy is often found in feudal monarchies, but was also present in the ancient Greek Democracy. America has a pseudo aristocracy, where noble families such as the Kennedy, Bush, and Gore clans, pass power on to successive generations. Yet we are not an "aristocracy," we are a Constitutional Republic. Our little troll cannot grasp the distinction between "what" and "how."


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American body of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where?
> Specifics please.
> At least you admit you believe it is okay to plunder from the producers to grow the moocher class.
Click to expand...


I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attitude depict in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I ran my business like you say, I'd be broke.  You know, like Obama did to the country.  The difference is I can't go to my customers and take their money with guns.
Click to expand...


I don't know your business but there are certainly ruthless but rich businessmen.  Bernie Madoff comes to mind and there are certainly many more like him that haven't been caught. 

When's the last you had a armed Fed at your house collecting taxes?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monarchy is rule by a monarch.
> 
> Aristocracy is rule by a minority who consider themselves superior human beings.
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you are as uneducated as you are ignorant.
> 
> Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest, now did you?
Click to expand...


Didn't they teach you about dictionaries in reform school?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American body of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> Specifics please.
> At least you admit you believe it is okay to plunder from the producers to grow the moocher class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional.
Click to expand...


I believe that you are drunk.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American body of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> Specifics please.
> At least you admit you believe it is okay to plunder from the producers to grow the moocher class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional.
Click to expand...


Really?  So how does filling out form 1040 square with the 5th Amendment?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monarchy is rule by a monarch.
> 
> Aristocracy is rule by a minority who consider themselves superior human beings.
> 
> This is not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you are as uneducated as you are ignorant.
> 
> Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest, now did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't they teach you about dictionaries in reform school?
Click to expand...


Full Definition of ARISTOCRACY
1:  government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2 
a :  a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified
b :  a state with such a government​3:  a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
4:  the aggregate of those believed to be superior​


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you are as uneducated as you are ignorant.
> 
> Well, you didn't become a communist because you're the best and brightest, now did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't they teach you about dictionaries in reform school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full Definition of ARISTOCRACY
> 1:  government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
> 2
> a :  a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified
> b :  a state with such a government​3:  a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
> 4:  the aggregate of those believed to be superior​
Click to expand...


Exactly as I said.  Government by those who consider themselves superior.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> Specifics please.
> At least you admit you believe it is okay to plunder from the producers to grow the moocher class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  So how does filling out form 1040 square with the 5th Amendment?
Click to expand...


I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional. So does the Supreme Court.  If you don't,  challenge the law and pay for the lawyers to get a decision on your concerns from the Federal Courts.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't they teach you about dictionaries in reform school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full Definition of ARISTOCRACY
> 1:  government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
> 2
> a :  a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified
> b :  a state with such a government​3:  a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
> 4:  the aggregate of those believed to be superior​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly as I said.  Government by those who consider themselves superior.
Click to expand...


In other words, rule by liberals?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So how does filling out form 1040 square with the 5th Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional. So does the Supreme Court.  If you don't,  challenge the law and pay for the lawyers to get a decision on your concerns from the Federal Courts.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask you whether you believe they are Constitutional.  I asked you how you square filling out form 1040 with the 5th Amendment.

Obviously, you are afraid to answer the question.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where?
> Specifics please.
> At least you admit you believe it is okay to plunder from the producers to grow the moocher class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that you are drunk.
Click to expand...


If I was,  I'd be sober in the morning.  However you'll wake up just as stupid tomorrow.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  So how does filling out form 1040 square with the 5th Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional. So does the Supreme Court.  If you don't,  challenge the law and pay for the lawyers to get a decision on your concerns from the Federal Courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you whether you believe they are Constitutional.  I asked you how you square filling out form 1040 with the 5th Amendment.
> 
> Obviously, you are afraid to answer the question.
Click to expand...


Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable.  If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't.  The government will let you know what the consequences will be.  Total freedom. You get to choose.


----------



## jasonnfree

Gadawg73 said:


> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?



It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.  This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Definition of ARISTOCRACY
> 1:  government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
> 2
> a :  a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified
> b :  a state with such a government​3:  a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
> 4:  the aggregate of those believed to be superior​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly as I said.  Government by those who consider themselves superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, rule by liberals?
Click to expand...


Democracy.  Rule by the majority.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our tax laws are Constitutional. So does the Supreme Court.  If you don't,  challenge the law and pay for the lawyers to get a decision on your concerns from the Federal Courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you whether you believe they are Constitutional.  I asked you how you square filling out form 1040 with the 5th Amendment.
> 
> Obviously, you are afraid to answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable.  If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't.  The government will let you know what the consequences will be.  Total freedom. You get to choose.
Click to expand...


You still haven't answered the question.  How does form 1040 square with the 5th Amendment?

Apparently, your definition of "total freedom" is "Do what we say or we'll kill you. You choose."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are an idiot with a profound aversion to thinking and a thugs instinct for demeaning everybody who's not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "thug" is someone who uses force to take your stuff or make you do what he wants.  That's a perfect description of a liberal, or a commie like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis like you were notorious thugs. Business people who screw employees, suppliers, customers and their country are thugs to me and heroes to you.
Click to expand...


When have I ever used force to take anyone's stuff or make them do what I want?  

If it isn't illegal, what does this "screwing" consist of?   What form of force is used?  Please explain.


----------



## PMZ

jasonnfree said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.  This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.
Click to expand...


Conservatives value having wealth over creating it.  Because they don't value work. They want to reward owning means and punish creating goods and services of value. 

If they get their way,  business is dead.  Innovation is dead.  The work ethic is dead.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aristocracy is government by those who think themselves superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, nimrod.  All politicians think they are superior, so that characteristic doesn't distinguish aristocracy from any other form of government.  The explanation I gave is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe it more than anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is the biggest obstacle to conservative success in recreating what the founders wanted and we the people changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true enough, but it has nothing to do with your delusions.  The Founders tried to create a free country.  The Dims are turning it into a socialist tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your raisin sized gonads are the only things keeping you here. Man up and solve your problem. Be free rather than whining.
Click to expand...


When are you going to "man up" and move to Cuba?  It is your ideal society, is it not?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Definition of ARISTOCRACY
> 1:  government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
> 2
> a :  a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified
> b :  a state with such a government​3:  a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility
> 4:  the aggregate of those believed to be superior​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly as I said.  Government by those who consider themselves superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, rule by liberals?
Click to expand...


If they're the majority.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, nimrod.  All politicians think they are superior, so that characteristic doesn't distinguish aristocracy from any other form of government.  The explanation I gave is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe it more than anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true enough, but it has nothing to do with your delusions.  The Founders tried to create a free country.  The Dims are turning it into a socialist tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your raisin sized gonads are the only things keeping you here. Man up and solve your problem. Be free rather than whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to "man up" and move to Cuba?  It is your ideal society, is it not?
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I support America. As it is.  Not as I wish it was.


----------



## bripat9643

jasonnfree said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.
Click to expand...


There is no such place.  These 4-5 people you refer to worked 16 hours a day for their entire lives.  They aren't trust fund babies, and they don't have near as much money as you claim.  They also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. 

You're just an envious prehensile moron.



jasonnfree said:


> This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.



So you prefer a situation where politicians promise anything to the rabble, and then feel free to deliver on their promises?

Yeah, we know you do.  That's what civilized people call "mob rule" and "organized plunder."  You would like to remove all obstacles to the process, right?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your raisin sized gonads are the only things keeping you here. Man up and solve your problem. Be free rather than whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to "man up" and move to Cuba?  It is your ideal society, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I support America. As it is.  Not as I wish it was.
Click to expand...


So you support DOM?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "thug" is someone who uses force to take your stuff or make you do what he wants.  That's a perfect description of a liberal, or a commie like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis like you were notorious thugs. Business people who screw employees, suppliers, customers and their country are thugs to me and heroes to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ever used force to take anyone's stuff or make them do what I want?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> If it isn't illegal, what does this "screwing" consist of?   What form of force is used?  Please explain.
Click to expand...


You're one of the ones that keep Congress busy.  How?  You keep thinking up ways that are not yet illegal but still allow you to screw somebody.


----------



## Londoner

How much does it cost the taxpayer to stabilize Exxon's oil fields in the middle east? How much does an advanced industrial infrastructure cost? How many subsidies and bailouts do corporations draw from the state? How much technology from the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program was converted into highly profitable commercial applications? How much has the telecom sector benefited from publicly subsidized and developed satellite technology? How much does it cost to run the Patent System, where the nanny state protects the investments of private corporations? What are the law enforcement costs to protect _private_ property and _private_ transactions? What is the public cost of running credit markets so that consumers can buy the products sold by the private sector? How much did government subsidize Boeing and commercial aviation? What do corporations get for their trillions of dollars in annual lobbying disbursements? How many people does the Hoover Dam and Colorado River support? Who paid to develop these things? Why are Republicans voters incapable of answering any of these questions? Why do Republicans draw so much loyal support from people who do not have a college education? Did jesus ride a dinosaur? Why can't George W Bush be blamed for destroying the housing and financial sectors, both of which happened on his watch? Why do Republican voters know nothing about Medicare Part D?  

Can you effectively address the fairness of the tax rate without being able to itemize what the wealthy get from government?

(God help us.)


----------



## PMZ

J





bripat9643 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such place.  These 4-5 people you refer to worked 16 hours a day for their entire lives.  They aren't trust fund babies, and they don't have near as much money as you claim.  They also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> You're just an envious prehensile moron.
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a situation where politicians promise anything to the rabble, and then feel free to deliver on their promises?
> 
> Yeah, we know you do.  That's what civilized people call "mob rule" and "organized plunder."  You would like to remove all obstacles to the process, right?
Click to expand...


You think that the poor need to support the wealthy.  Why?  Because anyone who's wealthy is superior? 

That's not my experience.  Mostly they are exactly like you.  Assholes full of self importance. 

I like workers better.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to "man up" and move to Cuba?  It is your ideal society, is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I support America. As it is.  Not as I wish it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support DOM?
Click to expand...


Don't know DOM.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it people believe they have a right to other people's property?
> Where is it written in law that someone has a right to property that they did not earn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such place.  These 4-5 people you refer to worked 16 hours a day for their entire lives.  They aren't trust fund babies, and they don't have near as much money as you claim.  They also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> You're just an envious prehensile moron.
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a situation where politicians promise anything to the rabble, and then feel free to deliver on their promises?
> 
> Yeah, we know you do.  That's what civilized people call "mob rule" and "organized plunder."  You would like to remove all obstacles to the process, right?
Click to expand...


I'd like to remove all obstacles to democracy.  Government of,  by,  and for we,  the people.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis like you were notorious thugs. Business people who screw employees, suppliers, customers and their country are thugs to me and heroes to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever used force to take anyone's stuff or make them do what I want?
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> If it isn't illegal, what does this "screwing" consist of?   What form of force is used?  Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of the ones that keep Congress busy.  How?  You keep thinking up ways that are not yet illegal but still allow you to screw somebody.
Click to expand...


I see.  So you can't list a single example of how this legal "screwing" occurs.  I didn't think you could.


----------



## bripat9643

Londoner said:


> How much does it cost the taxpayer to stabilize Exxon's oil fields in the middle east?



Exxon doesn't have any oil fields in the Middle East, dolt.  The oil fields are all owned by the governments of the countries where they are located. Right out of the starting gate you only manage to demonstrate that you're an ignoramus.



Londoner said:


> How much does an advanced industrial infrastructure cost? How many subsidies and bailouts do corporations draw from the state?



That industrial infrastructure provides the state's revenue, dolt.  Where do you think the state gets the money it spends?



Londoner said:


> How much technology from the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program was converted into highly profitable commercial applications. How much has the telecom sector benefited from publicly subsidized and developed satellite technology?



Not 1/100 of what all that cost the taxpayers.




Londoner said:


> How much does it cost to run the Patent System, where the nanny state protects the investments of private corporations?



Almost nothing.



Londoner said:


> What are the law enforcement costs to protect private property and private transactions?



Again, almost nothing.



Londoner said:


> What is the public cost of running credit markets so that consumers can buy from the products sold by the private sector?



Private companies run credit markets.  The government doesn't spend a dime.  In fact, private credit markets allow the government to borrow trillions of dollars every year.



Londoner said:


> How much did government subsidize Boeing and commercial aviation?



You've already covered that issue, moron.



Londoner said:


> Yada, yada, yada . . . . .



The remainder ignored as more of the same horseshit. 



Londoner said:


> Can you effectively address the fairness of the tax rate without being able to itemize what the wealthy get from government.



Most of the money government spends benefits the poor and the middle class.  The wealthy don't need 99% of what government provides.



Londoner said:


> (God help us.)



Yes, God save us from sheer deliberate ignorance such as yours.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such place.  These 4-5 people you refer to worked 16 hours a day for their entire lives.  They aren't trust fund babies, and they don't have near as much money as you claim.  They also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> You're just an envious prehensile moron.
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a situation where politicians promise anything to the rabble, and then feel free to deliver on their promises?
> 
> Yeah, we know you do.  That's what civilized people call "mob rule" and "organized plunder."  You would like to remove all obstacles to the process, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that the poor need to support the wealthy.  Why?  Because anyone who's wealthy is superior?
Click to expand...


Uh . . . .  no.  Where have I said that?  I think no one should have to pay taxes to fund the campaign of a scumbag whom they despise.



PMZ said:


> That's not my experience.  Mostly they are exactly like you.  Assholes full of self importance.
> 
> I like workers better.



Only an asshole would assume other people are assholes simply because they made a lot of money.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I support America. As it is.  Not as I wish it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support DOM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know DOM.
Click to expand...


Defense of Marriage act.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in the same place where 4 or 5 people that never worked a day in their lives can have more wealth than  the bottom 130 million people in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such place.  These 4-5 people you refer to worked 16 hours a day for their entire lives.  They aren't trust fund babies, and they don't have near as much money as you claim.  They also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> You're just an envious prehensile moron.
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a country where politicians promise anything to their base during election season but in reality they're for sale to the wealthiest among us, which will get worse because of the supremes freeing up money that  corporations can use to  influence  politics and elections.   This ungodly inequality of wealth could be slowly changed by taxpayer only funded elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer a situation where politicians promise anything to the rabble, and then feel free to deliver on their promises?
> 
> Yeah, we know you do.  That's what civilized people call "mob rule" and "organized plunder."  You would like to remove all obstacles to the process, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to remove all obstacles to democracy.  Government of,  by,  and for we,  the people.
Click to expand...


So you think we should have  a popular vote on whether the government can censor books and newspapers?  How about putting the exercise of religion up to a popular vote?

The last thing this country needs is more democracy.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is your question,  as a moral,  responsible human being,  why do people live cooperatively and collaboratively?
> 
> I was always taught that it's because we're moral,  responsible human beings,  and not monkeys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question is, why is it you think you have the right to make someone else responsible for you having a enough to live on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because humanity solves problems.  Not merely and meekly accepts them.
> 
> And the human experience has shown that solving problems requires cooperation,  collaboration,  education, responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...


Can it be helpful and efficient? Sure. But if you fall on hard times for whatever reason, like it or not, you don't have the right to force me or anyone else to help you. We were founded on the concept of individual liberty. Not communal liberty. If you have the right to obligate someone else to your survival then there is no individual liberty. This doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't help other people. It simply means you don't have the right to force anyone to help you.


----------



## Gadawg73

I spread my work ethic and will keep my wealth.


----------



## Gadawg73

The same folks that do not want to listen to someone else's religious beliefs will force the government to steal their money and pass it to them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> If I was,  I'd be sober in the morning.  However you'll wake up just as stupid tomorrow.



Yet I'll still grasp the distinction between caste and model...

You? Not so much....


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable.  If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't.  The government will let you know what the consequences will be.  Total freedom. You get to choose.



Leftism is ultimately a hatred of life, a manifestation of the contempt and ill-will one has for their fellow man. Looting and mooching are based on the contempt for the efforts and intellect of others, the disdain leftists have for creation and production. And of course the death camps, gulags, and killing fields that are ALWAYS part of leftism frame this hatred.

Abortion then, is a perfect issue for the left - the slaughter of people in their most vulnerable state. And Roe V. Wade is the perfect law of the left; a law created by unelected jurists with no authority to create law in direct defiance of the United States Constitution. 

As the court crafted this law, they contrived a "right to privacy" to justify their unconstitutional legislation. Ask any leftist to point to this alleged right in the Constitution, and they will be unable to point to any such provision.

Some will ignorantly point to the 4th Amendment, but this reads;

{The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.} 

Nothing about a right to kill your offspring at a public clinic - rather it is a restraint on search and seizure (which Obama and the left flagrantly violate on a daily basis.)

However, if one (not you PMZ, someone with an IQ about 12) reads the 4th, one can't help but question on what grounds you can be compelled, without warrant, to report to our overlords every detail of our lives. Where we work, where we worship, what out sexual arrangements are, what the results of sex are (children), who we donate to (so the IRS can attack opponents of the party), where we live, how much we pay to live there, etc. 

In all, we are required by the threat of violence to divulge EVERY aspect of our lives. Yet leftists claim a right to privacy, whilst not only NOT opposing this, but supporting it. Clearly leftists have no care for privacy - and have utter contempt for civil rights - but they love abortion, the chance to kill humans.

The 1040 form violates the 4th amendment - this is a matter of irrefutable fact.


----------



## dcraelin

I think one thing both "libs" and "conservatives" can agree on in tax policy is the elimination of the tax-exemption on municipal bonds.   These bonds fund some of the most idiotic projects imaginable. 
All these sport stadiums are generally funded with them which amounts to welfare for the rich.  Many idiotic convention centers that will never be filled to capacity are funded with them. And it would be a simple piece of legislation without having to rewrite the whole tax code.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The question is, why is it you think you have the right to make someone else responsible for you having a enough to live on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because humanity solves problems.  Not merely and meekly accepts them.
> 
> And the human experience has shown that solving problems requires cooperation,  collaboration,  education, responsibility and accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can it be helpful and efficient? Sure. But if you fall on hard times for whatever reason, like it or not, you don't have the right to force me or anyone else to help you. We were founded on the concept of individual liberty. Not communal liberty. If you have the right to obligate someone else to your survival then there is no individual liberty. This doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't help other people. It simply means you don't have the right to force anyone to help you.
Click to expand...


You can choose to manage your anger issue.  Stop being so self centered and give rather than take. Simple. 

And stop being a control freak.  

All of the laws on the books today are enforceable.  So your long speeches that boil down to,  if I were king,  are not enforceable or even relevant to anything.  

Mental masturbation. 

Get a life.


----------



## PMZ

jimnyc said:


> _Originally posted by Jackass _
> *I am sending it to you *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just resized it so it will work and emailed back.
Click to expand...


No,  there are rich and poor effective people and rich and poor assholes.  There is no correlation between wealth and any human trait.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much does it cost the taxpayer to stabilize Exxon's oil fields in the middle east?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exxon doesn't have any oil fields in the Middle East, dolt.  The oil fields are all owned by the governments of the countries where they are located. Right out of the starting gate you only manage to demonstrate that you're an ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much does an advanced industrial infrastructure cost? How many subsidies and bailouts do corporations draw from the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That industrial infrastructure provides the state's revenue, dolt.  Where do you think the state gets the money it spends?
> 
> 
> 
> Not 1/100 of what all that cost the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, almost nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Private companies run credit markets.  The government doesn't spend a dime.  In fact, private credit markets allow the government to borrow trillions of dollars every year.
> 
> 
> 
> You've already covered that issue, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> The remainder ignored as more of the same horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you effectively address the fairness of the tax rate without being able to itemize what the wealthy get from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of the money government spends benefits the poor and the middle class.  The wealthy don't need 99% of what government provides.
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> (God help us.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, God save us from sheer deliberate ignorance such as yours.
Click to expand...


" Most of the money government spends benefits the poor and the middle class.  The wealthy don't need 99% of what government provides."

The wealthy don't need the military? The FDA? The FAA? The FCC?,  the CDC? Interstate Highways. 

Man you are dumb.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The attitude depict in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I ran my business like you say, I'd be broke.  You know, like Obama did to the country.  The difference is I can't go to my customers and take their money with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know your business but there are certainly ruthless but rich businessmen.  Bernie Madoff comes to mind and there are certainly many more like him that haven't been caught.
> 
> When's the last you had a armed Fed at your house collecting taxes?
Click to expand...


What difference does it make if the guns are "at" my house?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> I spread my work ethic and will keep my wealth.



Feel free to.


----------



## Bern80

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable.  If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't.  The government will let you know what the consequences will be.  Total freedom. You get to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is ultimately a hatred of life, a manifestation of the contempt and ill-will one has for their fellow man. Looting and mooching are based on the contempt for the efforts and intellect of others, the disdain leftists have for creation and production. And of course the death camps, gulags, and killing fields that are ALWAYS part of leftism frame this hatred.
> 
> Abortion then, is a perfect issue for the left - the slaughter of people in their most vulnerable state. And Roe V. Wade is the perfect law of the left; a law created by unelected jurists with no authority to create law in direct defiance of the United States Constitution.
> 
> As the court crafted this law, they contrived a "right to privacy" to justify their unconstitutional legislation. Ask any leftist to point to this alleged right in the Constitution, and they will be unable to point to any such provision.
> 
> Some will ignorantly point to the 4th Amendment, but this reads;
> 
> {The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.}
> 
> Nothing about a right to kill your offspring at a public clinic - rather it is a restraint on search and seizure (which Obama and the left flagrantly violate on a daily basis.)
> 
> However, if one (not you PMZ, someone with an IQ about 12) reads the 4th, one can't help but question on what grounds you can be compelled, without warrant, to report to our overlords every detail of our lives. Where we work, where we worship, what out sexual arrangements are, what the results of sex are (children), who we donate to (so the IRS can attack opponents of the party), where we live, how much we pay to live there, etc.
> 
> In all, we are required by the threat of violence to divulge EVERY aspect of our lives. Yet leftists claim a right to privacy, whilst not only NOT opposing this, but supporting it. Clearly leftists have no care for privacy - and have utter contempt for civil rights - but they love abortion, the chance to kill humans.
> 
> The 1040 form violates the 4th amendment - this is a matter of irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...


I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they _can_ search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, spy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?

That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such place.  These 4-5 people you refer to worked 16 hours a day for their entire lives.  They aren't trust fund babies, and they don't have near as much money as you claim.  They also provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> You're just an envious prehensile moron.
> 
> 
> 
> So you prefer a situation where politicians promise anything to the rabble, and then feel free to deliver on their promises?
> 
> Yeah, we know you do.  That's what civilized people call "mob rule" and "organized plunder."  You would like to remove all obstacles to the process, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to remove all obstacles to democracy.  Government of,  by,  and for we,  the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think we should have  a popular vote on whether the government can censor books and newspapers?  How about putting the exercise of religion up to a popular vote?
> 
> The last thing this country needs is more democracy.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true tyrant.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> The same folks that do not want to listen to someone else's religious beliefs will force the government to steal their money and pass it to them.



I just cannot understand why any of you live here another minute.  It's a free market. Move to a better country.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable.  If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't.  The government will let you know what the consequences will be.  Total freedom. You get to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is ultimately a hatred of life, a manifestation of the contempt and ill-will one has for their fellow man. Looting and mooching are based on the contempt for the efforts and intellect of others, the disdain leftists have for creation and production. And of course the death camps, gulags, and killing fields that are ALWAYS part of leftism frame this hatred.
> 
> Abortion then, is a perfect issue for the left - the slaughter of people in their most vulnerable state. And Roe V. Wade is the perfect law of the left; a law created by unelected jurists with no authority to create law in direct defiance of the United States Constitution.
> 
> As the court crafted this law, they contrived a "right to privacy" to justify their unconstitutional legislation. Ask any leftist to point to this alleged right in the Constitution, and they will be unable to point to any such provision.
> 
> Some will ignorantly point to the 4th Amendment, but this reads;
> 
> {The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.}
> 
> Nothing about a right to kill your offspring at a public clinic - rather it is a restraint on search and seizure (which Obama and the left flagrantly violate on a daily basis.)
> 
> However, if one (not you PMZ, someone with an IQ about 12) reads the 4th, one can't help but question on what grounds you can be compelled, without warrant, to report to our overlords every detail of our lives. Where we work, where we worship, what out sexual arrangements are, what the results of sex are (children), who we donate to (so the IRS can attack opponents of the party), where we live, how much we pay to live there, etc.
> 
> In all, we are required by the threat of violence to divulge EVERY aspect of our lives. Yet leftists claim a right to privacy, whilst not only NOT opposing this, but supporting it. Clearly leftists have no care for privacy - and have utter contempt for civil rights - but they love abortion, the chance to kill humans.
> 
> The 1040 form violates the 4th amendment - this is a matter of irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...


Did you report this to the Supreme Court?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I ran my business like you say, I'd be broke.  You know, like Obama did to the country.  The difference is I can't go to my customers and take their money with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know your business but there are certainly ruthless but rich businessmen.  Bernie Madoff comes to mind and there are certainly many more like him that haven't been caught.
> 
> When's the last you had a armed Fed at your house collecting taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make if the guns are "at" my house?
Click to expand...


You said that the government took your money with guns.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know your business but there are certainly ruthless but rich businessmen.  Bernie Madoff comes to mind and there are certainly many more like him that haven't been caught.
> 
> When's the last you had a armed Fed at your house collecting taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does it make if the guns are "at" my house?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that the government took your money with guns.
Click to expand...


Right, what about that confuses you?


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws that are Constitutional are enforceable.  If you are unable to fill out a 1040, don't.  The government will let you know what the consequences will be.  Total freedom. You get to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftism is ultimately a hatred of life, a manifestation of the contempt and ill-will one has for their fellow man. Looting and mooching are based on the contempt for the efforts and intellect of others, the disdain leftists have for creation and production. And of course the death camps, gulags, and killing fields that are ALWAYS part of leftism frame this hatred.
> 
> Abortion then, is a perfect issue for the left - the slaughter of people in their most vulnerable state. And Roe V. Wade is the perfect law of the left; a law created by unelected jurists with no authority to create law in direct defiance of the United States Constitution.
> 
> As the court crafted this law, they contrived a "right to privacy" to justify their unconstitutional legislation. Ask any leftist to point to this alleged right in the Constitution, and they will be unable to point to any such provision.
> 
> Some will ignorantly point to the 4th Amendment, but this reads;
> 
> {The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.}
> 
> Nothing about a right to kill your offspring at a public clinic - rather it is a restraint on search and seizure (which Obama and the left flagrantly violate on a daily basis.)
> 
> However, if one (not you PMZ, someone with an IQ about 12) reads the 4th, one can't help but question on what grounds you can be compelled, without warrant, to report to our overlords every detail of our lives. Where we work, where we worship, what out sexual arrangements are, what the results of sex are (children), who we donate to (so the IRS can attack opponents of the party), where we live, how much we pay to live there, etc.
> 
> In all, we are required by the threat of violence to divulge EVERY aspect of our lives. Yet leftists claim a right to privacy, whilst not only NOT opposing this, but supporting it. Clearly leftists have no care for privacy - and have utter contempt for civil rights - but they love abortion, the chance to kill humans.
> 
> The 1040 form violates the 4th amendment - this is a matter of irrefutable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they _can_ search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, soy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?
> 
> That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.
Click to expand...


Why anybody expects to live privately in today's crowded,  interconnected world is completely beyond me.  

But you can, if you are willing to pay for it.  Buy empty land,  build a log cabin,  go off all grids,  hunt and gather, or farm to survive.  

What you can't do is enjoy the benefits of progress for free.  Nobody is entitled to that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bern80 said:


> I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they _can_ search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, soy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?
> 
> That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.



Restraint of search and seizure is similar to privacy, but not the same. Here is why; suppose that Joe is walking down the street one evening, and he looks into the window of a house, where he sees Fred molesting a young girl. Joe writes a letter to the local paper condemning Fred for his behavior. Does Joe have the right to pen the letter in question? After all, Fred was within his own home and has a right to privacy, right?

Except, Fred does NOT have a right to privacy, Joe is perfectly withing the law to write his letter and might even be a witness in criminal proceedings. There simply is no right to privacy. Instead, we have a CONSTRAINT of the government in the case of search and seizure. The government - and the government alone - is constrained from searching private property without proven cause in the form of a warrant. The IRS cannot legally search your papers (email) without a warrant. ACLU Accuses IRS Of Illegally Reading Taxpayer's Private Emails But your employer sure can.

So the 4th places constraints on government, rather than guaranteeing a right.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What difference does it make if the guns are "at" my house?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the government took your money with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, what about that confuses you?
Click to expand...


What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?  

If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living.  Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Did you report this to the Supreme Court?



The Constitution on a leftist has a similar effect as salt on a slug (no offense to slugs.) But can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?

Didn't think so....


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a response figured out agreeing with you that there is no right to privacy. But it seems to me (and I'm really looking for a good counter argument here), it does look like the 4th amendment can't exist without an implied right to privacy. If the government can't search your person or property without reasonable cause that would mean they _can_ search you without reasonable cause if there were no 4th amendment. That is the government could search you, soy on you, whenever they wanted doesn't it?
> 
> That said what privacy has to do with the legality of abortion, I have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Restraint of search and seizure is similar to privacy, but not the same. Here is why; suppose that Joe is walking down the street one evening, and he looks into the window of a house, where he sees Fred molesting a young girl. Joe writes a letter to the local paper condemning Fred for his behavior. Does Joe have the right to pen the letter in question? After all, Fred was within his own home and has a right to privacy, right?
> 
> Except, Fred does NOT have a right to privacy, Joe is perfectly withing the law to write his letter and might even be a witness in criminal proceedings. There simply is no right to privacy. Instead, we have a CONSTRAINT of the government in the case of search and seizure. The government - and the government alone - is constrained from searching private property without proven cause in the form of a warrant. The IRS cannot legally search your papers (email) without a warrant. ACLU Accuses IRS Of Illegally Reading Taxpayer's Private Emails But your employer sure can.
> 
> So the 4th places constraints on government, rather than guaranteeing a right.
Click to expand...


All rights are constraints on government.


----------



## PMZ

The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free.  Something for nothing.  

They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.  

They think they they are entitled to an AND,  not the real world OR.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you report this to the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution on a leftist has a similar effect as salt on a slug (no offense to slugs.) But can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?
> 
> Didn't think so....
Click to expand...


Liberals support our Constitution. 

 Conservatives support a constitution,  but not ours.


----------



## PMZ

Conservatives are mostly the last generations control freaks,  who haven't died yet,  railing against self inflicted irrelevance.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that the government took your money with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, what about that confuses you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?
> 
> If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living.  Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.
Click to expand...


Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this?  Or are you just going to stay with this one?


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to remove all obstacles to democracy.  Government of,  by,  and for we,  the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should have  a popular vote on whether the government can censor books and newspapers?  How about putting the exercise of religion up to a popular vote?
> 
> The last thing this country needs is more democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true tyrant.
Click to expand...


No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> All rights are constraints on government.



Utter nonsense.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a direct restraint of government action.

Because you are a communist, you believe that people are property of the state, to be done with as the state wishes. As such, then any "right" is really a privilege granted by our owners. As is the case with all leftists, you cannot grasp the concept of actual rights, of the reality of rights that exist outside of the state.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you report this to the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution on a leftist has a similar effect as salt on a slug (no offense to slugs.) But can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?
> 
> Didn't think so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals support our Constitution.
> 
> Conservatives support a constitution,  but not ours.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are retarded.

Now, can you show the class a "right to privacy," in the United States Constitution?


----------



## RKMBrown

Bill of Rights Sixth Article:


> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



That's your right to privacy wrt government forces.  WRT privacy between citizens, one is protected by property rights.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> Bill of Rights Sixth Article:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your right to privacy wrt government forces.  WRT privacy between citizens, one is protected by property rights.
Click to expand...


That's actually the 4th Amendment, not the 6th.

Further, the amendment simply restrains the government from searching without first obtaining a warrant - it does nothing to address "privacy" per se.


----------



## dcraelin

Here is what Patrick Henry thought of the so-called tyranny of the masses.     If the picture paste works


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, what about that confuses you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?
> 
> If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living.  Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this?  Or are you just going to stay with this one?
Click to expand...


I'm pointing out the error in your words.  The government doesn't steal from you at the point of a gun. 

Making paying your share of the cost of services to all of us is not in the same zip code of criminal armed robbery,  a lesson that you may be taught someday. 

Say what you mean and mean what you say is the archenemy of extremism.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think we should have  a popular vote on whether the government can censor books and newspapers?  How about putting the exercise of religion up to a popular vote?
> 
> The last thing this country needs is more democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....
Click to expand...


We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today.  No monarch. 

We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution. 

The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.


----------



## PMZ

Does anybody know who was the first of the ignorazzi to propose that the country is under the tyranny of a minority rather the democracy of majority rule?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Does anybody know who was the first of the ignorazzi to propose that the country is under the tyranny of a minority rather the democracy of majority rule?



You should huff less spray paint.

We are a Republic to protect the rights of the minority from the excess of the majority.

While you dream of doing just this, at present time you cannot vote to exterminate all Christians - even if you get a majority to vote for it. We are not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose their will on the minority.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All rights are constraints on government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a direct restraint of government action.
> 
> Because you are a communist, you believe that people are property of the state, to be done with as the state wishes. As such, then any "right" is really a privilege granted by our owners. As is the case with all leftists, you cannot grasp the concept of actual rights, of the reality of rights that exist outside of the state.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is the bylaws of government.  It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.  

It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence,  not the Constitution. 

Or that,  while the declaration is a wonderful document,  it has no standing in American law.


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true tyrant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today.  No monarch.
> 
> We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.
> 
> The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.
Click to expand...

If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring

You, sir, are an idiot


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody know who was the first of the ignorazzi to propose that the country is under the tyranny of a minority rather the democracy of majority rule?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should huff less spray paint.
> 
> We are a Republic to protect the rights of the minority from the excess of the majority.
> 
> While you dream of doing just this, at present time you cannot vote to exterminate all Christians - even if you get a majority to vote for it. We are not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose their will on the minority.
Click to expand...


The Founders designed a plutocratic republic. 

We fought and won changing that to a democratic republic.  

Perhaps someday we'll be able to advance to an educated democratic republic.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today.  No monarch.
> 
> We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.
> 
> The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring
> 
> You, sir, are an idiot
Click to expand...


Democracy comes in two flavors.  Direct and representative.  Ours is the latter.  

Do you  know how to use a dictionary?


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today.  No monarch.
> 
> We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.
> 
> The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring
> 
> You, sir, are an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy comes in two flavors.  Direct and representative.  Ours is the latter.
> 
> Do you  know how to use a dictionary?
Click to expand...


And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...

You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought

We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring


----------



## dcraelin

lets me paraphrase what Patrick Henry said since I dont know if the picture is working.

He basically said this idea of the "tyranny of the masses" is sheer bullshit. He called it licentiousness though because it is idiotic to speak of the masses and tyranny which is a word meaning unlimited control by ONE person or a small clique. 

He said the sophistry around "checks and balances" was also bullshit,.... which history I think has largely proven right. 

He said the lust for a mighty empire was incompatible with the genius of Republicanism. 

Republicanism was actually a rallying point of those who were AGAINST the Constitution. The so-called founders, the framers of constitution were mostly Federalists. They did NOT want a Bill of Rights....It was Henry and those that thought as he did, that pushed for a Bill of Rights. Hamilton actually speaks against Republics in Federalist #9.


----------



## Toro

18.74%


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring
> 
> You, sir, are an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy comes in two flavors.  Direct and representative.  Ours is the latter.
> 
> Do you  know how to use a dictionary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...
> 
> You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought
> 
> We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring
Click to expand...


We,  the people,  elect representatives to make law.  When they do that to our liking,  they get to keep their jobs.  If not,  we fire them.  That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.  

That means to have a long and productive career,  politicians have to regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents.  In a two party system a plurality is a majority. 

Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority.  Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy comes in two flavors.  Direct and representative.  Ours is the latter.
> 
> Do you  know how to use a dictionary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...
> 
> You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought
> 
> We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We,  the people,  elect representatives to make law.  When they do that to our liking,  they get to keep their jobs.  If not,  we fire them.  That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.
> 
> That means to have a long and productive career,  politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents.  In a two party system a plurality is a majority.
> 
> Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority.  Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.
Click to expand...


The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...
> 
> You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought
> 
> We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We,  the people,  elect representatives to make law.  When they do that to our liking,  they get to keep their jobs.  If not,  we fire them.  That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.
> 
> That means to have a long and productive career,  politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents.  In a two party system a plurality is a majority.
> 
> Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority.  Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..
Click to expand...


Break a law and see.  

The government is bound by the Constitution. The citizens are bound to the laws agreed to by a majority of Representatives  installed by a majority of voters.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free.  Something for nothing.
> 
> They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.
> 
> They think they they are entitled to an AND,  not the real world OR.



Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> The Constitution is the bylaws of government.  It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.



{A by-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) is a rule or law established by an organization or community to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority. The higher authority, generally a legislature or some other governmental body, establishes the degree of control that the by-laws may exercise. By-laws may be established by entities such as a business corporation, a neighborhood association, or depending on the jurisdiction, a municipality.}

By-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silly little Communist - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a set of bylaws.



> It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence,  not the Constitution.
> 
> Or that,  while the declaration is a wonderful document,  it has no standing in American law.



Try not to be such a moron. I realize you are just a troll - but seriously....


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> The Founders designed a plutocratic republic.
> 
> We fought and won changing that to a democratic republic.
> 
> Perhaps someday we'll be able to advance to an educated democratic republic.



You are both ignorant and uneducated. Probably the reason that you're a communist...

No moron, we are not a "democratic republic." You vote for ZERO federal office holders. Instead, you vote for legislators to REPRESENT your interests. This why what we have is a "Representative Republic." Even in presidential elections, you vote for representatives in the Electoral College to vote for the actual president.

I know that you're just a troll, but really.....


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We,  the people,  elect representatives to make law.  When they do that to our liking,  they get to keep their jobs.  If not,  we fire them.  That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.
> 
> That means to have a long and productive career,  politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents.  In a two party system a plurality is a majority.
> 
> Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority.  Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Break a law and see.
> 
> The government is bound by the Constitution. The citizens are bound to the laws agreed to by a majority of Representatives  installed by a majority of voters.
Click to expand...


No.. they are not.. for the representatives are bound by the rule of law which even if their majority or a majority of the populace wants something, and it is against the rule of law, it cannot be done.. and not a single citizen is bound by it

Your whim, nor the whim of any other citizen, has no power over how a representative introduces something, votes on something, or acts upon something in government... that rule of law, is what prevents or limits their actions.. not your vote and not your popular will


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free.  Something for nothing.
> 
> They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.
> 
> They think they they are entitled to an AND,  not the real world OR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.
Click to expand...


You are under the delusion that the government does nothing to contribute to the success of the country.  Understand that's pure delusion, brought about by propaganda, serving THE PARTY.  

You can play whatever role you choose to in our politics,  but as for me,  I will not empower any delusion with responsibility. 

Reality is that everyone living here benefits from a successful country and key to our success as a country is government.  

Businesses optimize themselves only.  Business has zero responsibility for anything other than make more money regardless of the cost to others. They don't make the country successful, they make themselves successful,  or at least some of them do. 

People in the real world realize and accept that government services are no more free than business provided goods and services and taxes apportion that cost to the beneficiaries of the services. 

So either pay your share of the costs of living in a successful country or move to a less successful but cheaper country.  Your choice.  An OR choice not an AND choice.


----------



## PrometheusBound

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...
> 
> You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought
> 
> We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We,  the people,  elect representatives to make law.  When they do that to our liking,  they get to keep their jobs.  If not,  we fire them.  That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.
> 
> That means to have a long and productive career,  politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents.  In a two party system a plurality is a majority.
> 
> Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority.  Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..
Click to expand...


*The Rule of Law Is the Law of the Rulers.*


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws of government.  It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {A by-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) is a rule or law established by an organization or community to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority. The higher authority, generally a legislature or some other governmental body, establishes the degree of control that the by-laws may exercise. By-laws may be established by entities such as a business corporation, a neighborhood association, or depending on the jurisdiction, a municipality.}
> 
> By-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Silly little Communist - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a set of bylaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence,  not the Constitution.
> 
> Or that,  while the declaration is a wonderful document,  it has no standing in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to be such a moron. I realize you are just a troll - but seriously....
Click to expand...


Has anyone ever been arrested for doing something unconstitutional?  Who?  When? Why?  Where? 

The Constitution is a set of bylaws that the government has to follow as adjudicated by the Supreme Court. 

As has already been pointed out prior,  none of us has a right to privacy,  just the Federal Government is prohibited from enforcing laws that infringe on what their bylaws prohibit.  

This is fifth grade stuff.  Didn't you attend?


----------



## PrometheusBound

There's no need for any taxes.   The 1% have $73 trillion.   It will be there when they are dead and no longer need it.   The heirs are freeloaders; such parasites have no place in a free society and no claim to money they never earned.    Or would you rather tax the living than the dead?   Are you afraid some plutocrat will come back to haunt us if we don't set up his spawn to a position he never belonged in?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?
> 
> If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living.  Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this?  Or are you just going to stay with this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the error in your words.  The government doesn't steal from you at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, try not paying taxes and see where it gets you.

That you don't see the gun is irrelevant.  It's not different than the mob sending you a letter to remit payment "or else," or someone aiming their gun at you inside a pocket.  Without the gun, you would not give up your money.  With the gun, you do.  It's armed robbery.



PMZ said:


> Making paying your share of the cost of services to all of us is not in the same zip code of criminal armed robbery,  a lesson that you may be taught someday.


Sharing the cost of defense, roads, courts, that sort of thing are legitimate.  Taking money from one citizen and giving it to another, giving it to foreign governments or using it to wage non defense wars are not only exactly "the same zip code" but they are the same.  And interest on armed robbery is still fruit of the poisoned tree.  So yes, 20-30% of taxes are legit.  I'm referring to most of them, not all of them.



PMZ said:


> Say what you mean and mean what you say is the archenemy of extremism.



You're the extremist.  I'm a moderate.  I want a government that performs services for it's citizens that cannot reasonably be provided by a free market.  Roads, police, courts, national defense, management of limited resources like water, arbiter of the recognition of land ownership, that sort of thing.  I want government to then let us make our own choices.  Pretty moderate.

You want government to own and control all assets in the economy.  Businesses have to ask your blessing to exist.  People can only earn what you'll allow.  You redistribute money freely.  You're an extremist whack job.  AKA a Marxist.


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws of government.  It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {A by-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) is a rule or law established by an organization or community to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority. The higher authority, generally a legislature or some other governmental body, establishes the degree of control that the by-laws may exercise. By-laws may be established by entities such as a business corporation, a neighborhood association, or depending on the jurisdiction, a municipality.}
> 
> By-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Silly little Communist - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a set of bylaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence,  not the Constitution.
> 
> Or that,  while the declaration is a wonderful document,  it has no standing in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to be such a moron. I realize you are just a troll - but seriously....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever been arrested for doing something unconstitutional?  Who?  When? Why?  Where?
> 
> The Constitution is a set of bylaws that the government has to follow as adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> As has already been pointed out prior,  none of us has a right to privacy,  just the Federal Government is prohibited from enforcing laws that infringe on what their bylaws prohibit.
> 
> This is fifth grade stuff.  Didn't you attend?
Click to expand...


You are wrong on all accounts

First let us also clear up for your ignorant ass.. that nowhere in the constitution is the judiciary charged with the power to adjudicate or interpret the constitution.. this is a power that the court gave to itself, without constitutional process

Next let us explain that the constitution does not have a set of penalties for those who violate the constitution.. hence there is no arrest... BUT we have had several officials who have been impeached due to constitutional violations..

Maybe you should have had education beyond the 5th grade


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free.  Something for nothing.
> 
> They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.
> 
> They think they they are entitled to an AND,  not the real world OR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are under the delusion that the government does nothing to contribute to the success of the country.  Understand that's pure delusion, brought about by propaganda, serving THE PARTY.
> 
> You can play whatever role you choose to in our politics,  but as for me,  I will not empower any delusion with responsibility.
> 
> Reality is that everyone living here benefits from a successful country and key to our success as a country is government.
> 
> Businesses optimize themselves only.  Business has zero responsibility for anything other than make more money regardless of the cost to others. They don't make the country successful, they make themselves successful,  or at least some of them do.
> 
> People in the real world realize and accept that government services are no more free than business provided goods and services and taxes apportion that cost to the beneficiaries of the services.
> 
> So either pay your share of the costs of living in a successful country or move to a less successful but cheaper country.  Your choice.  An OR choice not an AND choice.
Click to expand...


There you go again changing the subject. The above was simply in response to your statement that conservatives want something for nothing and have an entitlement mentality. Honestly I don't know many liberals on here that would even agree with that. They might claim they don't believe that of liberals, but they would never claim it of conservatives. Don't you remember, conservatives are the ones always telling the poor to quit whining, pull up your boot straps and get to work if you want more money. Hardly constitutes a something for nothing mentality.

You don't live in reality. You live in a make believe world of excuses where your failures are not your fault and entitlement notion that you have the right to obligate others to your survival. I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. It is not right however, that government take my property by force and redistribute it to those they arbitrarily determine 'need' it.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Break a law and see.
> 
> The government is bound by the Constitution. The citizens are bound to the laws agreed to by a majority of Representatives  installed by a majority of voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.. they are not.. for the representatives are bound by the rule of law which even if their majority or a majority of the populace wants something, and it is against the rule of law, it cannot be done.. and not a single citizen is bound by it
> 
> Your whim, nor the whim of any other citizen, has no power over how a representative introduces something, votes on something, or acts upon something in government... that rule of law, is what prevents or limits their actions.. not your vote and not your popular will
Click to expand...


I think that you just repeated what I said if you define "rule of law" as the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this?  Or are you just going to stay with this one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing out the error in your words.  The government doesn't steal from you at the point of a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they do, try not paying taxes and see where it gets you.
> 
> That you don't see the gun is irrelevant.  It's not different than the mob sending you a letter to remit payment "or else," or someone aiming their gun at you inside a pocket.  Without the gun, you would not give up your money.  With the gun, you do.  It's armed robbery.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making paying your share of the cost of services to all of us is not in the same zip code of criminal armed robbery,  a lesson that you may be taught someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sharing the cost of defense, roads, courts, that sort of thing are legitimate.  Taking money from one citizen and giving it to another, giving it to foreign governments or using it to wage non defense wars are not only exactly "the same zip code" but they are the same.  And interest on armed robbery is still fruit of the poisoned tree.  So yes, 20-30% of taxes are legit.  I'm referring to most of them, not all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say what you mean and mean what you say is the archenemy of extremism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the extremist.  I'm a moderate.  I want a government that performs services for it's citizens that cannot reasonably be provided by a free market.  Roads, police, courts, national defense, management of limited resources like water, arbiter of the recognition of land ownership, that sort of thing.  I want government to then let us make our own choices.  Pretty moderate.
> 
> You want government to own and control all assets in the economy.  Businesses have to ask your blessing to exist.  People can only earn what you'll allow.  You redistribute money freely.  You're an extremist whack job.  AKA a Marxist.
Click to expand...


'' You want government to own and control all assets in the economy.''

Of course, Adolf, this is exactly the opposite of everything that I've posted but the fact that you keep trying to think and speak for me,  rather than yourself,  is classic extremism. 

Let me simplify. 

Capitalism requires competition. 

Socialism otherwise. 

Just as practiced here from day 1, and the vast majority of countries around the world.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the delusion that the government does nothing to contribute to the success of the country.  Understand that's pure delusion, brought about by propaganda, serving THE PARTY.
> 
> You can play whatever role you choose to in our politics,  but as for me,  I will not empower any delusion with responsibility.
> 
> Reality is that everyone living here benefits from a successful country and key to our success as a country is government.
> 
> Businesses optimize themselves only.  Business has zero responsibility for anything other than make more money regardless of the cost to others. They don't make the country successful, they make themselves successful,  or at least some of them do.
> 
> People in the real world realize and accept that government services are no more free than business provided goods and services and taxes apportion that cost to the beneficiaries of the services.
> 
> So either pay your share of the costs of living in a successful country or move to a less successful but cheaper country.  Your choice.  An OR choice not an AND choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again changing the subject. The above was simply in response to your statement that conservatives want something for nothing and have an entitlement mentality. Honestly I don't know many liberals on here that would even agree with that. They might claim they don't believe that of liberals, but they would never claim it of conservatives. Don't you remember, conservatives are the ones always telling the poor to quit whining, pull up your boot straps and get to work if you want more money. Hardly constitutes a something for nothing mentality.
> 
> You don't live in reality. You live in a make believe world of excuses where your failures are not your fault and entitlement notion that you have the right to obligate others to your survival. I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. It is not right however, that government take my property by force and redistribute it to those they arbitrarily determine 'need' it.
Click to expand...


" I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "

Finally. 

Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS. 

If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.


----------



## PMZ

It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the delusion that the government does nothing to contribute to the success of the country.  Understand that's pure delusion, brought about by propaganda, serving THE PARTY.
> 
> You can play whatever role you choose to in our politics,  but as for me,  I will not empower any delusion with responsibility.
> 
> Reality is that everyone living here benefits from a successful country and key to our success as a country is government.
> 
> Businesses optimize themselves only.  Business has zero responsibility for anything other than make more money regardless of the cost to others. They don't make the country successful, they make themselves successful,  or at least some of them do.
> 
> People in the real world realize and accept that government services are no more free than business provided goods and services and taxes apportion that cost to the beneficiaries of the services.
> 
> So either pay your share of the costs of living in a successful country or move to a less successful but cheaper country.  Your choice.  An OR choice not an AND choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again changing the subject. The above was simply in response to your statement that conservatives want something for nothing and have an entitlement mentality. Honestly I don't know many liberals on here that would even agree with that. They might claim they don't believe that of liberals, but they would never claim it of conservatives. Don't you remember, conservatives are the ones always telling the poor to quit whining, pull up your boot straps and get to work if you want more money. Hardly constitutes a something for nothing mentality.
> 
> You don't live in reality. You live in a make believe world of excuses where your failures are not your fault and entitlement notion that you have the right to obligate others to your survival. I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. It is not right however, that government take my property by force and redistribute it to those they arbitrarily determine 'need' it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "
> 
> Finally.
> 
> Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS.
> 
> If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.
Click to expand...


When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.



Under state funded education and democrates catering to teacher's unions? It's not hard to understand at all.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again changing the subject. The above was simply in response to your statement that conservatives want something for nothing and have an entitlement mentality. Honestly I don't know many liberals on here that would even agree with that. They might claim they don't believe that of liberals, but they would never claim it of conservatives. Don't you remember, conservatives are the ones always telling the poor to quit whining, pull up your boot straps and get to work if you want more money. Hardly constitutes a something for nothing mentality.
> 
> You don't live in reality. You live in a make believe world of excuses where your failures are not your fault and entitlement notion that you have the right to obligate others to your survival. I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. It is not right however, that government take my property by force and redistribute it to those they arbitrarily determine 'need' it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "
> 
> Finally.
> 
> Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS.
> 
> If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.
Click to expand...


"Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution."

People spend their lives studying Constitutional law.  And you can best them from the Lazy Boy? 

I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation is as irrelevant as mine and all others. 

Thats the way things were designed by the founders to be.  

You're trying to redesign our government. The majority doesn't agree with you.  In fact the number of people who do is getting smaller. They've seen the consequences of ideas like yours.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under state funded education and democrates catering to teacher's unions? It's not hard to understand at all.
Click to expand...


Students learn differently depending on who's paying the teachers?  And on whether the teachers negotiate individually or collectively? 

Are you against athletes having agents too?  How about executives hiring lawyers to do their negotiations.  Or anybody who hires a lawyer to negotiate their position in court.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bern80 said:


> When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.



One of the features of the early United States that set this as a unique nation was that our Constitution and laws were written in plain language. Most of Europe wrote laws in Latin, to ensure that commoners were not privy to the meaning of laws. Lawyers were an elite who alone could understand the laws that governed lesser men. 

But our founding fathers rejected this practice, and wrote laws in plain language that any man could understand. Remember that in 1780, there was about a 90% literacy rank - virtually everyone could read and write, not like now.

About 1830 things started to slide - while Latin is not used, the employment of obfuscatory language was added to new laws, to the point that now we have garbage like Obama's fascist care that is thousands of pages of gobbledegook.

As a result, any person with an 8th grade education can read the Constitution and understand exactly what the authors intended.



> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.



It's important to the leftists that the hoi poli are kept from understanding the laws that govern them - this keeps them dependent upon a ruling class of bureaucrats.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the features of the early United States that set this as a unique nation was that our Constitution and laws were written in plain language. Most of Europe wrote laws in Latin, to ensure that commoners were not privy to the meaning of laws. Lawyers were an elite who alone could understand the laws that governed lesser men.
> 
> But our founding fathers rejected this practice, and wrote laws in plain language that any man could understand. Remember that in 1780, there was about a 90% literacy rank - virtually everyone could read and write, not like now.
> 
> About 1830 things started to slide - while Latin is not used, the employment of obfuscatory language was added to new laws, to the point that now we have garbage like Obama's fascist care that is thousands of pages of gobbledegook.
> 
> As a result, any person with an 8th grade education can read the Constitution and understand exactly what the authors intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's important to the leftists that the hoi poli are kept from understanding the laws that govern them - this keeps them dependent upon a ruling class of bureaucrats.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of absolute crap.  The Magna Carta was written in Latin but in a few years was translated into everyday French. In ten years, by 1225  into English.  

This whole discussion is moot.  Nothing will happen as a result of any body's claim to special insight into the founders agreed upon words. Only the opinion of SCOTUS has any power.  That's as it should be.  Allowing all half baked political extremist movements to have free reign on the text that rules our government would be insane.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the features of the early United States that set this as a unique nation was that our Constitution and laws were written in plain language. Most of Europe wrote laws in Latin, to ensure that commoners were not privy to the meaning of laws. Lawyers were an elite who alone could understand the laws that governed lesser men.
> 
> But our founding fathers rejected this practice, and wrote laws in plain language that any man could understand. Remember that in 1780, there was about a 90% literacy rank - virtually everyone could read and write, not like now.
> 
> About 1830 things started to slide - while Latin is not used, the employment of obfuscatory language was added to new laws, to the point that now we have garbage like Obama's fascist care that is thousands of pages of gobbledegook.
> 
> As a result, any person with an 8th grade education can read the Constitution and understand exactly what the authors intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's important to the leftists that the hoi poli are kept from understanding the laws that govern them - this keeps them dependent upon a ruling class of bureaucrats.
Click to expand...


Who's kept from understanding anything?  And how?  Even Texas can't prevent anyone from understanding natural selection despite monumental efforts. You can find how to build a fission bomb on the Internet.  There are no secrets.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the financial harm part.  The other part is,  once again,  only what you want to be true.
> 
> The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning.  It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have:  innocent until proven guilty.  It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime;  the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.
> 
> On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser.  Sounds consistent with liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His post is proof that he slandered me.
Click to expand...


Nice try, fucknut, but that nifty little liberal "move the goalposts and topic hop" trick doesn't work with me.  Was I addressing whether or not he slandered you?  No.  Am I going to let you pretend suddenly that that was the topic I was addressing?  Hell, no.

I'll try to type this as dumbed-down as I can, and please feel free to move your lips while you read it:  you claimed that the burden of proof in a slander suit is on the accused slanderer to prove himself innocent.  You are wrong.  My post addressed your wrongness in this regard.

I don't recall what it was he called you that you think was slander, but if it denigrated your intelligence, you just proved that he was telling the truth.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have:  innocent until proven guilty.  It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime;  the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.
> 
> On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser.  Sounds consistent with liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His post is proof that he slandered me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, fucknut, but that nifty little liberal "move the goalposts and topic hop" trick doesn't work with me.  Was I addressing whether or not he slandered you?  No.  Am I going to let you pretend suddenly that that was the topic I was addressing?  Hell, no.
> 
> I'll try to type this as dumbed-down as I can, and please feel free to move your lips while you read it:  you claimed that the burden of proof in a slander suit is on the accused slanderer to prove himself innocent.  You are wrong.  My post addressed your wrongness in this regard.
> 
> I don't recall what it was he called you that you think was slander, but if it denigrated your intelligence, you just proved that he was telling the truth.
Click to expand...


Slander would be a civil,  not a legal issue.  Now take a deep breath,  and start over.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic.  No monarch.
> 
> On election days you don't vote for your choice for President,  a Senator,  and a House member?
> 
> If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
Click to expand...


Simple minds, simpleminded ideas.  That's the left in a nutshell.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember,  my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.
> 
> Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
Click to expand...


In other words, I'm right and you're too big a chickenshit to admit it.  You may stop waving your white flag now and run along.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms.  The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple minds, simpleminded ideas.  That's the left in a nutshell.
Click to expand...


Interesting perspective.  Government of,  by,  and for the people is a simpleminded idea.  

Have the founders been notified?


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.
> 
> It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve.  Who the fuck are you, and what business is it of yours?  Same basic concept.  I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have fuck-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, I'm right and you're too big a chickenshit to admit it.  You may stop waving your white flag now and run along.
Click to expand...


You forgot the content again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.
> 
> In fact,  I would venture that most human beings would disagree.
> 
> If you want a real life demonstration,  threaten one of my grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
Click to expand...


"Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  No one can possibly oppose me unless they're listening to Fox and parroting them, and if I just keep repeating that, it'll keep me from having to listen or respond to anyone.  Fox, Fox, Fox!"

The only "recital" here is you, Brain Trust, every time you trot out this little speech in the mistaken belief that it fools anyone into thinking that you've said something, or that you're capable of saying something.

Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right!  I can't answer him!  Auuuuggghh!  Run away!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have a democracy in this country. Never have. It is not majority rule. This is a fundamental myth about our country that for whatever reason we can't shake. Our form of government is and always has been known as a democratic republic. Not a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up the word democracy.  Look up the word republic.  Turn off the TV.  This ain't rocket science.
> 
> You're the biggest robot here.
Click to expand...


Yes, WE are the ones who should look up those words, because the fool who blathers on based on the most basic, shallow definition of them from the dictionary, deliberately ignoring the two or three other, more in-depth definitions is the one who truly knows what they mean.

Simple minds, simpleminded ideas.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy. More proof that it is liberals who are anti-personal accountability. You would rather abdicate that responsibilty to government in the form of red tape and regulations as opposed to the consumers being vocal about a crooked CEO and/or not doing business with them. But you want your cake and be able to it too. You still want what he's selling, but don't like the money he's making doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it.  Accountability is the responsibility of the little people,  but the aristocracy is absolved of it.
> 
> Gotcha.
Click to expand...


I get it.  "I say something, you refute it utterly, I hear that you've agreed with me and claim a win."

Gotcha.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Workers are paid the minimum that corporations,  following their one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others,  can get away with.
> 
> Why don't you start a business and pay workers the maximum that you can up to and including selling everything you have and taking no salary whatsoever?
> 
> >>> The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.
> 
> Where is the democrat party on this? When do they plan to set all executive salaries? Point me to one party plank of theirs that says how they will fix the Executive Oligopoly over Executive salaries.  They held all three branches of government and did nothing about it. NOTHING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another good Republican recital. If you see a problem,  treat it exactly like you would dog shit.  Go around it. Avoid it at all costs.  Humans, except for the Fox Cult, are incapable of solving problems. And the Fox Cult are absolved from responsibility and accountability because they're aristocracy.
> 
> Blame it on the people.
Click to expand...


"Fox, Fox, Fox.  I can't answer you, so I'll shout 'Fox, Fox, Fox' to drown you out.  Fox, Fox, Fox."


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  No one can possibly oppose me unless they're listening to Fox and parroting them, and if I just keep repeating that, it'll keep me from having to listen or respond to anyone.  Fox, Fox, Fox!"
> 
> The only "recital" here is you, Brain Trust, every time you trot out this little speech in the mistaken belief that it fools anyone into thinking that you've said something, or that you're capable of saying something.
> 
> Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right!  I can't answer him!  Auuuuggghh!  Run away!"
Click to expand...


24/7/365 political propaganda,  leading the ignorant to blindly support, what's demonstrably damaging to America,  offends me.  

It's a tyrannical strategy, taking advantage of the vulnerable. 

And it almost led to the downfall of America. 

Why,  exactly,  should it be tolerated?


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny is defined as minority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, if you're trying to make liberals look stupid, you're doing an excellent job, my man.  Continuing to make up word definitions when, hello, you have a browser.
Click to expand...


Don't be silly, Kaz.  Everyone knows the Internet is for porn.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny is defined as minority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, if you're trying to make liberals look stupid, you're doing an excellent job, my man.  Continuing to make up word definitions when, hello, you have a browser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Kaz.  Everyone knows the Internet is for porn.
Click to expand...


Does this mean that you're another supporter of a minority imposing their dogma on an entire country?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.
> 
> A republic is a government without a monarch.
> 
> Democracy is a decision making strategy.  By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.
> 
> You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy.  Rule by the privileged.
> 
> Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away.  Our government is of,  by,  and for the people.  Not the privileged.  All the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple minds, simpleminded ideas.  That's the left in a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting perspective.  Government of,  by,  and for the people is a simpleminded idea.
> 
> Have the founders been notified?
Click to expand...


  Yeah, THAT'S what I was referring to.

You just keep telling yourself that, Punkin.  Maybe you'll even be able to believe it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative icon.  Avoid accountability.  Avoid responsibility.
> What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.
> 
> The peak of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, I'm right and you're too big a chickenshit to admit it.  You may stop waving your white flag now and run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot the content again.
Click to expand...


No, I can see what your content is, and I always walk around those sorts of things when I find them on the sidewalk.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> Good recital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  No one can possibly oppose me unless they're listening to Fox and parroting them, and if I just keep repeating that, it'll keep me from having to listen or respond to anyone.  Fox, Fox, Fox!"
> 
> The only "recital" here is you, Brain Trust, every time you trot out this little speech in the mistaken belief that it fools anyone into thinking that you've said something, or that you're capable of saying something.
> 
> Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right!  I can't answer him!  Auuuuggghh!  Run away!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 24/7/365 political propaganda,  leading the ignorant to blindly support, what's demonstrably damaging to America,  offends me.
> 
> It's a tyrannical strategy, taking advantage of the vulnerable.
> 
> And it almost led to the downfall of America.
> 
> Why,  exactly,  should it be tolerated?
Click to expand...


"Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  Am I fooling anyone?  Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox."

Your breathing offends ME.  Stop doing so much of it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, if you're trying to make liberals look stupid, you're doing an excellent job, my man.  Continuing to make up word definitions when, hello, you have a browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Kaz.  Everyone knows the Internet is for porn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this mean that you're another supporter of a minority imposing their dogma on an entire country?
Click to expand...


It means I think you're a mouthbreathing shitstain who doesn't know how to use a browser for anything other than locating money shots.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill of Rights Sixth Article:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your right to privacy wrt government forces.  WRT privacy between citizens, one is protected by property rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's actually the 4th Amendment, not the 6th.
> 
> Further, the amendment simply restrains the government from searching without first obtaining a warrant - it does nothing to address "privacy" per se.
Click to expand...


BS, it's the same damn thing. 

Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, Kaz.  Everyone knows the Internet is for porn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that you're another supporter of a minority imposing their dogma on an entire country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means I think you're a mouthbreathing shitstain who doesn't know how to use a browser for anything other than locating money shots.
Click to expand...


Is that a yes or a no?


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  No one can possibly oppose me unless they're listening to Fox and parroting them, and if I just keep repeating that, it'll keep me from having to listen or respond to anyone.  Fox, Fox, Fox!"
> 
> The only "recital" here is you, Brain Trust, every time you trot out this little speech in the mistaken belief that it fools anyone into thinking that you've said something, or that you're capable of saying something.
> 
> Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right!  I can't answer him!  Auuuuggghh!  Run away!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24/7/365 political propaganda,  leading the ignorant to blindly support, what's demonstrably damaging to America,  offends me.
> 
> It's a tyrannical strategy, taking advantage of the vulnerable.
> 
> And it almost led to the downfall of America.
> 
> Why,  exactly,  should it be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  Am I fooling anyone?  Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox."
> 
> Your breathing offends ME.  Stop doing so much of it.
Click to expand...


One of the vulnerable sucked into goostepping for the PARTY.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 24/7/365 political propaganda,  leading the ignorant to blindly support, what's demonstrably damaging to America,  offends me.
> 
> It's a tyrannical strategy, taking advantage of the vulnerable.
> 
> And it almost led to the downfall of America.
> 
> Why,  exactly,  should it be tolerated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  Am I fooling anyone?  Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox."
> 
> Your breathing offends ME.  Stop doing so much of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the vulnerable sucked into goostepping for the PARTY.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but I was distracted by that large white flag you're waving.  Did you say something?


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fox, Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox.  Am I fooling anyone?  Fox, Fox.  Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox."
> 
> Your breathing offends ME.  Stop doing so much of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the vulnerable sucked into goostepping for the PARTY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I was distracted by that large white flag you're waving.  Did you say something?
Click to expand...


Is your entire life one big delusion?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "
> 
> Finally.
> 
> Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS.
> 
> If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution."
> 
> People spend their lives studying Constitutional law.  And you can best them from the Lazy Boy?
> 
> I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation is as irrelevant as mine and all others.
> 
> That&#8217;s the way things were designed by the founders to be.
> 
> You're trying to redesign our government. The majority doesn't agree with you.  In fact the number of people who do is getting smaller. They've seen the consequences of ideas like yours.
Click to expand...


What ideas like mine specifically? And yet the constitution is taught at a high school level. Too bad you think you're too stupid to understand it.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under state funded education and democrates catering to teacher's unions? It's not hard to understand at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Students learn differently depending on who's paying the teachers?  And on whether the teachers negotiate individually or collectively?
> 
> Are you against athletes having agents too?  How about executives hiring lawyers to do their negotiations.  Or anybody who hires a lawyer to negotiate their position in court.
Click to expand...


Not a very good comparison. You like so many democrates seem to conveniently forget a key part of the education system. THE CHILDREN. A union's purpose is to represent it's members, which are teachers, not who they teach. It is foolish to assume whatever benefits a union provides to its members will also be good for the students. In fact they are sometimes quite detrimental.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill of Rights Sixth Article:
> 
> 
> That's your right to privacy wrt government forces.  WRT privacy between citizens, one is protected by property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually the 4th Amendment, not the 6th.
> 
> Further, the amendment simply restrains the government from searching without first obtaining a warrant - it does nothing to address "privacy" per se.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, it's the same damn thing.
> 
> Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.
Click to expand...


Privacy is protected by the 10th amendment from the Federal government.  The 14th then extended those to the States.

If we applied due process and warrants to the IRS and followed the 10th, then almost all government atrocities committed against our privacy would go away.

We got so screwed up in this because the Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted.  They turned it around to that they can do anything but what is prohibited.   Now they want to add things like "privacy" that were stripped in the process back in.  Though only in a selective way, liberals abhor the right to privacy because that would be severe limits on government power if we actually had it.   They just want it to apply to abortion and cursing.

That's why it's become such a bastardization of a concept in the law.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution."
> 
> People spend their lives studying Constitutional law.  And you can best them from the Lazy Boy?
> 
> I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation is as irrelevant as mine and all others.
> 
> Thats the way things were designed by the founders to be.
> 
> You're trying to redesign our government. The majority doesn't agree with you.  In fact the number of people who do is getting smaller. They've seen the consequences of ideas like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ideas like mine specifically? And yet the constitution is taught at a high school level. Too bad you think you're too stupid to understand it.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts. 

What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional,  it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Who's kept from understanding anything?  And how?



https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

You've never read it. Nazi Pelosi has never read it, Dingy Harry has never read it, OBAMA has never read it.

2000 + pages of utter bureaucratic gobbledegook. 

{COMPENSATION- While serving on the business of the Commission (including travel time), a member of the Commission shall be entitled to compensation at the per diem equivalent of the rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of tile 5, United States Code, and while so serving away from home and the members regular place of business, a member may be allowed travel expenses, as authorized by the Chairman of the Commission. Physicians serving as personnel of the Commission may be provided a physician comparability allowance by the Commission in the same manner as Government physicians may be provided such an allowance by an agency under section 5948 of title 5, United States Code, and for such purpose subsection (i) of such section shall apply to the Commission in the same manner as it applies to the Tennessee Valley Authority. For purposes of pay (other than pay of members of the Commission) and employment benefits, rights, and privileges, all personnel of the Commission shall be treated as if they were employees of the United States Senate. Personnel of the Commission shall not be treated as employees of the Government Accountability Office for any purpose.}

Clear, right Comrade?



> Even Texas can't prevent anyone from understanding natural selection despite monumental efforts. You can find how to build a fission bomb on the Internet.  There are no secrets.



Look, you have an IQ of what, 70? That, coupled with your 4th grade education makes you a good communist, pliable and stupid; but what you aren't - is qualified to opine on intellectual matters.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under state funded education and democrates catering to teacher's unions? It's not hard to understand at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Students learn differently depending on who's paying the teachers?  And on whether the teachers negotiate individually or collectively?
> 
> Are you against athletes having agents too?  How about executives hiring lawyers to do their negotiations.  Or anybody who hires a lawyer to negotiate their position in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a very good comparison. You like so many democrates seem to conveniently forget a key part of the education system. THE CHILDREN. A union's purpose is to represent it's members, which are teachers, not who they teach. It is foolish to assume whatever benefits a union provides to its members will also be good for the students. In fact they are sometimes quite detrimental.
Click to expand...


There is no purpose to education other than students.  There are better and worse educators just like everyone else.  Unions are one way any worker can debate the value of their contribution with those determined to pay as little as possible. 

It has little to do with education.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's actually the 4th Amendment, not the 6th.
> 
> Further, the amendment simply restrains the government from searching without first obtaining a warrant - it does nothing to address "privacy" per se.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS, it's the same damn thing.
> 
> Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Privacy is protected by the 10th amendment from the Federal government.  The 14th then extended those to the States.
> 
> If we applied due process and warrants to the IRS and followed the 10th, then almost all government atrocities committed against our privacy would go away.
> 
> We got so screwed up in this because the Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted.  They turned it around to that they can do anything but what is prohibited.   Now they want to add things like "privacy" that were stripped in the process back in.  Though only in a selective way, liberals abhor the right to privacy because that would be severe limits on government power if we actually had it.   They just want it to apply to abortion and cursing.
> 
> That's why it's become such a bastardization of a concept in the law.
Click to expand...


" We got so screwed up"

The gospel according to Fox.  We're not screwed up.  We are,  on balance,  the greatest country the world has known. 

 "The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted" 

And that assumption has never been violated. Stating otherwise is pure Republican propaganda for portraying democrat administrations as less competent even than the demonstrated failures of Republicanism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> BS, it's the same damn thing.
> 
> Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.



Let's explain it this way:

If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a gun in a cabinet - can the police get a warrant and arrest you?

No, you have  RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

If a neighbor is If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a pile of cocaine in a cabinet - can they tell the police, who get a warrant and arrest you?

IF you had a right to privacy, what was in your home would be private and the neighbor would be constrained from violating your right - just as the neighbor cannot take your gun, he would not be able to take your privacy. But you have no right to privacy, so the neighbor is free to violate your privacy and the police are free to use that violation as a basis to obtain a warrant.

The 4th constrains the government from conducting random searches on private property - it is a property right. Note that the police can and do conduct warrantless searches on government property - every day. Note that the IRS can and does comb through your financial records any damned time they please.

There is no right to privacy - so you will get nowhere in court opposing these acts.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that you're another supporter of a minority imposing their dogma on an entire country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means I think you're a mouthbreathing shitstain who doesn't know how to use a browser for anything other than locating money shots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a yes or a no?
Click to expand...


Yes - you're a mouth-breathing shit stain....


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's kept from understanding anything?  And how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text
> 
> You've never read it. Nazi Pelosi has never read it, Dingy Harry has never read it, OBAMA has never read it.
> 
> 2000 + pages of utter bureaucratic gobbledegook.
> 
> {COMPENSATION- While serving on the business of the Commission (including travel time), a member of the Commission shall be entitled to compensation at the per diem equivalent of the rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of tile 5, United States Code, and while so serving away from home and the members regular place of business, a member may be allowed travel expenses, as authorized by the Chairman of the Commission. Physicians serving as personnel of the Commission may be provided a physician comparability allowance by the Commission in the same manner as Government physicians may be provided such an allowance by an agency under section 5948 of title 5, United States Code, and for such purpose subsection (i) of such section shall apply to the Commission in the same manner as it applies to the Tennessee Valley Authority. For purposes of pay (other than pay of members of the Commission) and employment benefits, rights, and privileges, all personnel of the Commission shall be treated as if they were employees of the United States Senate. Personnel of the Commission shall not be treated as employees of the Government Accountability Office for any purpose.}
> 
> Clear, right Comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Texas can't prevent anyone from understanding natural selection despite monumental efforts. You can find how to build a fission bomb on the Internet.  There are no secrets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you have an IQ of what, 70? That, coupled with your 4th grade education makes you a good communist, pliable and stupid; but what you aren't - is qualified to opine on intellectual matters.
Click to expand...


You make Adolf seem benign.  

You're as good an example here of a failure at life trying to create some company.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> You make Adolf seem benign.



You make drooling retards seem smart.

You make Pelosi almost seem normal.



> You're as good an example here of a failure at life trying to create some company.



I accept that you were utterly defeated, yet again.


----------



## dcraelin

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.   

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that 
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to 
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%. 
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years 
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came 
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make Adolf seem benign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make drooling retards seem smart.
> 
> You make Pelosi almost seem normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as good an example here of a failure at life trying to create some company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept that you were utterly defeated, yet again.
Click to expand...


And I accept that you are delusional.  Probably because success in the real world has eluded you.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
> from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
> IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
> it is 68.4
> if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
> then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)
> 
> Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
> and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
> balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.
> 
> This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
> we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
> fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%.
> Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
> Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
> from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
> (There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)



I would only add to your thoughts that in 2001, the CBO published a report that said that if Bush continued Clintonomics,  our entire national debt would be paid off by 2006 and we'd have a multi trillion $ surplus by 2011. Thats how close to financial nirvana we came.


----------



## PMZ

The best description of the Republican propaganda campaign is contained in the very old joke's punchline,  I don't have to outrun the bear,  I just have to outrun you. 

The level of disaster Bush left in his wake was unprecedented.  In Japan such incompetence would have left behind much hari kari. The Republicans reasoned that to avoid extinction they didn't have to outrun the bear,  just the democrats.  

Their disaster, however,  unfortunately for them,  was followed by our success in electing a superb President. 

Ever since, the propaganda blowers have been set on max,  at the expense of the entire country.  

Even that has failed with Republicans tarred and feathered by their own hand. 

What's next? 

I think a nasty divorce between business and dixiecrats.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this from the Bible?  Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears?  Wikipedia?
> 
> Oh I know.  The fount of all knowledge,  Fox News.  Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right!  I can't answer him!  Auuuuggghh!  Run away!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 24/7/365 political propaganda,  leading the ignorant to blindly support, what's demonstrably damaging to America,  offends me.
> 
> It's a tyrannical strategy, taking advantage of the vulnerable.
> 
> And it almost led to the downfall of America.
> 
> Why,  exactly,  should it be tolerated?
Click to expand...


Because they hire a lot of beauty queens for eye candy.   They do it out of compassion for people who can't afford a porn channel.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> "The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"
> 
> And that assumption has never been violated



True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, it's the same damn thing.
> 
> Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's explain it this way:
> 
> If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a gun in a cabinet - can the police get a warrant and arrest you?
> 
> No, you have  RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If a neighbor is If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a pile of cocaine in a cabinet - can they tell the police, who get a warrant and arrest you?
> 
> IF you had a right to privacy, what was in your home would be private and the neighbor would be constrained from violating your right - just as the neighbor cannot take your gun, he would not be able to take your privacy. But you have no right to privacy, so the neighbor is free to violate your privacy and the police are free to use that violation as a basis to obtain a warrant.
> 
> The 4th constrains the government from conducting random searches on private property - it is a property right. Note that the police can and do conduct warrantless searches on government property - every day. Note that the IRS can and does comb through your financial records any damned time they please.
> 
> There is no right to privacy - so you will get nowhere in court opposing these acts.
Click to expand...


"Rights",  vis a vis the Constitution,  are misunderstood,  as the Constitution is not the law for citizens,  but rather the law for the Federal Government. 

What we call "rights" are really areas over which the Feds are prohibited from legislating.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"
> 
> And that assumption has never been violated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...
Click to expand...


SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended. 

Have at it.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution."
> 
> People spend their lives studying Constitutional law.  And you can best them from the Lazy Boy?
> 
> I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation is as irrelevant as mine and all others.
> 
> Thats the way things were designed by the founders to be.
> 
> You're trying to redesign our government. The majority doesn't agree with you.  In fact the number of people who do is getting smaller. They've seen the consequences of ideas like yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ideas like mine specifically? And yet the constitution is taught at a high school level. Too bad you think you're too stupid to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts.
> 
> What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional,  it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.
Click to expand...


That's not what you said previously. We already had this conversation and you agreed congress is indeed capable of passing lawas that are unconstitutional.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ideas like mine specifically? And yet the constitution is taught at a high school level. Too bad you think you're too stupid to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts.
> 
> What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional,  it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what you said previously. We already had this conversation and you agreed congress is indeed capable of passing lawas that are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


But they are unenforceable if SCOTUS finds them unconstitutional. The courts cannot adjudicate in favor of them.  

Thats by the design of the founders.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"
> 
> And that assumption has never been violated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.
> 
> Have at it.
Click to expand...


Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
Click to expand...


Because you're unable to understand US Law. 

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one. 

Stop whining and get to work.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm sorry I made you cry dude.

BTW, your argument is circular.


----------



## emilynghiem

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
Click to expand...


Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.

The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.

Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.

If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.

Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm sorry I made you cry dude.
> 
> BTW, your argument is circular.
Click to expand...


I'll bet your whole family would agree that you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm sorry I made you cry dude.
> 
> BTW, your argument is circular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet your whole family would agree that you're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


Hey, calm down man, I'll stop picking on you.  You're going to pop a vein.


----------



## kaz

Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.

The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.


----------



## PMZ

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.
> 
> The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.
> 
> Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.
> 
> If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
> then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is the bylaws for government.  The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations. 

And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and thats why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us.  The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws. 

As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition. 

It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society.  Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.



If only they had lawyers creating economic rules to fix it for them...

Our businesses are still doing well, actually.  The biggest problems they have are created by government.  Government is saddling domestic production with mandates, regulations and taxes.  We have the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, we are the only industrial power that regulates and taxes overseas operations and we have the mind numbingly stupid policy of taking over a third of every dollar any US company earns overseas and tries to repatriate.

And we have legions of socialists saying the problem is the hair of the dog that bit us.  More baby, we need more, more, more government.  Like you.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.
> 
> The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.



You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.  

I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only they had lawyers creating economic rules to fix it for them...
> 
> Our businesses are still doing well, actually.  The biggest problems they have are created by government.  Government is saddling domestic production with mandates, regulations and taxes.  We have the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world, we are the only industrial power that regulates and taxes overseas operations and we have the mind numbingly stupid policy of taking over a third of every dollar any US company earns overseas and tries to repatriate.
> 
> And we have legions of socialists saying the problem is the hair of the dog that bit us.  More baby, we need more, more, more government.  Like you.
Click to expand...


Businesses are doing their job when there is full employment.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS, it's the same damn thing.
> 
> Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's explain it this way:
> 
> If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a gun in a cabinet - can the police get a warrant and arrest you?
> 
> No, you have  RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
> 
> If a neighbor is If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a pile of cocaine in a cabinet - can they tell the police, who get a warrant and arrest you?
> 
> IF you had a right to privacy, what was in your home would be private and the neighbor would be constrained from violating your right - just as the neighbor cannot take your gun, he would not be able to take your privacy. But you have no right to privacy, so the neighbor is free to violate your privacy and the police are free to use that violation as a basis to obtain a warrant.
> 
> The 4th constrains the government from conducting random searches on private property - it is a property right. Note that the police can and do conduct warrantless searches on government property - every day. Note that the IRS can and does comb through your financial records any damned time they please.
> 
> There is no right to privacy - so you will get nowhere in court opposing these acts.
Click to expand...

You are adding the term "absolute" to privacy and saying you don't have a right to absolute privacy.  Just as you don't have an absolute right to free speech, or absolute right to property, or absolute right to own, and use any guns.  

You are also conflating trespass with privacy.  If you invite a neighbor to your house or expose information to the public by exposing the contents of your house through a window to the public, then you are exposing information to the public at large.  Clearly if you have so exposed your information to the public, that is not private.  You are assuming you can put up a billboard on your property with a statement that claims the contents of the house comprise illegal goods that are private, then sue the public for reading your billboard, and/or for putting you in jail for the contents of your house when they put you away.

As with any "discussion" the terms need to be defined.  Privacy as I defined it is most certainly protected by the Constitution.  Absolute rights are a myth.


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
> from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
> IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
> it is 68.4
> if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
> then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)
> 
> Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
> and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
> balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.
> 
> This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
> we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
> fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%.
> Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
> Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
> from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
> (There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)



Not so much.  Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton.  That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
> from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
> IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
> it is 68.4
> if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
> then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)
> 
> Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
> and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
> balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.
> 
> This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
> we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
> fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%.
> Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
> Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
> from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
> (There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would only add to your thoughts that in 2001, the CBO published a report that said that if Bush continued Clintonomics,  our entire national debt would be paid off by 2006 and we'd have a multi trillion $ surplus by 2011. Thats how close to financial nirvana we came.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause that dot com bubble did not burst at all at the very end of Clinton's term.  What bubble says PMZ. ROFL you take water carrying to a whole new level PMS.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
> from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
> IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
> it is 68.4
> if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
> then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)
> 
> Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
> and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
> balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.
> 
> This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
> we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
> fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%.
> Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
> Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
> from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
> (There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would only add to your thoughts that in 2001, the CBO published a report that said that if Bush continued Clintonomics,  our entire national debt would be paid off by 2006 and we'd have a multi trillion $ surplus by 2011. Thats how close to financial nirvana we came.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah cause that dot com bubble did not burst at all at the very end of Clinton's term.  What bubble says PMZ. ROFL you take water carrying to a whole new level PMS.
Click to expand...


Fuck you too. 

The CBO report was written in 2001.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts.
> 
> What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional,  it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you said previously. We already had this conversation and you agreed congress is indeed capable of passing lawas that are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they are unenforceable if SCOTUS finds them unconstitutional. The courts cannot adjudicate in favor of them.
> 
> Thats by the design of the founders.
Click to expand...


That would perhaps be the one flaw in the system. SCOTUS can't strike down congressional legislation without a case being presented against it.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.
> 
> The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
Click to expand...


Democracy is not the source of freedom. Obviously the minority would disagree. The source of freedom is beyond an form of government. Individual freedom is an inalienable human right.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
> from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
> IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
> it is 68.4
> if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
> then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)
> 
> Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
> and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
> balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.
> 
> This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
> we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
> fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%.
> Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
> Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
> from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
> (There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.  Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton.  That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.
Click to expand...


The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses.  He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.  

I agree with your other point.  Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.


----------



## RKMBrown

emilynghiem said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.
> 
> The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.
> 
> Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.
> 
> If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
> then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.
Click to expand...


Corporations are groups of people. There is nothing illegal or wrong with using influence to get what you want.  For example, would you prohibit the people from protesting or influencing the government to stop a war we did not agree with?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.
> 
> The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.
> 
> Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.
> 
> If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
> then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws for government.  The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.
> 
> And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and thats why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us.  The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.
> 
> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.
> 
> It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society.  Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.
Click to expand...


Yes, and the democrat plan is to force deterioration of our society.  Each and very year of deterioration making the business challenge more and more difficult.  Thus, allowing the government to step in, take control of each and every industry, to save the day for the mess they created.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
> from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
> IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
> it is 68.4
> if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
> then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)
> 
> Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
> and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
> balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.
> 
> This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
> we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
> fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of  70 to 90%.
> Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
> Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
> from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
> (There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.  Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton.  That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses.  He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.
> 
> I agree with your other point.  Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.
Click to expand...


Government spending, revenue, and regulations are three separate issues.  Business behavior by the number of businesses in each of the various industries are still other separate issues.

Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda.

I agree with the "agenda" to be more careful in going forward with Wars against sovereign nations because we don't like their religious beliefs or the products they make or the gangs of thugs that roam in their borders.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.
> 
> The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
Click to expand...


Democracy isn't in the Constitution...


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.
> 
> The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy isn't in the Constitution...
Click to expand...


Universal suffrage is definitely in the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.  Clinton merely showed that a democrat president can negotiate with republicans to reduce federal spending to somewhat reasonable levels. The surplus was based on the dot com boom, the American Engineers and Innovators get the credit for that, not Clinton.  That would be like giving credit for Ford, Apple, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, to the feds, it's just plain silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses.  He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.
> 
> I agree with your other point.  Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government spending, revenue, and regulations are three separate issues.  Business behavior by the number of businesses in each of the various industries are still other separate issues.
> 
> Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda.
> 
> I agree with the "agenda" to be more careful in going forward with Wars against sovereign nations because we don't like their religious beliefs or the products they make or the gangs of thugs that roam in their borders.
Click to expand...


" Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda."

Another conservative against accountability.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.
> 
> The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.
> 
> Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.
> 
> If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
> then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws for government.  The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.
> 
> And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and thats why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us.  The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.
> 
> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.
> 
> It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society.  Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the democrat plan is to force deterioration of our society.  Each and very year of deterioration making the business challenge more and more difficult.  Thus, allowing the government to step in, take control of each and every industry, to save the day for the mess they created.
Click to expand...


Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.  

It's extremism which never works.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.



Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....
Click to expand...


Apple made more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy isn't in the Constitution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Universal suffrage is definitely in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I'll explain that to you.  The United States is a republic, it's not a democracy.

The States (i.e., republics) are democracies.  The various amendments related to voting, such as universal suffrage, suffrage, ban on poll taxes and that sort of thing relate to voting in the republics, which while having some actual democracy (e.g., propositions in California), are generally representative democracies, meaning they represent people to vote for them.  Senators, Representatives, governors that sort of thing.


----------



## itfitzme

* $109,703.86 per year average income.*


The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.  

There were  142,974,000 people employed.

So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.

That is exactly what it should be.  

So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The surplus had to do much more with revenues than expenses.  He just avoided starting endless and expensive wars.
> 
> I agree with your other point.  Business deserves the credit then and the blame now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government spending, revenue, and regulations are three separate issues.  Business behavior by the number of businesses in each of the various industries are still other separate issues.
> 
> Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda.
> 
> I agree with the "agenda" to be more careful in going forward with Wars against sovereign nations because we don't like their religious beliefs or the products they make or the gangs of thugs that roam in their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda."
> 
> Another conservative against accountability.
Click to expand...


Private citizens aren't required to be "accountable' to anyone except under a tyranny.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws for government.  The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.
> 
> And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and thats why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us.  The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.
> 
> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.
> 
> It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society.  Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the democrat plan is to force deterioration of our society.  Each and very year of deterioration making the business challenge more and more difficult.  Thus, allowing the government to step in, take control of each and every industry, to save the day for the mess they created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
Click to expand...


Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apple made more money regardless of the cost to others.
Click to expand...


What "cost" to others?


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.



Failed economics, did you?


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.



ROFL you have no clue what GDP is, do you?

Do you rent your house?  If the answer is no, it does not matter, the government assumes in it's GDP that your house is being rented.  IOW it assumes in the GDP the rent value of all US property.  

Did you get a new free software update to your phone in the last year?  The Government counts new features, even if free, as increased GDP.

GDP is one of the screwiest measures we have.


----------



## Foxfyre

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Failed economics, did you?
Click to expand...


At least he may have failed "Google" 

In 2012 the average U.S. income was $42,693, and it is no doubt somewhat lower this year as it has been steadily dropping a  bit ever since Obama took office.  It would not be as high as it is if government wages had not substantailly increased during the Obama administration.

As of September 2013 the BLS reports that 138,641,000 people in the USA are employed making this the lowest percentage of the work force employed since the Great Depression.  The BLS does not address how many of those 138+ million want full time work but are forced to work part time or are otherwise under employed.  And it doesn't factor in all those working two or more jobs and are therefore counted twice.   If we had reliable numbers on that, the situation would likely look far more grim.


----------



## RKMBrown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States


----------



## itfitzme

Oh, I see the idiots are posting bullshit.  They should earn less than the average.  Why, because they live in the lazy red states instead of the hard working blue states that actually generate more money, goods and services.

Top ten biggest earning states for the past four years include seven states that registered primarily Democratic in 2010

Table 1. Real GDP by State, 2009-2012......................................................................
..............Millions of chained (2005) dollars........................................................
.............. ................... .2009..............2010..............2011..............2012*..............
*California*.........1,667,152..............1,672,473..............1,692,301..............1,751,002..............1
Texas...................1,071,959..............1,116,268..............1,156,013..............1,211,692..............0
*New York*......... 974,078..............1,013,251..............1,024,985..............1,038,541..............1
*Florida*..............648,642..............650,291..............656,346..............672,287..............1
*Illinois*..............561,154..............571,228..............583,055..............594,201..............1
*Pennsylvania*..... 482,665..............493,530..............502,769..............511,345..............1
*New Jersey*......... 424,871..............431,409..............432,415..............438,173..............1
Ohio....................405,483..............413,991..............425,913..............435,104..............0
*North Carolina*... 372,219..............380,693..............382,655..............392,905..............1
Virginia.................... 363,730..............377,466..............381,493..............385,772..............0


Why do Republican's think they are entitled?


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.



Just some of the big ones.

The GDP is total revenue, not profit.  So by your calculation, you would be paying out 100% of revenue to employees and not paying any other cost.

You are also hugely double counting.  If a vendor sells a component to someone building a larger product, they incorporate the price of the product in their overall cost and you're counting both.

You are also counting all government expenditures twice.  The part of revenue, which is used to pay taxes (corporate, income, ...) is counted both for the company and again when it's spent by government.

And finally, you're giving zero to the owners who risked their money and bought the equipment and paid the employees to build the product/service.

Out of curiosity, do you admit you're a Marxist, or are you like PMZ?  You're a capitalist who gets his material from the Communist Manifesto?


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just some of the big ones.
> 
> The GDP is total revenue, not profit.  So by your calculation, you would be paying out 100% of revenue to employees and not paying any other cost.
> 
> You are also hugely double counting.  If a vendor sells a component to someone building a larger product, they incorporate the price of the product in their overall cost and you're counting both.
> 
> You are also counting all government expenditures twice.  The part of revenue, which is used to pay taxes (corporate, income, ...) is counted both for the company and again when it's spent by government.
> 
> And finally, you're giving zero to the owners who risked their money and bought the equipment and paid the employees to build the product/service.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you admit you're a Marxist, or are you like PMZ?  You're a capitalist who gets his material from the Communist Manifesto?
Click to expand...


You don't understand GDP.  GDP is the final end product only.  It doesn't double count. It only counts the end use products. The end use product price includes all the costs for all the labor and material, the value added, all the way up the supply chain to the source of the raw materials.  This is exactly what GDP is. 

"*Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced* within a country in a given period of time. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living......Under economic theory,* GDP per capita exactly equals the gross domestic income (GDI) per capita *."

Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It accounts for the dollar value of all the work done by all the people that worked.

Nor am I giving zero to owners.  They make more, because they are smart.  You make less because you don't know what GDP is.

GDP is exactly not what you said.  I admit that you are clueless.  I really honestly can't believe that you got GDP so completely wrong and actually had the nards to post it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apple made more money regardless of the cost to others.
Click to expand...


But you said it never works?


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just some of the big ones.
> 
> The GDP is total revenue, not profit.  So by your calculation, you would be paying out 100% of revenue to employees and not paying any other cost.
> 
> You are also hugely double counting.  If a vendor sells a component to someone building a larger product, they incorporate the price of the product in their overall cost and you're counting both.
> 
> You are also counting all government expenditures twice.  The part of revenue, which is used to pay taxes (corporate, income, ...) is counted both for the company and again when it's spent by government.
> 
> And finally, you're giving zero to the owners who risked their money and bought the equipment and paid the employees to build the product/service.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you admit you're a Marxist, or are you like PMZ?  You're a capitalist who gets his material from the Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand GDP.  GDP is the final end product only.  It doesn't double count. It only counts the end use products. The end use product price includes all the costs for all the labor and material, the value added, all the way up the supply chain to the source of the raw materials.  This is exactly what GDP is.
> 
> "*Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced* within a country in a given period of time. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living......Under economic theory,* GDP per capita exactly equals the gross domestic income (GDI) per capita *."
> 
> Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It accounts for the dollar value of all the work done by all the people that worked.
> 
> Nor am I giving zero to owners.  They make more, because they are smart.  You make less because you don't know what GDP is.
> 
> GDP is exactly not what you said.  I admit that you are clueless.  I really honestly can't believe that you got GDP so completely wrong and actually had the nards to post it.
Click to expand...


ROFL... first you say we should divide GDP to calculate income.  Then you admit GDP is not income but rather value.  Then you deride someone for pointing our your error.  ROFL you are typical marxist idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.



Why should it be that, comrade?

And if you steal from those who produce to give to those who do not, how long would the mean GDP stay at this level? Why would Andrew Gove design chips if he is to be robbed and get the same as a wino rotting in a alley? Why would Bill Gates design marvelous software? Why would Steve Jobs steal what Gates created and market it to drooling sycophants?

What you communists cannot grasp is motivation. Your greed creates nothing. If you succeed in robbing others, what motivation do they have to produce and create?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> What "cost" to others?



Microsoft.

But I don't feel too sorry for them. Sure, Apple stole every product they've ever had from M$ - but M$ is such a disaster at marketing ANYTHING that it's hard to get too worked up over it. The iPaq was out for 3 years before Apple stole it and cloned the iPhone. M$ couldn't manage to sell the damned things or get people to want it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "cost" to others?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft.
> 
> But I don't feel too sorry for them. Sure, Apple stole every product they've ever had from M$ - but M$ is such a disaster at marketing ANYTHING that it's hard to get too worked up over it. The iPaq was out for 3 years before Apple stole it and cloned the iPhone. M$ couldn't manage to sell the damned things or get people to want it.
Click to expand...


You have it backwards.  Msft is the company built by copying others.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> You have it backwards.  Msft is the company built by copying others.



Quick, name something that Apple didn't steal?

I got nothing...

Look, both M$ and Apple were important to the technology revolution.

M$ supplied the brains, Apple supplied the hype.

And don't underestimate hype; the greatest program in the world is useless, if no one knows about it or uses it.

Creative Labs created the MP3 player, but it wasn't until Apple stole their intellectual property and made the iPod that the era of portable MP3's began.  And Creative sued the fuck out of Apple, so everyone eventually won.

Apple steals technology from others, and markets it with amazing skill.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be that, comrade?
> 
> And if you steal from those who produce to give to those who do not, how long would the mean GDP stay at this level? Why would Andrew Gove design chips if he is to be robbed and get the same as a wino rotting in a alley? Why would Bill Gates design marvelous software? Why would Steve Jobs steal what Gates created and market it to drooling sycophants?
> 
> What you communists cannot grasp is motivation. Your greed creates nothing. If you succeed in robbing others, what motivation do they have to produce and create?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about.  GDP is what the people in the United States of America produce in one year.  It isn't what is produced in China.

You really aren't very bright, are you?  The concept of average escapes you. 

The amazing thing is that it has come to my attention that the right wing nuts are the least productive in the United States.

I didn't say you should make that.  

California and New York alone produced 20% of the total GDP in 2010.

The Democratic leaning states far outproduce the right wing nut States.  In 2010, 65% of the GDP was produced by Democratic states.  That is 65 to 35.   Go look it up.

The right wing nuts produce far below that $109k per year average.  I'm still trying to figure out why they think their opinions count, seeing as they don't actually do the work.  It sounds to me like a ploy to steal other peoples money. 

I so wish the Fed would cut of their lifeline.

You are so out of touch with reality that it is just sad.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  Msft is the company built by copying others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick, name something that Apple didn't steal?
> 
> I got nothing...
> 
> Look, both M$ and Apple were important to the technology revolution.
> 
> M$ supplied the brains, Apple supplied the hype.
> 
> And don't underestimate hype; the greatest program in the world is useless, if no one knows about it or uses it.
> 
> Creative Labs created the MP3 player, but it wasn't until Apple stole their intellectual property and made the iPod that the era of portable MP3's began.  And Creative sued the fuck out of Apple, so everyone eventually won.
> 
> Apple steals technology from others, and markets it with amazing skill.
Click to expand...


ROFL M$ brians?  IBM provided the brains behind all M$ products right up to the divorce.  What has M$ done since?  version 3,4,5,6,7...?  Revisions of office products they bought from other companies?

All great products are built on the inventions of others, but M$ brains is an oxymoron.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple made more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said it never works?
Click to expand...


You don't even know what GDP is.


----------



## itfitzme

These are the top ten income levels by state

Connecticut......................58,908	1	1
Massachusetts..................54,687	2	1
New*Jersey......................53,628	3	1
New*York.........................52,095	4	1
Maryland.........................51,971	5	1
North*Dakota....................51,893	6	0
Wyoming.........................48,670	7	0
Virginia...........................47,082	8	0
New*Hampshire...............47,058	9	1
Alaska............................46,778	10	0

That is six of the top ten are blue states.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States
Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Released March 2013.    

These are the bottom ten

Arizona..........................35,979.....41	0
Alabama..........................35,625..........42	0
New*Mexico....................35,079..........43	1
Kentucky........................35,041...........44	1
Arkansas.......................34,723...........45	1
Utah............................34,601........46	0
West*Virginia................34,477.......47	1
South*Carolina...............34,266........48	0
Idaho............................33,749...........49	0
Mississippi.....................33,073..........50	0

Six of the bottom ten are red states.

What the hell are the right wing conservatives here even talking about?  They produce less.  They make less.  They pay less in taxes.  So why do they think they are entitled to an opinion?


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> You don't understand GDP.  GDP is the final end product only.  It doesn't double count. It only counts the end use products. The end use product price includes all the costs for all the labor and material, the value added, all the way up the supply chain to the source of the raw materials.  This is exactly what GDP is.
> 
> "*Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced* within a country in a given period of time. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living......Under economic theory,* GDP per capita exactly equals the gross domestic income (GDI) per capita *."
> 
> Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It accounts for the dollar value of all the work done by all the people that worked.


GDP is the total of all private and public spending.  Private spending includes the embedded taxes.  Those taxes then are counted as "public" spending.  I don't know what I can tell you dude, you don't know what you're talking about.



itfitzme said:


> Nor am I giving zero to owners.  They make more, because they are smart.  You make less because you don't know what GDP is.


You gave the whole GDP to the workers, explain how owners are getting anything?



itfitzme said:


> GDP is exactly not what you said.  I admit that you are clueless.  I really honestly can't believe that you got GDP so completely wrong and actually had the nards to post it.



You are wrong, but spectacularly so!  At least you're not mediocre.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy isn't in the Constitution...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Universal suffrage is definitely in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


So you flunked American government as well as economics?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy isn't in the Constitution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal suffrage is definitely in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll explain that to you.  The United States is a republic, it's not a democracy.
> 
> The States (i.e., republics) are democracies.  The various amendments related to voting, such as universal suffrage, suffrage, ban on poll taxes and that sort of thing relate to voting in the republics, which while having some actual democracy (e.g., propositions in California), are generally representative democracies, meaning they represent people to vote for them.  Senators, Representatives, governors that sort of thing.
Click to expand...


Try a dictionary. You'll find if you look that a republic is a country without a monarch, so we are that, and a democracy is a country that uses voting to make decisions either directly or by election of representatives. 

Conservatives have been programmed to deny democracy so they will support rule by minority. In other words tyranny.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government spending, revenue, and regulations are three separate issues.  Business behavior by the number of businesses in each of the various industries are still other separate issues.
> 
> Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda.
> 
> I agree with the "agenda" to be more careful in going forward with Wars against sovereign nations because we don't like their religious beliefs or the products they make or the gangs of thugs that roam in their borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda."
> 
> Another conservative against accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Private citizens aren't required to be "accountable' to anyone except under a tyranny.
Click to expand...


This is plain old irresponsibility. Conservative entitlement thinking. Living in the greatest country in the word for free and without obligation. If it were up to me you'd be on a boat out.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the democrat plan is to force deterioration of our society.  Each and very year of deterioration making the business challenge more and more difficult.  Thus, allowing the government to step in, take control of each and every industry, to save the day for the mess they created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?
Click to expand...


The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can see where it's hurt Apple....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple made more money regardless of the cost to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you said it never works?
Click to expand...


Not even close.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be that, comrade?
> 
> And if you steal from those who produce to give to those who do not, how long would the mean GDP stay at this level? Why would Andrew Gove design chips if he is to be robbed and get the same as a wino rotting in a alley? Why would Bill Gates design marvelous software? Why would Steve Jobs steal what Gates created and market it to drooling sycophants?
> 
> What you communists cannot grasp is motivation. Your greed creates nothing. If you succeed in robbing others, what motivation do they have to produce and create?
Click to expand...


Typical juvenile idiotic grossly oversimplified black and white non thinking. Probably from the Ayn Rand Classic Comic.

All of those people started with nothing and that's when they did their best work. Anybody who's good works hard because that's who they are. Only people like you believe that only greedy people work hard. It's a myth.


----------



## tooAlive

Hey [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], how much do they pay you to come on here every day and preach about the wonders of socialism?


----------



## PMZ

tooAlive said:


> Hey [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], how much do they pay you to come on here every day and preach about the wonders of socialism?



Nobody pays me anything.  Obviously you're not worth paying anything Adolf.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda."
> 
> Another conservative against accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private citizens aren't required to be "accountable' to anyone except under a tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is plain old irresponsibility. Conservative entitlement thinking. Living in the greatest country in the word for free and without obligation.
Click to expand...


You display the totalitarian attitude to a 'T', brainiac.  All dictators believe citizens who fail to obey orders are "irresponsible."  However, in a free country, citizens only have the responsibilities they agree to.  Believe it nor not, starting a business doesn't make you responsible to some blowhard politicians.



PMZ said:


> If it were up to me you'd be on a boat out.



I'm sure I would be, or better yet sent to a reeducation camp where I'll learn my "responsibilities," eh Colonel Klink?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
Click to expand...


But there is no legal obstacle preventing you from "screwing people," is there?  You can make as much money as you want to regardless of the cost to others, right?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], how much do they pay you to come on here every day and preach about the wonders of socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays me anything.  Obviously you're not worth paying anything Adolf.
Click to expand...


Apparently they pay you what you're worth.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be that, comrade?
> 
> And if you steal from those who produce to give to those who do not, how long would the mean GDP stay at this level? Why would Andrew Gove design chips if he is to be robbed and get the same as a wino rotting in a alley? Why would Bill Gates design marvelous software? Why would Steve Jobs steal what Gates created and market it to drooling sycophants?
> 
> What you communists cannot grasp is motivation. Your greed creates nothing. If you succeed in robbing others, what motivation do they have to produce and create?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical juvenile idiotic grossly oversimplified black and white non thinking. Probably from the Ayn Rand Classic Comic.
> 
> All of those people started with nothing and that's when they did their best work. Anybody who's good works hard because that's who they are. Only people like you believe that only greedy people work hard. It's a myth.
Click to expand...


So you think Andy Grove and Bill Gates would have worked just as hard if they knew the government was going to confiscate every dime they had?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
Click to expand...


I would argue with that.  Cutting costs is what mass production is all about.  

Why do you think the rules should be any different for business than they are for you?


----------



## PMZ

BriPat loves to show off ignorance.  He sees no problem with the one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others.  He thinks that society would be fine with that one rule.  One law.  Nothing else required.  As long as everyone is screwing everyone else,  civilization is optimized. 

The smallest amount of freedom we have ever experienced was in the cave days.  Yet that's what we chose to leave. And what conservatives want to return to.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> BriPat loves to show off ignorance.  He sees no problem with the one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others.  He thinks that society would be fine with that one rule.  One law.  Nothing else required.  As long as everyone is screwing everyone else,  civilization is optimized.
> 
> The smallest amount of freedom we have ever experienced was in the cave days.  Yet that's what we chose to leave. And what conservatives want to return to.



We have hundreds of thousands of pages of rules called "The Federal Register."  But here you are babbling on as if there are no rules.  Which rules do you imagine businesses don't follow, the ones actually on the books or the ones you just made up in your head?


----------



## Gadawg73

These are the same folks that support "health care is a right" as John Lewis stated the other day. Now excuse me John as I respect the hell out of you as a true American hero. You stood face to face with Bull Connor and had your head bashed in, you defeated the liar Julian Bond here years ago in the face of him and his cronies labeling you "Buckwheat" but you are wrong on this.
Forcing others to provide their skill set to others and the tests and procedures that may go along with it for nothing because it is determined that is a right is false.


----------



## Bern80

itfitzme said:


> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.



What definition of 'fair' does that fit? That everyone should be alotted the same amount of money regardless of their contribution? That meets no definition of fair I've ever heard.


----------



## Gadawg73

When do we require an average IQ in this country before folks can vote?


----------



## dcraelin

a good site to go to to see all the corporate welfare that goes on is fieldofschemes. This site talks about all the idiotic government funding of sports stadiums. Government s dont need to be funding sports stadiums, I think the vast majority of both "left" and "right" can agree on that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private citizens aren't required to be "accountable' to anyone except under a tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is plain old irresponsibility. Conservative entitlement thinking. Living in the greatest country in the word for free and without obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You display the totalitarian attitude to a 'T', brainiac.  All dictators believe citizens who fail to obey orders are "irresponsible."  However, in a free country, citizens only have the responsibilities they agree to.  Believe it nor not, starting a business doesn't make you responsible to some blowhard politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were up to me you'd be on a boat out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I would be, or better yet sent to a reeducation camp where I'll learn my "responsibilities," eh Colonel Klink?
Click to expand...


The prototypical taker.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would argue with that.  Cutting costs is what mass production is all about.
> 
> Why do you think the rules should be any different for business than they are for you?
Click to expand...


Mass production follows mass demand which follows product innovation.  Are you sure that you ever worked in business?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat loves to show off ignorance.  He sees no problem with the one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others.  He thinks that society would be fine with that one rule.  One law.  Nothing else required.  As long as everyone is screwing everyone else,  civilization is optimized.
> 
> The smallest amount of freedom we have ever experienced was in the cave days.  Yet that's what we chose to leave. And what conservatives want to return to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have hundreds of thousands of pages of rules called "The Federal Register."  But here you are babbling on as if there are no rules.  Which rules do you imagine businesses don't follow, the ones actually on the books or the ones you just made up in your head?
Click to expand...


No,  you are babbling on that there should be no rules.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> These are the same folks that support "health care is a right" as John Lewis stated the other day. Now excuse me John as I respect the hell out of you as a true American hero. You stood face to face with Bull Connor and had your head bashed in, you defeated the liar Julian Bond here years ago in the face of him and his cronies labeling you "Buckwheat" but you are wrong on this.
> Forcing others to provide their skill set to others and the tests and procedures that may go along with it for nothing because it is determined that is a right is false.



List again the benefits of an unhealthy population.  I keep forgetting them.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What definition of 'fair' does that fit? That everyone should be alotted the same amount of money regardless of their contribution? That meets no definition of fair I've ever heard.
Click to expand...


Did you teach your kids that life is fair?


----------



## Bern80

dcraelin said:


> a good site to go to to see all the corporate welfare that goes on is fieldofschemes. This site talks about all the idiotic government funding of sports stadiums. Government s dont need to be funding sports stadiums, I think the vast majority of both "left" and "right" can agree on that.



Totally agree. There's a lot of welfare that needs to be curbed and crony capitalism welfare is definatly a big one.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> When do we require an average IQ in this country before folks can vote?



Finally a solution to the scourge of conservatism.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What definition of 'fair' does that fit? That everyone should be alotted the same amount of money regardless of their contribution? That meets no definition of fair I've ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
Click to expand...


I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do we require an average IQ in this country before folks can vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a solution to the scourge of conservatism.
Click to expand...


Again, project much?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do we require an average IQ in this country before folks can vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a solution to the scourge of conservatism.
Click to expand...


Says the guy with an IQ of 67....

ROFL


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What definition of 'fair' does that fit? That everyone should be alotted the same amount of money regardless of their contribution? That meets no definition of fair I've ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
Click to expand...


There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do we require an average IQ in this country before folks can vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a solution to the scourge of conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, project much?
Click to expand...


The decline of America correlates with the growth of extreme conservatism.  While that's not proof,  I take it as evidence.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're unable to understand US Law.
> 
> You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.
> 
> Stop whining and get to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.
> 
> The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.
> 
> Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.
> 
> If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
> then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws for government.  The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.
> 
> And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and thats why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us.  The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.
> 
> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.
> 
> It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society.  Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.
Click to expand...


An MBA is a degree for dummies.   Until we are allowed to question the quality of the human materials that provide the main support for these economic structures, we won't be able to understand why they collapse.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.
> 
> The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
Click to expand...


In a republic, the 1% only have to bribe a few hundred people.

In a democracy, they would have to bribe a few hundred million people.   Even they can't afford that.   The billions they put into education and the media are not wasted, but that's only because the people are already demoralized from living in a republic.   Hopelessness makes their minds easy pickings.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> The decline of America correlates with the growth of extreme conservatism. While that's not proof, I take it as evidence.



The last 6 years show the longest, sustained decline in American history.

I assume that a conservative has been in charge?

LOL, you do love to show off you 67 IQ points.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

PrometheusBound said:


> An MBA is a degree for dummies.   Until we are allowed to question the quality of the human materials that provide the main support for these economic structures, we won't be able to understand why they collapse.



Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon.

Just because you lack the intellect to earn a degree does not render the degree useless.


----------



## PMZ

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously PMZ, you have no self awareness at all.  You play childish word games, then when I do them back to you, you don't get it.
> 
> The first three words of the Constitution are "We The People."  Not we the courts, we the lawyers, or anyone else telling you what you want to hear that justifies turning a limited government into the limitless authoritarian one that you crave so you can make everyone's decisions for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that your ideas about the constitution are supreme.  That's the shtick of every tyrannical government.
> 
> I say let's stick to the source of freedom,  democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a republic, the 1% only have to bribe a few hundred people.
> 
> In a democracy, they would have to bribe a few hundred million people.   Even they can't afford that.   The billions they put into education and the media are not wasted, but that's only because the people are already demoralized from living in a republic.   Hopelessness makes their minds easy pickings.
Click to expand...


The only thing that I'd add to your is that we are a Republic.  We don't have a monarch. I think that your analogy is more accurately applied to a plutocracy or aristocracy.  Rule by minority.


----------



## PMZ

I 





Uncensored2008 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> An MBA is a degree for dummies.   Until we are allowed to question the quality of the human materials that provide the main support for these economic structures, we won't be able to understand why they collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon.
> 
> Just because you lack the intellect to earn a degree does not render the degree useless.
Click to expand...


" Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon."

Is this what you learned in MBA school?


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Broad brush statements placing blame point to someone that is making up a straw-man to serve an agenda."
> 
> Another conservative against accountability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private citizens aren't required to be "accountable' to anyone except under a tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is plain old irresponsibility. Conservative entitlement thinking. Living in the greatest country in the word for free and without obligation. If it were up to me you'd be on a boat out.
Click to expand...



They're all Heirheads or HeirDads, so they should go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong.    Let them choke in the dust of the rubble that birth privileges cause all civilizations to turn into.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is the pace car for the Race to the Bottom.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is plain old irresponsibility. Conservative entitlement thinking. Living in the greatest country in the word for free and without obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You display the totalitarian attitude to a 'T', brainiac.  All dictators believe citizens who fail to obey orders are "irresponsible."  However, in a free country, citizens only have the responsibilities they agree to.  Believe it nor not, starting a business doesn't make you responsible to some blowhard politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were up to me you'd be on a boat out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure I would be, or better yet sent to a reeducation camp where I'll learn my "responsibilities," eh Colonel Klink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prototypical taker.
Click to expand...


Who have I taken anything from?  What have I taken?


----------



## PMZ

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private citizens aren't required to be "accountable' to anyone except under a tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is plain old irresponsibility. Conservative entitlement thinking. Living in the greatest country in the word for free and without obligation. If it were up to me you'd be on a boat out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They're all Heirheads or HeirDads, so they should go back to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong.    Let them choke in the dust of the rubble that birth privileges cause all civilizations to turn into.
Click to expand...


The thing that all aristocrats have in common is belief in their superiority.  

Thats what the French and American Revolutions,  and the Civil War were fought to end,  we thought permanently.  

But aristocracy is pretty compelling to those whose egos support the idea.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> " Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon."
> 
> Is this what you learned in MBA school?



One of many important lessons.

Feral baboons should be treated as the shit flinging monkeys that they are....

Care for a banana?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue with that.  Cutting costs is what mass production is all about.
> 
> Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mass production follows mass demand which follows product innovation.  Are you sure that you ever worked in business?
Click to expand...


You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?

Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?



Says law is a concept that Communists simply cannot grasp....


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat loves to show off ignorance.  He sees no problem with the one rule,  make more money regardless of the cost to others.  He thinks that society would be fine with that one rule.  One law.  Nothing else required.  As long as everyone is screwing everyone else,  civilization is optimized.
> 
> The smallest amount of freedom we have ever experienced was in the cave days.  Yet that's what we chose to leave. And what conservatives want to return to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have hundreds of thousands of pages of rules called "The Federal Register."  But here you are babbling on as if there are no rules.  Which rules do you imagine businesses don't follow, the ones actually on the books or the ones you just made up in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  you are babbling on that there should be no rules.
Click to expand...


No, I only said businesses have no obligations they haven't taken on voluntarily.  They certainly have no obligation to make the economy grow.  When and how did they acquire such an obligation?  Can you explain that?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are the same folks that support "health care is a right" as John Lewis stated the other day. Now excuse me John as I respect the hell out of you as a true American hero. You stood face to face with Bull Connor and had your head bashed in, you defeated the liar Julian Bond here years ago in the face of him and his cronies labeling you "Buckwheat" but you are wrong on this.
> Forcing others to provide their skill set to others and the tests and procedures that may go along with it for nothing because it is determined that is a right is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List again the benefits of an unhealthy population.  I keep forgetting them.
Click to expand...


Ignoring your the validity of your theory that a population won't be healthy unless productive people are forced to provide health care for parasites, please explain how it proves that health care is a right?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue with that.  Cutting costs is what mass production is all about.
> 
> Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mass production follows mass demand which follows product innovation.  Are you sure that you ever worked in business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
Click to expand...


The concept of the assembly line was well established in the meat packing industry before Henry started tinkering. 

I think that the concept that organizations are the same as individuals is ridiculous.  SCOTUS  says that it's a Constitutional guarantee,  so it must be,  but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> * $109,703.86 per year average income.*
> 
> 
> The gross domestic product for 2012 was  $15684.80 billion.
> 
> There were  142,974,000 people employed.
> 
> So, the average income should be  $109,703.86 per year.
> 
> That is exactly what it should be.
> 
> So, that would be the "fair share" number.  $109,703.86 per year average income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What definition of 'fair' does that fit? That everyone should be alotted the same amount of money regardless of their contribution? That meets no definition of fair I've ever heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
Click to expand...


I don't.  Do you?  If not, then why are you and your ilk always babbling about it?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
Click to expand...


Then it's OK with you if we make blacks use different drinking fountains?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a solution to the scourge of conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, project much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decline of America correlates with the growth of extreme conservatism.  While that's not proof,  I take it as evidence.
Click to expand...


The only thing that has grown in the last 80 years is liberalism.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue with that.  Cutting costs is what mass production is all about.
> 
> Why do you think the rules should be any different for business than they are for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mass production follows mass demand which follows product innovation.  Are you sure that you ever worked in business?
Click to expand...


A key fallacy that even Marxists try to push on their victims in order to be allowed to create State Capitalism.   

Investors are static, inventors are dynamic.   So the inventors should be the 1%; they created all the wealth.    The dumb jock bully Capitaliban were able to intimidate people into thinking that they are the source of wealth when instead they are nothing but a gang of thieving parasites.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says law is a concept that Communists simply cannot grasp....
Click to expand...


I don't know any American Communists.  I think that Joseph McCarthy got both of them.  Or maybe he didn't,  just got scapegoats,  and the Communists have since died. 

Anyways,  if I ever run into one I'll be sure to tell them that you Nazis are still after them.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass production follows mass demand which follows product innovation.  Are you sure that you ever worked in business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of the assembly line was well established in the meat packing industry before Henry started tinkering.
> 
> I think that the concept that organizations are the same as individuals is ridiculous.  SCOTUS  says that it's a Constitutional guarantee,  so it must be,  but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Click to expand...


What's ridiculous about the concept that collections of individuals have the same rights as single individuals?  Do you think the federal government should be able to expropriate the property of the Sierra Club?  Should it be able to shut down MediaMatters.org?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon."
> 
> Is this what you learned in MBA school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of many important lessons.
> 
> Feral baboons should be treated as the shit flinging monkeys that they are....
> 
> Care for a banana?
Click to expand...


You're the strongest evidence that I know that MBAs are for dummies.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You display the totalitarian attitude to a 'T', brainiac.  All dictators believe citizens who fail to obey orders are "irresponsible."  However, in a free country, citizens only have the responsibilities they agree to.  Believe it nor not, starting a business doesn't make you responsible to some blowhard politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure I would be, or better yet sent to a reeducation camp where I'll learn my "responsibilities," eh Colonel Klink?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prototypical taker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who have I taken anything from?  What have I taken?
Click to expand...


Take is the opposite of give.  You are unable to give.  Ergo.......


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass production follows mass demand which follows product innovation.  Are you sure that you ever worked in business?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The concept of the assembly line was well established in the meat packing industry before Henry started tinkering.
Click to expand...


I didn't say "THE assembly line," I said "Henry Ford's assembly line."  He's the one who applied the concept to the production of manufactured products.

The indisputable fact is that the assembly line made Model 'T's very cheap and that led to mass sales, not the other way around.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prototypical taker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I taken anything from?  What have I taken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take is the opposite of give.  You are unable to give.  Ergo.......
Click to expand...


I give plenty, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't object to the organized plunder that you endorse.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Bern80 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> a good site to go to to see all the corporate welfare that goes on is fieldofschemes. This site talks about all the idiotic government funding of sports stadiums. Government s dont need to be funding sports stadiums, I think the vast majority of both "left" and "right" can agree on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree. There's a lot of welfare that needs to be curbed and crony capitalism welfare is definatly a big one.
Click to expand...


Name one principle that the Capitaliban apply to themselves.    The greatest hypocrisy of all, *because they make sure that no one questions it*, is that they tell us to do it on our own but don't tell the guillotine-fodder slime that oozed out of their trophy wives that.    As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said about allowing union coercion, "If we are going to allow the Law of the Jungle, we can't apply it to just one side."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says law is a concept that Communists simply cannot grasp....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know any American Communists.  I think that Joseph McCarthy got both of them.  Or maybe he didn't,  just got scapegoats,  and the Communists have since died.
> 
> Anyways,  if I ever run into one I'll be sure to tell them that you Nazis are still after them.
Click to expand...


You are an American communist, PMS, and everyone that McCarthy called to testify as a hostile witness was proven to be a communist.  There were no "scapegoats."


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
Click to expand...


All cheaters say "Life is not fair."    So we should turn it back on them.   STEM graduates should wholly embezzle their own corporate patents, not even giving back what they think
should be a fair return to the investor. 

  Anyone who uses that slogan deserves to have it thrown back at him, open season on the bullying bosses.   Sell privileged information to the competition, whatever, make sure you are unfairly overpaid if they want to justify underpaying you with the chant, "Who says life is fair?   Grow up and face reality."   But the reality of retaliation is the last thing the exploiters ever want to face.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> An MBA is a degree for dummies.   Until we are allowed to question the quality of the human materials that provide the main support for these economic structures, we won't be able to understand why they collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon.
> 
> Just because you lack the intellect to earn a degree does not render the degree useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon."
> 
> Is this what you learned in MBA school?
Click to expand...


The fact that Dumbo Dubya got an MBA from one of the elite colleges proves that it is a diploma for dipshits.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have it precisely  backwards.  Which came first, Henry Ford's assembly line or the sale of 20 million Model 'T's?
> 
> Furthermore, as usual, you haven't answered the question: Why do you think the rules should be any different for a business than they are for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of the assembly line was well established in the meat packing industry before Henry started tinkering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "THE assembly line," I said "Henry Ford's assembly line."  He's the one who applied the concept to the production of manufactured products.
> 
> The indisputable fact is that the assembly line made Model 'T's very cheap and that led to mass sales, not the other way around.
Click to expand...


It's generally acknowledged that what popularized the Model T over the competition was Henry's revolutionary idea to pay his workers the unheard of compensation of $5/day, thus making them his best customers.  That old virtuous cycle trick.  

The other thing that saved Henry's bacon was the secret development of the Model A by his despised son Edsel.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says law is a concept that Communists simply cannot grasp....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any American Communists.  I think that Joseph McCarthy got both of them.  Or maybe he didn't,  just got scapegoats,  and the Communists have since died.
> 
> Anyways,  if I ever run into one I'll be sure to tell them that you Nazis are still after them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an American communist, PMS, and everyone that McCarthy called to testify as a hostile witness was proven to be a communist.  There were no "scapegoats."
Click to expand...


Whatever your propaganda says Adolf.  I mean if der Fuhrer doesn't believe it,  who will?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of the assembly line was well established in the meat packing industry before Henry started tinkering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "THE assembly line," I said "Henry Ford's assembly line."  He's the one who applied the concept to the production of manufactured products.
> 
> The indisputable fact is that the assembly line made Model 'T's very cheap and that led to mass sales, not the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's generally acknowledged that what popularized the Model T over the competition was Henry's revolutionary idea to pay his workers the unheard of compensation of $5/day, thus making them his best customers.  That old virtuous cycle trick.
Click to expand...


Often what is "generally acknowledge" turns out to be nothing but bullshit propaganda.  How many employees did Henry Ford have, say 100,000?  He sold 20 million model 'T's.  The surest way to go broke is to expect your employees to purchase all your output.



PMZ said:


> The other thing that saved Henry's bacon was the secret development of the Model A by his despised son Edsel.



How is that relevant to your bullshit claim?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally a solution to the scourge of conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, project much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The decline of America correlates with the growth of extreme conservatism.  While that's not proof,  I take it as evidence.
Click to expand...


My observation is conservatism is on the decline. The left has held power in the federal government for quite some time now. There seem to be more and more people oblivious to reality that have an over developed sense of entitlement to other people's stuff such as yourself than ever before. It's like you live in bazaro world where you just say the exact opposite of what's actually true.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> Often what is "generally acknowledge" turns out to be nothing but bullshit propaganda.  How many employees did Henry Ford have, say 100,000?  He sold 20 million model 'T's.  The surest way to go broke is to expect your employees to purchase all your output.



I'm not sure about that - Amway has done quite well on that model.

Of course they don't pay their employees anything...



> How is that relevant to your bullshit claim?



How is it even true?


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
Click to expand...


Again accepting that life isn't fair is not the same as having to tolerate it. It's not fair for you to insist that I am obligated to provide you enough to live, yet obviously that belief exists. That doesn't mean just because you think that way that you are actually entitled to it or that I am required to provide it to you, fair or not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bern80 said:


> My observation is conservatism is on the decline. The left has held power in the federal government for quite some time now. There seem to be more and more people oblivious to reality that have an over developed sense of entitlement to other people's stuff such as yourself than ever before. It's like you live in bazaro world where you just say the exact opposite of what's actually true.



It's interesting to note that as conservatism declines, so does the nation. 

We all know we are in the twilight of America; but the left refuses to acknowledge the link to the decline in fiscal responsibility and in discarding of ethics as a part of the fabric of the nation.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "THE assembly line," I said "Henry Ford's assembly line."  He's the one who applied the concept to the production of manufactured products.
> 
> The indisputable fact is that the assembly line made Model 'T's very cheap and that led to mass sales, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's generally acknowledged that what popularized the Model T over the competition was Henry's revolutionary idea to pay his workers the unheard of compensation of $5/day, thus making them his best customers.  That old virtuous cycle trick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Often what is "generally acknowledge" turns out to be nothing but bullshit propaganda.  How many employees did Henry Ford have, say 100,000?  He sold 20 million model 'T's.  The surest way to go broke is to expect your employees to purchase all your output.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing that saved Henry's bacon was the secret development of the Model A by his despised son Edsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to your bullshit claim?
Click to expand...


Everyday the self inflicted reputation of your ignorance grows. You are legendary.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Everyday the self inflicted reputation of your ignorance grows. You are legendary.



^^^^^^^^^^^

Ironic post is ironic.


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again accepting that life isn't fair is not the same as having to tolerate it. It's not fair for you to insist that I am obligated to provide you enough to live, yet obviously that belief exists. That doesn't mean just because you think that way that you are actually entitled to it or that I am required to provide it to you, fair or not.
Click to expand...


You are required to be a responsible citizen.  You may not like it,  but we've established minimum standards for the privilege of living here.  But you are a free citizen of the world.  Shop around.  Compare.  Research.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My observation is conservatism is on the decline. The left has held power in the federal government for quite some time now. There seem to be more and more people oblivious to reality that have an over developed sense of entitlement to other people's stuff such as yourself than ever before. It's like you live in bazaro world where you just say the exact opposite of what's actually true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to note that as conservatism declines, so does the nation.
> 
> We all know we are in the twilight of America; but the left refuses to acknowledge the link to the decline in fiscal responsibility and in discarding of ethics as a part of the fabric of the nation.
Click to expand...


You are whining about your inability to impose cult dogma on a free nation.  What's happening is exactly how the country has always operated. And we are choosing this path based on solid evidence of your failure. 

Your whining is just more evidence of the dysfunction of your dogma in the real world of democracy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All cheaters say "Life is not fair."    So we should turn it back on them.   STEM graduates should wholly embezzle their own corporate patents, not even giving back what they think
> should be a fair return to the investor.
> 
> Anyone who uses that slogan deserves to have it thrown back at him, open season on the bullying bosses.   Sell privileged information to the competition, whatever, make sure you are unfairly overpaid if they want to justify underpaying you with the chant, "Who says life is fair?   Grow up and face reality."   But the reality of retaliation is the last thing the exploiters ever want to face.
Click to expand...


Straw-man fail:  Your statement that all cheaters say "Life is not fair" is a lie.   Life isn't fair, that's a fact.  Retaliation is irrelevant to the fact that life is not fair.   Your criminal acts are not excused by your incorrect assumption that life should fair and thus results should be equalized by punishing effort.


----------



## RKMBrown

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon.
> 
> Just because you lack the intellect to earn a degree does not render the degree useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon."
> 
> Is this what you learned in MBA school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that Dumbo Dubya got an MBA from one of the elite colleges proves that it is a diploma for dipshits.
Click to expand...


Ah another BDS ass hole.  Hello, McFly, Hello!!!! Bush is not president, Obama is.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All cheaters say "Life is not fair."    So we should turn it back on them.   STEM graduates should wholly embezzle their own corporate patents, not even giving back what they think
> should be a fair return to the investor.
> 
> Anyone who uses that slogan deserves to have it thrown back at him, open season on the bullying bosses.   Sell privileged information to the competition, whatever, make sure you are unfairly overpaid if they want to justify underpaying you with the chant, "Who says life is fair?   Grow up and face reality."   But the reality of retaliation is the last thing the exploiters ever want to face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw-man fail:  Your statement that all cheaters say "Life is not fair" is a lie.   Life isn't fair, that's a fact.  Retaliation is irrelevant to the fact that life is not fair.   Your criminal acts are not excused by your incorrect assumption that life should fair and thus results should be equalized by punishing effort.
Click to expand...


"Your criminal acts"

Can't wait to see the evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's generally acknowledged that what popularized the Model T over the competition was Henry's revolutionary idea to pay his workers the unheard of compensation of $5/day, thus making them his best customers.  That old virtuous cycle trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Often what is "generally acknowledge" turns out to be nothing but bullshit propaganda.  How many employees did Henry Ford have, say 100,000?  He sold 20 million model 'T's.  The surest way to go broke is to expect your employees to purchase all your output.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing that saved Henry's bacon was the secret development of the Model A by his despised son Edsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to your bullshit claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyday the self inflicted reputation of your ignorance grows. You are legendary.
Click to expand...


What "ignorance?"  Do you imagine that 100,000 employees purchased 20 million model 'T's?  The story about Henry Ford paying his employees $5/hr so they could buy his product is obvious bullshit, as is everything else you believe about the history of this country.  Anyone who can do simple math understands that it is impossible.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday the self inflicted reputation of your ignorance grows. You are legendary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
Click to expand...


PMS is a wonder of complete stupidity, isn't he?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Often what is "generally acknowledge" turns out to be nothing but bullshit propaganda.  How many employees did Henry Ford have, say 100,000?  He sold 20 million model 'T's.  The surest way to go broke is to expect your employees to purchase all your output.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to your bullshit claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday the self inflicted reputation of your ignorance grows. You are legendary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "ignorance?"  Do you imagine that 100,000 employees purchased 20 million model 'T's?  The story about Henry Ford paying his employees $5/hr so they could buy his product is obvious bullshit, as is everything else you believe about the history of this country.  It's communist propaganda.
Click to expand...


Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true,  MUST be. 

This is pernicious ignorance.  Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining. 

The essential raw material for conservatism.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of the assembly line was well established in the meat packing industry before Henry started tinkering.
> 
> I think that the concept that organizations are the same as individuals is ridiculous.  SCOTUS  says that it's a Constitutional guarantee,  so it must be,  but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the 1% gave SCROTUS the power of the pre-Reformation Vatican was that then they'd have to pre-own only 9 people.   The fact that an open tool like Chief Just-Us Roberts ratified ACA indicates that businesses hope that the government will provide free health care without a mandate for health insurance.   That will relieve the Capitaliban from having to provide that benefit to their employees.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> PMS is a wonder of complete stupidity, isn't he?



He's just a troll.

At times, I think he's here to discredit leftists....


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday the self inflicted reputation of your ignorance grows. You are legendary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "ignorance?"  Do you imagine that 100,000 employees purchased 20 million model 'T's?  The story about Henry Ford paying his employees $5/hr so they could buy his product is obvious bullshit, as is everything else you believe about the history of this country.  It's communist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true,  MUST be.
> 
> This is pernicious ignorance.  Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining.
> 
> The essential raw material for conservatism.
Click to expand...



What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> All cheaters say "Life is not fair."    So we should turn it back on them.   STEM graduates should wholly embezzle their own corporate patents, not even giving back what they think
> should be a fair return to the investor.
> 
> Anyone who uses that slogan deserves to have it thrown back at him, open season on the bullying bosses.   Sell privileged information to the competition, whatever, make sure you are unfairly overpaid if they want to justify underpaying you with the chant, "Who says life is fair?   Grow up and face reality."   But the reality of retaliation is the last thing the exploiters ever want to face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straw-man fail:  Your statement that all cheaters say "Life is not fair" is a lie.   Life isn't fair, that's a fact.  Retaliation is irrelevant to the fact that life is not fair.   Your criminal acts are not excused by your incorrect assumption that life should fair and thus results should be equalized by punishing effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Your criminal acts"
> 
> Can't wait to see the evidence.
Click to expand...


I just love it when a morally degenerate looser, like yourself, resorts to using government to take money from the so called rich to line your own pocket, then sits greedily by, like the troll you are, collecting the stolen money while claiming it's all legal cause the government did it not you.  Oh no, your not guilty of theft, it's all legal. Burn in hell thief. You did not earn it, it was not given voluntarily, it's theft.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "ignorance?"  Do you imagine that 100,000 employees purchased 20 million model 'T's?  The story about Henry Ford paying his employees $5/hr so they could buy his product is obvious bullshit, as is everything else you believe about the history of this country.  It's communist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true,  MUST be.
> 
> This is pernicious ignorance.  Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining.
> 
> The essential raw material for conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...


How many years,  numbnuts,  was the Model T sold? What happened to the old ones when new ones replaced them? What was the impact of the Ford payroll on the rest of the economy?  How many employees benefited over the years? 

One thing is clear.  If you were Henry,  Ford would be an unknown name today.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "ignorance?"  Do you imagine that 100,000 employees purchased 20 million model 'T's?  The story about Henry Ford paying his employees $5/hr so they could buy his product is obvious bullshit, as is everything else you believe about the history of this country.  It's communist propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true,  MUST be.
> 
> This is pernicious ignorance.  Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining.
> 
> The essential raw material for conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...


Gotta admit it must suck to work on an assembly line building a car that you can't afford to buy. But that would be better than no job, and there's no reason a manufacture of expensive luxury cars has to pay more for his workers than would say a manufacturer of mid priced sedans. Though there may be a reason to pay someone with more skill, if say more skill were required for a particular task on either car.

My reading of Ford's intention was to build a car that every family could afford to have if they had even a mid level of income, and to do that while also paying sufficient wages to his employees to say that his employees had a mid level of income.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw-man fail:  Your statement that all cheaters say "Life is not fair" is a lie.   Life isn't fair, that's a fact.  Retaliation is irrelevant to the fact that life is not fair.   Your criminal acts are not excused by your incorrect assumption that life should fair and thus results should be equalized by punishing effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your criminal acts"
> 
> Can't wait to see the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it when a morally degenerate looser, like yourself, resorts to using government to take money from the so called rich to line your own pocket, then sits greedily by, like the troll you are, collecting the stolen money while claiming it's all legal cause the government did it not you.  Oh no, your not guilty of theft, it's all legal. Burn in hell thief. You did not earn it, it was not given voluntarily, it's theft.
Click to expand...


This is criminal court quality evidence??????? 

Not even good enough for a Texas lynch mob.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true,  MUST be.
> 
> This is pernicious ignorance.  Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining.
> 
> The essential raw material for conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta admit it must suck to work on an assembly line building a car that you can't afford to buy. But that would be better than no job, and there's no reason a manufacture of expensive luxury cars has to pay more for his workers than would say a manufacturer of mid priced sedans. Though there may be a reason to pay someone with more skill, if say more skill were required for a particular task on either car.
> 
> My reading of Ford's intention was to build a car that every family could afford to have if they had even a mid level of income, and to do that while also paying sufficient wages to his employees to say that his employees had a mid level of income.
Click to expand...


He had a major battle with his board over this because they were of the mind that workers should be paid as little as possible so that they,  as major shareholders,  could be paid as much as possible.  Henry was a small town hick but nothing if not stubborn, so he prevailed.  

Of course that same stubbornness also cost him his relationship with his only child.


----------



## Bern80

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again accepting that life isn't fair is not the same as having to tolerate it. It's not fair for you to insist that I am obligated to provide you enough to live, yet obviously that belief exists. That doesn't mean just because you think that way that you are actually entitled to it or that I am required to provide it to you, fair or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are required to be a responsible citizen.  You may not like it,  but we've established minimum standards for the privilege of living here.  But you are a free citizen of the world.  Shop around.  Compare.  Research.
Click to expand...


Again PMS, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself.


----------



## Katzndogz

According to the obama daddy, fair is 100%.

Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams from my Father | National Review Online

The article, called Problems Facing Our Socialism, makes the economic case that high taxes are morally and practically good, if the government then uses them to provide for the people. How high should the tax rates be?  Theoretically, he wrote, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.  Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine.  Obama Sr. continued,  It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Free enterprise  bad. (He was discussing future government economic development.)


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> This is criminal court quality evidence???????
> 
> Not even good enough for a Texas lynch mob.



Son, we told you to only take ONE retard pill in the morning; and here you've gone and taken the whole bottle.....


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Your criminal acts"
> 
> Can't wait to see the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when a morally degenerate looser, like yourself, resorts to using government to take money from the so called rich to line your own pocket, then sits greedily by, like the troll you are, collecting the stolen money while claiming it's all legal cause the government did it not you.  Oh no, your not guilty of theft, it's all legal. Burn in hell thief. You did not earn it, it was not given voluntarily, it's theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is criminal court quality evidence???????
> 
> Not even good enough for a Texas lynch mob.
Click to expand...


People like you would not survive long here in Texas, most of us don't take kindly to robin-hood wannabes.  Take your schtick to a Democrat state, your lies won't sell here.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when a morally degenerate looser, like yourself, resorts to using government to take money from the so called rich to line your own pocket, then sits greedily by, like the troll you are, collecting the stolen money while claiming it's all legal cause the government did it not you.  Oh no, your not guilty of theft, it's all legal. Burn in hell thief. You did not earn it, it was not given voluntarily, it's theft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is criminal court quality evidence???????
> 
> Not even good enough for a Texas lynch mob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you would not survive long here in Texas, most of us don't take kindly to robin-hood wannabes.  Take your schtick to a Democrat state, your lies won't sell here.
Click to expand...


The only thing that would get me to leave my favorite country would be if my only choice was to live in Texas.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> The only thing that would get me to leave my favorite country would be if my only choice was to live in Texas.



By all means, remain in North Korea.....


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta admit it must suck to work on an assembly line building a car that you can't afford to buy. But that would be better than no job, and there's no reason a manufacture of expensive luxury cars has to pay more for his workers than would say a manufacturer of mid priced sedans. Though there may be a reason to pay someone with more skill, if say more skill were required for a particular task on either car.
> 
> My reading of Ford's intention was to build a car that every family could afford to have if they had even a mid level of income, and to do that while also paying sufficient wages to his employees to say that his employees had a mid level of income.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had a major battle with his board over this because they were of the mind that workers should be paid as little as possible so that they,  as major shareholders,  could be paid as much as possible.  Henry was a small town hick but nothing if not stubborn, so he prevailed.
> 
> Of course that same stubbornness also cost him his relationship with his only child.
Click to expand...


And it caused him to loose the only election he ever ran for.  And it caused him to loose Cadillac motors. And it formed Dodge as other competition. 

Ford is not the only CEO/President that has given his workers pay raises and bonuses to the chagrin of the owners.  Your worship of this one pay raise in history is a bit odd.  You appear to believe all other employees of all other companies have been somehow wronged to the point of everyone deserving bonus checks and a raise, mandated by government.  While that sort of talk might win votes, it's not government's place to mandate employers match the pay that Ford freely offered. 

Further, mandated salaries, like minimum wages, actually end up setting the low bar and encouraging corporations to pay their employes the minimum bar, which is the opposite of what Ford did. So you are actually encouraging government to discourage the Fords of this country who wish to differentiate themselves by hiring better workers for more pay.

If government (and/or) unions set the low bar for pay regardless of "effort." What's the point of effort? Why would someone want to distinguish himself over others when everyone gets the same pay?

Your model leads to the bulk of workers not caring, just punching the clock and taking their mandated pay.


----------



## PMZ

Katzndogz said:


> According to the obama daddy, fair is 100%.
> 
> Confiscatory Tax Rate Dreams from my Father | National Review Online
> 
> The article, called Problems Facing Our Socialism, makes the economic case that high taxes are morally and practically good, if the government then uses them to provide for the people. How high should the tax rates be?  Theoretically, he wrote, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.  Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine.  Obama Sr. continued,  It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Free enterprise  bad. (He was discussing future government economic development.)



100% pure propaganda more deceivingly written than the best of Fox.  If there was a Pulitzer for bullshit this article would be a leading candidate. 

Anybody looking for a lesson in propaganda,  and what conservative isn't,  should read it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is criminal court quality evidence???????
> 
> Not even good enough for a Texas lynch mob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you would not survive long here in Texas, most of us don't take kindly to robin-hood wannabes.  Take your schtick to a Democrat state, your lies won't sell here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing that would get me to leave my favorite country would be if my only choice was to live in Texas.
Click to expand...


Well then that explains a ton about you, doesn't it?


----------



## PMZ

Bern80 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again accepting that life isn't fair is not the same as having to tolerate it. It's not fair for you to insist that I am obligated to provide you enough to live, yet obviously that belief exists. That doesn't mean just because you think that way that you are actually entitled to it or that I am required to provide it to you, fair or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are required to be a responsible citizen.  You may not like it,  but we've established minimum standards for the privilege of living here.  But you are a free citizen of the world.  Shop around.  Compare.  Research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again PMS, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself" 

Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility. 

I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.  

And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate,  can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk. 

I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home,  benefit.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every day you reveal another major hole in your body of knowledge by insisting that what you want to be true,  MUST be.
> 
> This is pernicious ignorance.  Dunning-Kruger. Stable ignorance that is self maintaining.
> 
> The essential raw material for conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many years,  numbnuts,  was the Model T sold? What happened to the old ones when new ones replaced them? What was the impact of the Ford payroll on the rest of the economy?  How many employees benefited over the years?
> 
> One thing is clear.  If you were Henry,  Ford would be an unknown name today.
Click to expand...


IF an employee bought a new one every year it would have to have been sold for 40 years for the employees to buy the entire stock.  The Model 'T' was sold from 1908 to 1926.  A its peak of production in 1925 Ford sold 2 million Model 'T's.  How many of those do you suppose his work force purchased?

Face it, your story is a fairy tale. It's not true.  The impact of the Ford payroll on the economy is irrelevant.  The only question here is whether Ford could make a profit by paying his workers enough to buy all his cars.  That claim is clearly false.  It's a union  myth used to justify their extortionist wage demands.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are required to be a responsible citizen.  You may not like it,  but we've established minimum standards for the privilege of living here.  But you are a free citizen of the world.  Shop around.  Compare.  Research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again PMS, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"
> 
> Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.
> 
> I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.
> 
> And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate,  can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.
> 
> I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home,  benefit.
Click to expand...


But that's not what we are doing.  There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity.  The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again PMS, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"
> 
> Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.
> 
> I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.
> 
> And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate,  can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.
> 
> I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home,  benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not what we are doing.  There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity.  The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?
Click to expand...


I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"
> 
> Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.
> 
> I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.
> 
> And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate,  can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.
> 
> I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home,  benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what we are doing.  There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity.  The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
Click to expand...


Just went off the deep end big guy.

Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?


----------



## RKMBrown

Example:
Offer to two kids 10bucks to cut your grass. If one accepts call him a greedy jerk and give five bucks to the other kid right away telling the first kid that was an advance on his taxes.  Let's see what happens and whether or not either will take the job to cut your grass the next week.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't never "claim I'm required to be a responsible citizen and am not obligated to provide for myself"
> 
> Because I believe whole heartedly in personal responsibility.
> 
> I also recognize that there are an infinite number of reasons for success and failure in accomplishing that obligation.
> 
> And I believe that those of us who have been fortunate,  can and should feel an obligation to spread good fortune, just as insurance spreads risk.
> 
> I have no trouble at all living in a country that sets minimum standards for that as I believe that all of us who call America home,  benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what we are doing.  There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity.  The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
Click to expand...


Tax laws are no more an "obligation" than turning over your cash to an armed robber is an obligation.  Your theories about wealth inequality and social ills are pure communist bullshit.  government causes almost all the ills in our society that are humanely solvable.  Giving the government more money will only exacerbate these problems, not solve them.  If wealth inequality is "unstable," then the problem will shortly cure itself, or don't you understand the meaning of the term "unstable?"


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what we are doing.  There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity.  The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax laws are no more an "obligation" than turning over your cash to an armed robber is an obligation.  Your theories about wealth inequality and social ills are pure communist bullshit.  government causes almost all the ills in our society that are humanely solvable.  Giving the government more money will only exacerbate these problems, not solve them.  If wealth inequality is "unstable," then the problem will shortly cure itself, or don't you understand the meaning of the term "unstable?"
Click to expand...


Unfortunate for the American worker the American corporate way of "stabilizing" the unduly high rate of pay they had to shell out has been to move operations to china and india where they can find workers willing to work for a bowl of rice a day.  It will take some time before the unstable situation of billions of cheap workers on the market stabilizes, and I don't think we'll like very much were we end up after that scale has balanced. We got so fat dumb and happy we forgot that 40k a year might be poverty for the USA but is living like kings the 3rd world.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what we are doing.  There is a marked difference between a) "feeling an obligation" and acting on it through charitable giving, through starting a company and hiring people, and offering tax breaks for charitable giving; and b) these acts that you prefer for forcing people to donate their income because they earn more than the 51% majority. Forcing someone into charity is theft, not charity.  The bible does not say go forth and demand the rich provide their tithes at the point of a sword, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just went off the deep end big guy.
> 
> Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
Click to expand...


Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just went off the deep end big guy.
> 
> Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
Click to expand...


You completely missed most of the questions. 

To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere? 

Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?

Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k.  If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that?  I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree.  The minimum standard obligation in our tax laws is,  in fact,  currently inadequate as evidenced by our extreme,  unstable wealth inequality,  and the social ills that that FACT, correlates with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just went off the deep end big guy.
> 
> Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
Click to expand...


So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff?  You just enunciated the morality of a thug.


----------



## Contumacious

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number..



How much money did you make last year?

Mail all of it in - that IS your fair share.

.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"
> 
> And that assumption has never been violated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.
> 
> Have at it.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court also gave us _Plessy vs. Ferguson_, _Korematsu vs. US_, and _Dred Scott vs. Sandford_.  Only a leftist imbecile could say, "The Supreme Court says it, so it must be right and true and good!"

And five bucks says you have no idea what any of these decisions were without looking them up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional.  That's a done deal.  To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.
> 
> Have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK.  Why am I not impressed by that argument?
Click to expand...


Because unlike PMS, you have a functioning brain.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy isn't in the Constitution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal suffrage is definitely in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you flunked American government as well as economics?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure he flunked coloring and nap time.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "hole" is that, PMS?  Are you claiming my math is wrong?  Are you claiming each worker purchased 200 Model 'T's?  You keep claiming my facts are wrong, but you never provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.  I realize it smarts to have your most cherished notions explode before your very eyes, but facts are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many years,  numbnuts,  was the Model T sold? What happened to the old ones when new ones replaced them? What was the impact of the Ford payroll on the rest of the economy?  How many employees benefited over the years?
> 
> One thing is clear.  If you were Henry,  Ford would be an unknown name today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF an employee bought a new one every year it would have to have been sold for 40 years for the employees to buy the entire stock.  The Model 'T' was sold from 1908 to 1926.  A its peak of production in 1925 Ford sold 2 million Model 'T's.  How many of those do you suppose his work force purchased?
> 
> Face it, your story is a fairy tale. It's not true.  The impact of the Ford payroll on the economy is irrelevant.  The only question here is whether Ford could make a profit by paying his workers enough to buy all his cars.  That claim is clearly false.  It's a union  myth used to justify their extortionist wage demands.
Click to expand...


It's a well known fact despite your arithmetic and defense of paying wealth creators as little as possible. I think those facts explain your failure.  And the failure of all those who believe that it's possible to shrink to success. Send your jobs and therefore customers to China and wonder where your success went.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just went off the deep end big guy.
> 
> Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You completely missed most of the questions.
> 
> To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?
> 
> Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?
> 
> Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k.  If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that?  I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?
Click to expand...


But the government didn't say that, did they.  We need to get the revenue to pay Bush's unpaid bills by raising tax revenues until,  like a business,  we start losing "customers".  I predict that's a long way off.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just went off the deep end big guy.
> 
> Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff?  You just enunciated the morality of a thug.
Click to expand...


They lucked out by being born here.  Luck isn't free.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually what is forcing deterioration,  not unexpectedly,  is make more money regardless of the cost to others,  as the sole rule of business.
> 
> It's extremism which never works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have to follow the law like everyone else.  What stops you from making money regardless of the cost to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good sense to know that businesses grow best by focusing on employees and customers and products. It's not possible to be successful by cutting costs.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just went off the deep end big guy.
> 
> Why do you think higher tax rates for the Rich will result in higher pay for the poor? Why won't the rich just stop reporting income or entirely leave?  Why do you ignore history?  Why do you ignore "effective" tax rates?  Why do you keep looking for government to steal money from rich to give to the poor to right some wrong you imagine is happening at the pay stub? What basis do you have for thinking this will result in a flatter quin-tile curve?  Why would someone who has achieved the 3rd quin-tile want to work four times as hard (because of the exponential tax rates) to move up to the next quin-tile? Why would someone in the first quin-tile want to do anything when the first quin-tile and second quin-tile are merged through re-distributions? Further why would anyone want to remain working in the second quin-tile when they can just quit and get the same amount of money redistributed to them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You completely missed most of the questions.
> 
> To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?
> 
> Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?
> 
> Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k.  If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that?  I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?
Click to expand...


They sent middle class job to China.  "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], how much do they pay you to come on here every day and preach about the wonders of socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays me anything.  Obviously you're not worth paying anything Adolf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently they pay you what you're worth.
Click to expand...


No, sweetie, if they did that, HE'D owe THEM money.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be that, comrade?
> 
> And if you steal from those who produce to give to those who do not, how long would the mean GDP stay at this level? Why would Andrew Gove design chips if he is to be robbed and get the same as a wino rotting in a alley? Why would Bill Gates design marvelous software? Why would Steve Jobs steal what Gates created and market it to drooling sycophants?
> 
> What you communists cannot grasp is motivation. Your greed creates nothing. If you succeed in robbing others, what motivation do they have to produce and create?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical juvenile idiotic grossly oversimplified black and white non thinking. Probably from the Ayn Rand Classic Comic.
> 
> All of those people started with nothing and that's when they did their best work. Anybody who's good works hard because that's who they are. Only people like you believe that only greedy people work hard. It's a myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Andy Grove and Bill Gates would have worked just as hard if they knew the government was going to confiscate every dime they had?
Click to expand...


Look at his post.  He clearly thinks they were successful because they had nothing, not because they anticipated having something.  And he seems to think that being talented and skilled is like being autistic, where you just do whatever it is you do in blissful oblivion to everything around you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are the same folks that support "health care is a right" as John Lewis stated the other day. Now excuse me John as I respect the hell out of you as a true American hero. You stood face to face with Bull Connor and had your head bashed in, you defeated the liar Julian Bond here years ago in the face of him and his cronies labeling you "Buckwheat" but you are wrong on this.
> Forcing others to provide their skill set to others and the tests and procedures that may go along with it for nothing because it is determined that is a right is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List again the benefits of an unhealthy population.  I keep forgetting them.
Click to expand...


Darwinism.  If we stopped keeping defectives like you alive, the world would be a better place.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you teach your kids that life is fair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have children and though life is indeed not fair, that doesn't mean I have to allow or be okay with people taking what I've earned and give it to those that haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is your answer then.  Life is not fair.  Stop expecting it to be.
Click to expand...


. . . says the guy trying to legislate fairness to the universe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honey, the separation of powers,  checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.
> 
> The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.
> 
> Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.
> 
> If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
> then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.
> 
> Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the bylaws for government.  The body of law legislated by Congress over the years is what defines legal behavior for people and organizations.
> 
> And people and organizations constantly challenge that law and thats why enforcement is such a huge expense (read big government) for us.  The only thing more expensive would be not enforcing our laws.
> 
> As I said before,  the biggest problems of today are in the business sector achieving growth. They've lost the handle and presently we're losing to global competition.
> 
> It will be a race between business finding growth again and our deteriorating society.  Every year of deterioration will make the business challenge more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An MBA is a degree for dummies.   Until we are allowed to question the quality of the human materials that provide the main support for these economic structures, we won't be able to understand why they collapse.
Click to expand...


And what is your degree in?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon.
> 
> Just because you lack the intellect to earn a degree does not render the degree useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Oh go fuck yourself, you ignorant baboon."
> 
> Is this what you learned in MBA school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that Dumbo Dubya got an MBA from one of the elite colleges proves that it is a diploma for dipshits.
Click to expand...


Or it could be proof that people who insist every Republican President MUST be stupid by definition are all dipshits.  I favor this explanation, given that your existence substantiates it so well.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many years,  numbnuts,  was the Model T sold? What happened to the old ones when new ones replaced them? What was the impact of the Ford payroll on the rest of the economy?  How many employees benefited over the years?
> 
> One thing is clear.  If you were Henry,  Ford would be an unknown name today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF an employee bought a new one every year it would have to have been sold for 40 years for the employees to buy the entire stock.  The Model 'T' was sold from 1908 to 1926.  A its peak of production in 1925 Ford sold 2 million Model 'T's.  How many of those do you suppose his work force purchased?
> 
> Face it, your story is a fairy tale. It's not true.  The impact of the Ford payroll on the economy is irrelevant.  The only question here is whether Ford could make a profit by paying his workers enough to buy all his cars.  That claim is clearly false.  It's a union  myth used to justify their extortionist wage demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a well known fact despite your arithmetic and defense of paying wealth creators as little as possible. I think those facts explain your failure.  And the failure of all those who believe that it's possible to shrink to success. Send your jobs and therefore customers to China and wonder where your success went.
Click to expand...


You mean that it's true despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible?

I guess my "failure" lies in my inability to believe what is patently untrue. Only a Marxist nitwit would claim that Henry Ford or any other tycoon from the early 20th century wasn't a "wealth creator."  I've told you this before, but it obviously didn't penetrate:  Marx's labor theory of value is false.


----------



## dcraelin

Contumacious said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much money did you make last year?
> 
> Mail all of it in - that IS your fair share.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have said in earlier posts that history shows 45% in times of peace would probably be sufficient. If you have major operations overseas 70% to 90% is justified.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical juvenile idiotic grossly oversimplified black and white non thinking. Probably from the Ayn Rand Classic Comic.
> 
> All of those people started with nothing and that's when they did their best work. Anybody who's good works hard because that's who they are. Only people like you believe that only greedy people work hard. It's a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Andy Grove and Bill Gates would have worked just as hard if they knew the government was going to confiscate every dime they had?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at his post.  He clearly thinks they were successful because they had nothing, not because they anticipated having something.  And he seems to think that being talented and skilled is like being autistic, where you just do whatever it is you do in blissful oblivion to everything around you.
Click to expand...


That's why these numskulls believe the government can raise the marginal rate on incomes to 90% and the economy will thrive.  That's what the pinko professors are teaching them in school.  They are being raped intellectually.

PMS knows there's something wrong with his theory of reality because he seldom answers my questions.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much money did you make last year?
> 
> Mail all of it in - that IS your fair share.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said in earlier posts that history shows 45% in times of peace would probably be sufficient. If you have major operations overseas 70% to 90% is justified.
Click to expand...


"Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.  

When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.

There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You completely missed most of the questions.
> 
> To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?
> 
> Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?
> 
> Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k.  If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that?  I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the government didn't say that, did they.  We need to get the revenue to pay Bush's unpaid bills by raising tax revenues until,  like a business,  we start losing "customers".  I predict that's a long way off.
Click to expand...

I see. So you are ok with taking 90% of someone else's income so far as it's not your income that about sum up your view here?  I think I'm onto something here.  Let's take 90% of everyone's 401k assets and eliminate all income taxes.  There you go. That's the way to redistribute.  Let's do this right.  I mean why should you need to have more money in retirement than anyone else?  After all any thing you have that made you rich, by your definition, must have been ill-gotten gains.  Am I right, or what?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You completely missed most of the questions.
> 
> To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?
> 
> Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?
> 
> Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k.  If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that?  I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sent middle class job to China.  "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.
Click to expand...


Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You completely missed most of the questions.
> 
> To the one question you did answer... Why do you assume they are comfortable, why do you assume they will report the same income and pay the (90%?) tax, why do you assume we won't just have new loop holes like we did in the past when the rates were high, and why you assume there are and will be no better deals elsewhere?
> 
> Do you really think they moved to China because it's a better deal here?
> 
> Let's say you have 2mil in the bank right now in your 401k.  If the government said they will take 90% of it next year are you gonna be fat and comfortable with that?  I mean why do you need more than 200k in savings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They sent middle class job to China.  "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.
Click to expand...


Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending. 

Your hero executives,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  shot business in the foot.  And they took that shot because it was hugely, personally rewarding. 

Is that a screwed up system or what?


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said in earlier posts that history shows 45% in times of peace would probably be sufficient. If you have major operations overseas 70% to 90% is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.
> 
> When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.
> 
> There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.
Click to expand...


sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt. 

Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sent middle class job to China.  "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
> 
> Your hero executives,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  shot business in the foot.  And they took that shot because it was huge personally rewarding.
> 
> Is that a screwed up system or what?
Click to expand...


"unemployment" figures are cooked up by politicians as a way to fool you and the dumb masses.
Labor participation rate is the correct gauge and over the last 5 years it has decreased more than at any time in the last 60 years. 
Included in that rate are people that do not seek work for various reasons including they do not need to work as they received social security disability, which is very easy to get and has also risen higher over the last 5 years than ever, other forms of government benefits that have them where they do not wish to work, low or no skills for what the market demands which is also rising in America where colleges and universities are issuing degrees in areas where there are no jobs available and where the worker refuses to seek training in an area where there are jobs available.
LPR is now at 62% which is the lowest in 60 years. A Mexican man can come here, barely speak the language and find work and many Americans claim they can not.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
> 
> Your hero executives,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  shot business in the foot.  And they took that shot because it was huge personally rewarding.
> 
> Is that a screwed up system or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "unemployment" figures are cooked up by politicians as a way to fool you and the dumb masses.
> Labor participation rate is the correct gauge and over the last 5 years it has decreased more than at any time in the last 60 years.
> Included in that rate are people that do not seek work for various reasons including they do not need to work as they received social security disability, which is very easy to get and has also risen higher over the last 5 years than ever, other forms of government benefits that have them where they do not wish to work, low or no skills for what the market demands which is also rising in America where colleges and universities are issuing degrees in areas where there are no jobs available and where the worker refuses to seek training in an area where there are jobs available.
> LPR is now at 62% which is the lowest in 60 years. A Mexican man can come here, barely speak the language and find work and many Americans claim they can not.
Click to expand...


The government is the only source of unemployment figures. 

There are many reasons to not be seeking work.  The largest by far is retirement,  which is what workers do when they have accumulated sufficient wealth assets so they believe that they don't need more.  

Of course that's true of all wealthy people.  By definition.  More than you would ever spend.  

Why aren't all wealthy retired?  Because their lifestyle puts others down and they are addicted to that. 

Most middle class wealth creators retire when they can because they've been working hard all of their lives and want to enjoy time with the beneficiaries of all that hard work,  their families.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff?  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lucked out by being born here.  Luck isn't free.
Click to expand...



Even if you work your way up the ladder based on your talent, you're lucky to find a company that lets you do that instead of requiring you to sacrifice your personal life and personality by becoming a workoholic bootlicker, which has nothing to do with talent.   Only 5% of the people find jobs that reward without crushing the individual.  Of course, the Capitaliban preach that the Magic Market rewards practically all jobs rationally under their Greedhead utopia and luck has little to do with it.   How can it be rational when it means mindless submission to uncontrollable outside forces?

Another example of luck is that unknowable outside factors create opportunities, making choices into blind guesses.   Successful people mostly made their "right" choices purely by accident.   A typical example I found out about in 1980 was someone who got into geology when it was just for professors, like anthropology.   The oil business suddenly boomed and he became a millionaire, totally unexpectedly.   The earliest computer millionaires were just hobbyists who had no idea their playthings would have much practical value.

On the opposite side, someone right after World War II could have plausibly predicted that helicopters would replace trucks and buses.   Didn't happen, for reasons too complicated for anyone to understand except by hindsight.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sent middle class job to China.  "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
> 
> Your hero executives,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  shot business in the foot.  And they took that shot because it was hugely, personally rewarding.
> 
> Is that a screwed up system or what?
Click to expand...


 Big Business is a twin of Big Government (profits=taxes, unemployment=incarceration, etc. all down the line).   So the smug claim by the Capitaliban that their only duty is to make as much money for their stockholders as loopholes and campaign finance make possible is equivalent to a Congressman saying, "My only obligation is to get as much pork as possible for my district and the hell with the rest of the country."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sent middle class job to China.  "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  It was caused by the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.  This created excess demand for housing that couldn't be supported economically.  Economists call this "mal investment."  Unemployment remains high as a result of Obama's systematic attempts to destroy the economy.



PMZ said:


> Your hero executives,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  shot business in the foot.  And they took that shot because it was hugely, personally rewarding.



Totally wrong.  American banks lost trillions of dollars on the government created housing bubble.



PMZ said:


> Is that a screwed up system or what?



Government is definitely screwed up.  Of that there is no doubt.  What's even more screwed up is the boot-licking drones who defend this behavior and attempt to blame innocent parties for the crimes of politicians.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said in earlier posts that history shows 45% in times of peace would probably be sufficient. If you have major operations overseas 70% to 90% is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.
> 
> When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.
> 
> There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
Click to expand...


Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.



dcraelin said:


> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.



The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.


----------



## DiamondDave

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff?  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They lucked out by being born here.  Luck isn't free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you work your way up the ladder based on your talent, you're lucky to find a company that lets you do that instead of requiring you to sacrifice your personal life and personality by becoming a workoholic bootlicker, which has nothing to do with talent.   Only 5% of the people find jobs that reward without crushing the individual.  Of course, the Capitaliban preach that the Magic Market rewards practically all jobs rationally under their Greedhead utopia and luck has little to do with it.   How can it be rational when it means mindless submission to uncontrollable outside forces?
> 
> Another example of luck is that unknowable outside factors create opportunities, making choices into blind guesses.   Successful people mostly made their "right" choices purely by accident.   A typical example I found out about in 1980 was someone who got into geology when it was just for professors, like anthropology.   The oil business suddenly boomed and he became a millionaire, totally unexpectedly.   The earliest computer millionaires were just hobbyists who had no idea their playthings would have much practical value.
> 
> On the opposite side, someone right after World War II could have plausibly predicted that helicopters would replace trucks and buses.   Didn't happen, for reasons too complicated for anyone to understand except by hindsight.
Click to expand...


LETS you?? LETS you?? Since when is it the company's responsibility to have you do things to advance??? Sacrifice IS what it is all about.. you may indeed have to sacrifice 'personal time', family time, money, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and tons of frustration.. but if you fucking want more, it is what you have to do

Suck it up and drive on, pussy


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the people who you're talking about are very fat and comfortable  here. They know that there isn't a better deal in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does that entitle you or anyone else to any of their stuff?  You just enunciated the morality of a thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lucked out by being born here.  Luck isn't free.
Click to expand...


You also lucked out being born here.  Does that mean I'm entitled to take your stuff?  I'll be over with a truck tomorrow.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said in earlier posts that history shows 45% in times of peace would probably be sufficient. If you have major operations overseas 70% to 90% is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.
> 
> When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.
> 
> There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
Click to expand...


Well, here's a thought, and stop me if you've heard this before:  perhaps instead of taking huge amounts of people's earnings in order for taxes to be "sufficient to pay for government", we should stop having so damned much government to pay for.  I say this particularly in light of the fact that relatively very few people think the vast majority of our government does anything they want, anyway; just twits like you, mostly.

And the best part is, we ALSO wouldn't keep accumulating more and more debt for non-productive, greedy dipshits like YOU to keep demanding that we "pay down".


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, other Executives had to move to China.  I know, I was given an offer for promotion to an Executive level position (Distinguished Engineer / Director of a Division in China).  The catch was I would have had to move, and become an Ex-Patriot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It was caused by the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.  This created excess demand for housing that couldn't be supported economically.  Economists call this "mal investment."  Unemployment remains high as a result of Obama's systematic attempts to destroy the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your hero executives,  following make more money regardless of the cost to others,  shot business in the foot.  And they took that shot because it was hugely, personally rewarding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong.  American banks lost trillions of dollars on the government created housing bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a screwed up system or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is definitely screwed up.  Of that there is no doubt.  What's even more screwed up is the boot-licking drones who defend this behavior and attempt to blame innocent parties for the crimes of politicians.
Click to expand...


I know that you are required to repeat Republican dogma but you are almost completely wrong.  And today,  most people know it.  

But I know that you are unable to change and I'm unable to care about that.  You can rant all of the ignorance you want and nothing will change. 

Conservatism's era is dead of self inflicted wounds.  

The voters of America know the truth,  the real results and the real causes and your lies are unable to change any of that. 

You will be recorded by history as a victim of democracy.  Another victory for the American Way.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.
> 
> When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.
> 
> There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here's a thought, and stop me if you've heard this before:  perhaps instead of taking huge amounts of people's earnings in order for taxes to be "sufficient to pay for government", we should stop having so damned much government to pay for.  I say this particularly in light of the fact that relatively very few people think the vast majority of our government does anything they want, anyway; just twits like you, mostly.
> 
> And the best part is, we ALSO wouldn't keep accumulating more and more debt for non-productive, greedy dipshits like YOU to keep demanding that we "pay down".
Click to expand...


You had the misfortune of being born into a democracy and falling into a minority cult. Bad choice on your part.  

The country is fed up with spend and don't tax,  war mongering,  cheer on business at the trough,  propaganda fed Republicans. You are just completely unaffordable in business,  religion and government.  
We don't need smaller government,  just fewer Republicans screwing it up. And that's coming.  Like a freight train.  

You're fired.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It was caused by the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.  This created excess demand for housing that couldn't be supported economically.  Economists call this "mal investment."  Unemployment remains high as a result of Obama's systematic attempts to destroy the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong.  American banks lost trillions of dollars on the government created housing bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a screwed up system or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is definitely screwed up.  Of that there is no doubt.  What's even more screwed up is the boot-licking drones who defend this behavior and attempt to blame innocent parties for the crimes of politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that you are required to repeat Republican dogma but you are almost completely wrong.  And today,  most people know it.
> 
> But I know that you are unable to change and I'm unable to care about that.  You can rant all of the ignorance you want and nothing will change.
> 
> Conservatism's era is dead of self inflicted wounds.
> 
> The voters of America know the truth,  the real results and the real causes and your lies are unable to change any of that.
> 
> You will be recorded by history as a victim of democracy.  Another victory for the American Way.
Click to expand...


Your version of the "American way" has left a long trail of victims.  You would think that someone who defends democracy wouldn't go around pointing out its victims.  I thought democracy was supposed to be beneficial to people, not predatory.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here's a thought, and stop me if you've heard this before:  perhaps instead of taking huge amounts of people's earnings in order for taxes to be "sufficient to pay for government", we should stop having so damned much government to pay for.  I say this particularly in light of the fact that relatively very few people think the vast majority of our government does anything they want, anyway; just twits like you, mostly.
> 
> And the best part is, we ALSO wouldn't keep accumulating more and more debt for non-productive, greedy dipshits like YOU to keep demanding that we "pay down".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had the misfortune of being born into a democracy and falling into a minority cult. Bad choice on your part.
> 
> The country is fed up with spend and don't tax,  war mongering,  cheer on business at the trough,  propaganda fed Republicans. You are just completely unaffordable in business,  religion and government.
> We don't need smaller government,  just fewer Republicans screwing it up. And that's coming.  Like a freight train.
> 
> You're fired.
Click to expand...


I really get a kick out of your belief that Americans want to be taxed more.  What could possibly be more hysterical?  Even Obama didn't claim he was going to raise our taxes.  That was a lie, of course.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.
> 
> When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.
> 
> There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.
Click to expand...


Let's face it.  You're a sniveling coward.  If you want to live without government series,  just do it.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life whining.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life paying taxes.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life following laws.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life living under government.  

Go to Alaska.  Buy a little hunk of land.  Build a cabin. Hunt and gather.  You'll have your dream world.  And so will the rest of us. 

Grow a pair and use them to solve your problems like a man.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats just bluster


dcraelin said:


> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.





bripat9643 said:


> The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.


The power of the purse is with congress. Logically either you give them credit for the tax cuts and booming economy, or you give Reagan the blame for spending.


----------



## PMZ

DiamondDave said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lucked out by being born here.  Luck isn't free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you work your way up the ladder based on your talent, you're lucky to find a company that lets you do that instead of requiring you to sacrifice your personal life and personality by becoming a workoholic bootlicker, which has nothing to do with talent.   Only 5% of the people find jobs that reward without crushing the individual.  Of course, the Capitaliban preach that the Magic Market rewards practically all jobs rationally under their Greedhead utopia and luck has little to do with it.   How can it be rational when it means mindless submission to uncontrollable outside forces?
> 
> Another example of luck is that unknowable outside factors create opportunities, making choices into blind guesses.   Successful people mostly made their "right" choices purely by accident.   A typical example I found out about in 1980 was someone who got into geology when it was just for professors, like anthropology.   The oil business suddenly boomed and he became a millionaire, totally unexpectedly.   The earliest computer millionaires were just hobbyists who had no idea their playthings would have much practical value.
> 
> On the opposite side, someone right after World War II could have plausibly predicted that helicopters would replace trucks and buses.   Didn't happen, for reasons too complicated for anyone to understand except by hindsight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LETS you?? LETS you?? Since when is it the company's responsibility to have you do things to advance??? Sacrifice IS what it is all about.. you may indeed have to sacrifice 'personal time', family time, money, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and tons of frustration.. but if you fucking want more, it is what you have to do
> 
> Suck it up and drive on, pussy
Click to expand...


Certainly one thing the country has learned is that conservatives worship wealth. There is simply nothing they won't do for it. 

It's pretty easy to see the consequences of giving people who value wealth over everything any responsibility for others. Any responsibility for anything.  

It's easy to vote them out of government.  Harder,  but just as important, to not do business with them.  They are toxic people.


----------



## dcraelin

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here's a thought, and stop me if you've heard this before:  perhaps instead of taking huge amounts of people's earnings in order for taxes to be "sufficient to pay for government", we should stop having so damned much government to pay for.  I say this particularly in light of the fact that relatively very few people think the vast majority of our government does anything they want, anyway; just twits like you, mostly.
> 
> And the best part is, we ALSO wouldn't keep accumulating more and more debt for non-productive, greedy dipshits like YOU to keep demanding that we "pay down".
Click to expand...


yeah Ive heard it before, how was I to stop you?

I agree Our government is too big, but history shows no matter what party is in power it doesnt substantially get cut, So at least have a tax rate that balances the budget and pays down the debt.

If a person resorts to name calling they show they have lost the argument. How am I greedy for wanting a balanced budget?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sufficient" for what?  You have to be insane to believe high marginal rates are beneficial for the economy.  You picked one period in history when the rest of the world had been bombed into the Stone Age as evidence that high marginal rates are good for the economy.  Of course you are ignoring the fact that Hoover jacked up marginal rates to 75% during his administration, and FDR jacked them up to 90%.  What was the result?  12 years of unemployment at over 17%.
> 
> When Kennedy lowered marginal rates to 70%, the economy boomed.  When Reagan lowered them to 28%, the economy boomed even more.  When Coolidge lowered them in the 20s, the economy boomed.  Prior to 1916 we had no income tax, and the economy boomed from the Civil War to WW I.
> 
> There is no theory of economics that would advocate high marginal tax rates as a condition for economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.
Click to expand...


Reagan slept through the whole thing. No President has done less. Even Bush worked once in awhile when we he wasn't in Crawford.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's face it.  You're a sniveling coward.  If you want to live without government series,  just do it.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life whining.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life paying taxes.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life following laws.  You don't have to spend the rest of your life living under government.
> 
> Go to Alaska.  Buy a little hunk of land.  Build a cabin. Hunt and gather.  You'll have your dream world.  And so will the rest of us.
> 
> Grow a pair and use them to solve your problems like a man.
Click to expand...


Speaking of sniveling cowards, asshole, you're the one who endorses communism.  When are you moving to the socialist paradise you believe to be Utopia?  When are you moving to Cuba where you can have all the socialist healthcare you can stomach and all that guaranteed socialist income and social programs?

You keep sniveling about greedy corporations and how they cause all the problems this country has, so when are you going to move where there are none?  It's only 90 miles South of Florida.  The weather is great.  When are you packing your bags?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan slept through the whole thing. No President has done less. Even Bush worked once in awhile when we he wasn't in Crawford.
Click to expand...


Is it possible for you to tell the truth about anything?  You're just one vast grab-bag of left-wing myths.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you work your way up the ladder based on your talent, you're lucky to find a company that lets you do that instead of requiring you to sacrifice your personal life and personality by becoming a workoholic bootlicker, which has nothing to do with talent.   Only 5% of the people find jobs that reward without crushing the individual.  Of course, the Capitaliban preach that the Magic Market rewards practically all jobs rationally under their Greedhead utopia and luck has little to do with it.   How can it be rational when it means mindless submission to uncontrollable outside forces?
> 
> Another example of luck is that unknowable outside factors create opportunities, making choices into blind guesses.   Successful people mostly made their "right" choices purely by accident.   A typical example I found out about in 1980 was someone who got into geology when it was just for professors, like anthropology.   The oil business suddenly boomed and he became a millionaire, totally unexpectedly.   The earliest computer millionaires were just hobbyists who had no idea their playthings would have much practical value.
> 
> On the opposite side, someone right after World War II could have plausibly predicted that helicopters would replace trucks and buses.   Didn't happen, for reasons too complicated for anyone to understand except by hindsight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LETS you?? LETS you?? Since when is it the company's responsibility to have you do things to advance??? Sacrifice IS what it is all about.. you may indeed have to sacrifice 'personal time', family time, money, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and tons of frustration.. but if you fucking want more, it is what you have to do
> 
> Suck it up and drive on, pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly one thing the country has learned is that conservatives worship wealth. There is simply nothing they won't do for it.
Click to expand...


If liberal turds like you aren't interested in wealth, then why do you keep asking for more of it?  How about if we don't soil your pure hands and the government's hands with our dirty money?



PMZ said:


> It's pretty easy to see the consequences of giving people who value wealth over everything any responsibility for others. Any responsibility for anything.



Yes it is.  that's why we need to kick those Dims out of office before they totally destroy this country.



PMZ said:


> It's easy to vote them out of government.  Harder,  but just as important, to not do business with them.  They are toxic people.



Yes, it's hard to not do business with them since that would involve an exchange of . . . . wait for it  .  .  .  . MONEY!

What a witless baboon!


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> sufficient to pay for government and to pay down debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Zero income tax is sufficient to pay for all the government I want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah thats just bluster
Click to expand...


No it's not.  This country got along quite nicely for 150 years without an income tax.



dcraelin said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can lower rates and the economy booms. But if you are not paying down debt or are in fact accumulating it, as Reagan was, it will eventually catch up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dims in Congress are the ones who insisted on more spending, not Reagan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power of the purse is with congress. Logically either you give them credit for the tax cuts and booming economy, or you give Reagan the blame for spending.
Click to expand...

Hey, I love your "heads I win, tails you lose" brand of logic.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you work your way up the ladder based on your talent, you're lucky to find a company that lets you do that instead of requiring you to sacrifice your personal life and personality by becoming a workoholic bootlicker, which has nothing to do with talent.   Only 5% of the people find jobs that reward without crushing the individual.  Of course, the Capitaliban preach that the Magic Market rewards practically all jobs rationally under their Greedhead utopia and luck has little to do with it.   How can it be rational when it means mindless submission to uncontrollable outside forces?
> 
> Another example of luck is that unknowable outside factors create opportunities, making choices into blind guesses.   Successful people mostly made their "right" choices purely by accident.   A typical example I found out about in 1980 was someone who got into geology when it was just for professors, like anthropology.   The oil business suddenly boomed and he became a millionaire, totally unexpectedly.   The earliest computer millionaires were just hobbyists who had no idea their playthings would have much practical value.
> 
> On the opposite side, someone right after World War II could have plausibly predicted that helicopters would replace trucks and buses.   Didn't happen, for reasons too complicated for anyone to understand except by hindsight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LETS you?? LETS you?? Since when is it the company's responsibility to have you do things to advance??? Sacrifice IS what it is all about.. you may indeed have to sacrifice 'personal time', family time, money, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and tons of frustration.. but if you fucking want more, it is what you have to do
> 
> Suck it up and drive on, pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly one thing the country has learned is that conservatives worship wealth. There is simply nothing they won't do for it.
> 
> It's pretty easy to see the consequences of giving people who value wealth over everything any responsibility for others. Any responsibility for anything.
> 
> It's easy to vote them out of government.  Harder,  but just as important, to not do business with them.  They are toxic people.
Click to expand...


You are the one that worships wealth.
The wealth earned by others that you want to steal from them.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Work the numbers.  The present level of unemployment is caused by the consumption loss from all of those workers here who are now unemployed,  less the excess government stimulation spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It was caused by the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.  This created excess demand for housing that couldn't be supported economically.  Economists call this "mal investment."  Unemployment remains high as a result of Obama's systematic attempts to destroy the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong.  American banks lost trillions of dollars on the government created housing bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a screwed up system or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is definitely screwed up.  Of that there is no doubt.  What's even more screwed up is the boot-licking drones who defend this behavior and attempt to blame innocent parties for the crimes of politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that you are required to repeat Republican dogma but you are almost completely wrong.  And today,  most people know it.
> 
> But I know that you are unable to change and I'm unable to care about that.  You can rant all of the ignorance you want and nothing will change.
> 
> Conservatism's era is dead of self inflicted wounds.
> 
> The voters of America know the truth,  the real results and the real causes and your lies are unable to change any of that.
> 
> You will be recorded by history as a victim of democracy.  Another victory for the American Way.
Click to expand...

PMZ you are way to partisan.  There are just as many, if not more, democrats running large corporations as there are republicans.  Look at all the quid-pro-quo going on by this administration.  It's ridiculous.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It was caused by the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them.  This created excess demand for housing that couldn't be supported economically.  Economists call this "mal investment."  Unemployment remains high as a result of Obama's systematic attempts to destroy the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong.  American banks lost trillions of dollars on the government created housing bubble.
> 
> 
> 
> Government is definitely screwed up.  Of that there is no doubt.  What's even more screwed up is the boot-licking drones who defend this behavior and attempt to blame innocent parties for the crimes of politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you are required to repeat Republican dogma but you are almost completely wrong.  And today,  most people know it.
> 
> But I know that you are unable to change and I'm unable to care about that.  You can rant all of the ignorance you want and nothing will change.
> 
> Conservatism's era is dead of self inflicted wounds.
> 
> The voters of America know the truth,  the real results and the real causes and your lies are unable to change any of that.
> 
> You will be recorded by history as a victim of democracy.  Another victory for the American Way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PMZ you are way to partisan.  There are just as many, if not more, democrats running large corporations as there are republicans.  Look at all the quid-pro-quo going on by this administration.  It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I agree that that applies to both of us.  But, I would add that people are people.  Businesses and government draws from the same deck.  In that deck are dueces and aces and mostly in betweens. 

We get the most done when we work together. 

I act like an extremeist as an example to tea party extremists who don't see that they are and why.  It seems to get through to those whose minds are not completely closed. 

Given all of that,  I think that,  in terms of achievement,  Obama will go down in history as one of the best,  Bush as one of the worst. 

I am a product of the 50s when American government was regarded by Americans as the best in the world.  It wasn't,  of course,  but I'm hooked on that attitude.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that you are required to repeat Republican dogma but you are almost completely wrong.  And today,  most people know it.
> 
> But I know that you are unable to change and I'm unable to care about that.  You can rant all of the ignorance you want and nothing will change.
> 
> Conservatism's era is dead of self inflicted wounds.
> 
> The voters of America know the truth,  the real results and the real causes and your lies are unable to change any of that.
> 
> You will be recorded by history as a victim of democracy.  Another victory for the American Way.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ you are way to partisan.  There are just as many, if not more, democrats running large corporations as there are republicans.  Look at all the quid-pro-quo going on by this administration.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that that applies to both of us.  But, I would add that people are people.  Businesses and government draws from the same deck.  In that deck are dueces and aces and mostly in betweens.
> 
> We get the most done when we work together.
> 
> I act like an extremeist as an example to tea party extremists who don't see that they are and why.  It seems to get through to those whose minds are not completely closed.
> 
> Given all of that,  I think that,  in terms of achievement,  Obama will go down in history as one of the best,  Bush as one of the worst.
> 
> I am a product of the 50s when American government was regarded by Americans as the best in the world.  It wasn't,  of course,  but I'm hooked on that attitude.
Click to expand...


The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward.  If working toward a society where no one works and no one gives a shit because no matter what they do or how hard they try the majority of the country will screw them over, well that plan just won't cut meat with me.   I have no desire to live in the country you are screaming for, as an extremist in disguise, where freedom is a thing of the past and we get retaliation on the 49% for being more successful than the 51%.

Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy.  Assuming the government is gonna spend your income more carefully than you would is a joke.  Handing out freebies as a bonus for not working hard by taking money from workers is a policy proven to fail throughout history.  Even the communists have given up socialism for capitalism.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ you are way to partisan.  There are just as many, if not more, democrats running large corporations as there are republicans.  Look at all the quid-pro-quo going on by this administration.  It's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that that applies to both of us.  But, I would add that people are people.  Businesses and government draws from the same deck.  In that deck are dueces and aces and mostly in betweens.
> 
> We get the most done when we work together.
> 
> I act like an extremeist as an example to tea party extremists who don't see that they are and why.  It seems to get through to those whose minds are not completely closed.
> 
> Given all of that,  I think that,  in terms of achievement,  Obama will go down in history as one of the best,  Bush as one of the worst.
> 
> I am a product of the 50s when American government was regarded by Americans as the best in the world.  It wasn't,  of course,  but I'm hooked on that attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward.  If working toward a society where no one works and no one gives a shit because no matter what they do or how hard they try the majority of the country will screw them over, well that plan just won't cut meat with me.   I have no desire to live in the country you are screaming for, as an extremist in disguise, where freedom is a thing of the past and we get retaliation on the 49% for being more successful than the 51%.
> 
> Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy.  Assuming the government is gonna spend your income more carefully than you would is a joke.  Handing out freebies as a bonus for not working hard by taking money from workers is a policy proven to fail throughout history.  Even the communists have given up socialism for capitalism.
Click to expand...


" The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."

How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth? 

" Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."

No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.

Capitalism is only made productive by competition. 

Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained. 

Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that that applies to both of us.  But, I would add that people are people.  Businesses and government draws from the same deck.  In that deck are dueces and aces and mostly in betweens.
> 
> We get the most done when we work together.
> 
> I act like an extremeist as an example to tea party extremists who don't see that they are and why.  It seems to get through to those whose minds are not completely closed.
> 
> Given all of that,  I think that,  in terms of achievement,  Obama will go down in history as one of the best,  Bush as one of the worst.
> 
> I am a product of the 50s when American government was regarded by Americans as the best in the world.  It wasn't,  of course,  but I'm hooked on that attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward.  If working toward a society where no one works and no one gives a shit because no matter what they do or how hard they try the majority of the country will screw them over, well that plan just won't cut meat with me.   I have no desire to live in the country you are screaming for, as an extremist in disguise, where freedom is a thing of the past and we get retaliation on the 49% for being more successful than the 51%.
> 
> Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy.  Assuming the government is gonna spend your income more carefully than you would is a joke.  Handing out freebies as a bonus for not working hard by taking money from workers is a policy proven to fail throughout history.  Even the communists have given up socialism for capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
Click to expand...


>> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?

I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.  

I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."

In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.

>> Capitalism is only made productive by competition. 

On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies. 

>> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained. 

Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.

>> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.

Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.

Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward.  If working toward a society where no one works and no one gives a shit because no matter what they do or how hard they try the majority of the country will screw them over, well that plan just won't cut meat with me.   I have no desire to live in the country you are screaming for, as an extremist in disguise, where freedom is a thing of the past and we get retaliation on the 49% for being more successful than the 51%.
> 
> Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy.  Assuming the government is gonna spend your income more carefully than you would is a joke.  Handing out freebies as a bonus for not working hard by taking money from workers is a policy proven to fail throughout history.  Even the communists have given up socialism for capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.
> 
> I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."
> 
> In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.
> 
> >> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies.
> 
> >> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.
> 
> >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.
> 
> Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.
Click to expand...


Let's start with specific examples.  

Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries.  Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.  

Just to name a few.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.
> 
> I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."
> 
> In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.
> 
> >> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies.
> 
> >> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.
> 
> >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.
> 
> Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with specific examples.
> 
> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries.  Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Just to name a few.
Click to expand...


" I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay"

Here's definite head in the sand.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward.  If working toward a society where no one works and no one gives a shit because no matter what they do or how hard they try the majority of the country will screw them over, well that plan just won't cut meat with me.   I have no desire to live in the country you are screaming for, as an extremist in disguise, where freedom is a thing of the past and we get retaliation on the 49% for being more successful than the 51%.
> 
> Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy.  Assuming the government is gonna spend your income more carefully than you would is a joke.  Handing out freebies as a bonus for not working hard by taking money from workers is a policy proven to fail throughout history.  Even the communists have given up socialism for capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.
> 
> I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."
> 
> In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.
> 
> >> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies.
> 
> >> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.
> 
> >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.
> 
> Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.
Click to expand...


" Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations."

It was done by a highly regarded Web site design firm.  You're just talking like a slick salesman now.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that that applies to both of us.  But, I would add that people are people.  Businesses and government draws from the same deck.  In that deck are dueces and aces and mostly in betweens.
> 
> We get the most done when we work together.
> 
> I act like an extremeist as an example to tea party extremists who don't see that they are and why.  It seems to get through to those whose minds are not completely closed.
> 
> Given all of that,  I think that,  in terms of achievement,  Obama will go down in history as one of the best,  Bush as one of the worst.
> 
> I am a product of the 50s when American government was regarded by Americans as the best in the world.  It wasn't,  of course,  but I'm hooked on that attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward.  If working toward a society where no one works and no one gives a shit because no matter what they do or how hard they try the majority of the country will screw them over, well that plan just won't cut meat with me.   I have no desire to live in the country you are screaming for, as an extremist in disguise, where freedom is a thing of the past and we get retaliation on the 49% for being more successful than the 51%.
> 
> Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy.  Assuming the government is gonna spend your income more carefully than you would is a joke.  Handing out freebies as a bonus for not working hard by taking money from workers is a policy proven to fail throughout history.  Even the communists have given up socialism for capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> *Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained. *
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
Click to expand...


There is no such place, genius.  Private enterprise is always cheaper than government.  If you think eliminating competition is bad, then what do you think putting the government in charge does?


----------



## PMZ

" >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything." 

"Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."

Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.


----------



## Contumacious

*Unabridged Socialist Dictionary:*

fair 
fe(&#601r/

share
SHe(&#601r/

adjectives

   1. In accordance with the Communist Manifesto , the total amount of wealth that the Parasites can expropriate, steal and plunder.

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> *Unabridged Socialist Dictionary:*
> 
> fair
> fe(&#601r/
> 
> share
> SHe(&#601r/
> 
> adjectives
> 
> 1. In accordance with the Communist Manifesto , the total amount of wealth that the Parasites can expropriate, steal and plunder.
> 
> .



According to this definition,  the wealthy are fair.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.
> 
> I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."
> 
> In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.
> 
> >> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies.
> 
> >> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.
> 
> >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.
> 
> Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with specific examples.
> 
> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries.  Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Just to name a few.
Click to expand...


Militaries and the police would be replaced with insurance companies who would do the policing.   To understand how this would work refer to any number of books by Hans Herman Hoppe.

There's no reason that there can't be competing air-traffic control companies with airlines paying whichever one they preferred.  The federal government has considered selling off our air traffic control system several times.  

We don't need an FDA. Drug companies would continue to perform their own studies to determine the safety and efficacy of their products, just as they do now.  A company like consumer reports would evaluate their results and methodology and provide doctors and consumers with the necessary information to make informed decisions. 

Toll highways existed long before the interstate system.  Furthermore, Railroads perform intercity transportation much more efficiently and cheaply than interstate highways.  Without boondoggle government highways we would probably have a much more limited system of interstates with railroads taking up the slack.  If you want to travel across the country you could either fly or probably drive your car onto specially designed trains that would take you can your car to whatever city you liked.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.



You can't have multiple economic systems in a single country, nimrod.  Either you respect private property or you engage in organized plunder.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have multiple economic systems in a single country, nimrod.  Either you respect private property or you engage in organized plunder.
Click to expand...


Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have multiple economic systems in a single country, nimrod.  Either you respect private property or you engage in organized plunder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
Click to expand...


They have a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  The two system don't operate side-by-side.  You don't get to choose whether you participate in a socialist economy or a capitalism economy.  You have no choice but to choose a single economic system for everyone, however hobbled and corrupted by socialism it may be.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have multiple economic systems in a single country, nimrod.  Either you respect private property or you engage in organized plunder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
Click to expand...


You show me first a country where women get half pregnant.

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have multiple economic systems in a single country, nimrod.  Either you respect private property or you engage in organized plunder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show me first a country where women get half pregnant.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer and not with a completely unrelated question?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have multiple economic systems in a single country, nimrod.  Either you respect private property or you engage in organized plunder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  The two system don't operate side-by-side.  You don't get to choose whether you participate in a socialist economy or a capitalism economy.  You have no choice but to choose a single economic system for everyone, however hobbled and corrupted by socialism it may be.
Click to expand...


Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.


----------



## Contumacious

pmz said:


> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you show me first a country where women get half pregnant.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer and not with a completely unrelated question?
Click to expand...

*
because there is no such thing as half socialism and half capitalism.*

.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  The two system don't operate side-by-side.  You don't get to choose whether you participate in a socialist economy or a capitalism economy.  You have no choice but to choose a single economic system for everyone, however hobbled and corrupted by socialism it may be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify a country that does not employ both capitalism and socialism.
Click to expand...


That obviously went right over your head.  Show me a country were each citizen gets to choose whether he operates under socialism or capitalism.


----------



## bripat9643

Contumacious said:


> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> you show me first a country where women get half pregnant.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer and not with a completely unrelated question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because there is no such thing as half socialism and half capitalism.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sure there is.  What do you think the United States is?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> you show me first a country where women get half pregnant.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer and not with a completely unrelated question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> because there is no such thing as half socialism and half capitalism.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Both are merely tools.  One works well in markets where significant cost,  quality and features competition can be maintained,  but not otherwise.  Nobody in their right mind would do business in a capitalist market without competition. Make more money regardless of the cost to others would eat them alive. 

Socialism,  at least in a democracy,  solves that problem in those markets.  If we don't like what we're getting in a noncompetitive socialist market,  we fire the management.  

Under competitive capitalism,  our control is to go to the competition.  Under a democratic socialist noncompetitive market our control is to fire the management.  

I think that the denial of the fact and value of socialist (the means of production are owned by all of us) markets stems from their use in non democratic countries where some minority imposes on the majority. 

That's simply not the same as in a democracy.


----------



## Contumacious

bripat9643 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer and not with a completely unrelated question?
> 
> 
> 
> because there is no such thing as half socialism and half capitalism.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is.  What do you think the United States is?
Click to expand...


*A FASCIST REGIME.*

When the governmnet regulates and taxes the economy fascism prevails. 

Karl Mark defined fascism as an interim process towards socialism.

.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Both are merely tools.  One works well in markets where significant cost,  quality and features competition can be maintained,  but not otherwise.  Nobody in their right mind would do business in a capitalist market without competition.



HUH?

In a capitalist system there are not GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES - so there is no one to interfere with your right to enter/exit the marketplace.

The Capitalist system , the free market,  is the only pure democracy where people vote with their money.

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both are merely tools.  One works well in markets where significant cost,  quality and features competition can be maintained,  but not otherwise.  Nobody in their right mind would do business in a capitalist market without competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> In a capitalist system there are not GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES - so there is no one to interfere with your right to enter/exit the marketplace.
> 
> The Capitalist system , the free market,  is the only pure democracy where people vote with their money.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Voting with your vote is not voting? 

" there are not GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES"

Who is the competition to our military as one simple example.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> because there is no such thing as half socialism and half capitalism.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is.  What do you think the United States is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A FASCIST REGIME.*
> 
> When the governmnet regulates and taxes the economy fascism prevails.
> 
> Karl Mark defined fascism as an interim process towards socialism.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Fascism is extreme right wing government of a tiny minority imposing on a majority.  Capitalism and socialism are economic systems.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The question isn't should we work together or not the question is what should we work toward."
> 
> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."
> 
> No evidence.  It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true.
> 
> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.
> 
> I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."
> 
> In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.
> 
> >> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies.
> 
> >> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.
> 
> >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.
> 
> Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's start with specific examples.
> 
> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries.  Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Just to name a few.
Click to expand...


>>> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries. Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.  

Our national military is the way it should be.  The military already contracts out, based in part, on capitalism.  Though some reform is necessary to ensure our tax dollars for our military don't go to China.

Air traffic Control should be managed by the airports.  Airports should all be privatized. We don't need the feds to make sure the planes don't fly into each other.

Law enforcement, is local, and fine.  No need for federal involvement in my local and state law enforcement.  Further we don't need ATF or DHS.  Though the FBI in a much reduced footprint is still useful.  The primary jobs of the federal police force is to prohibit us from using farm products, like poppies aka. the war on Drugs, and spying on Americans, aks the war on fear. We should declare victory on those wars and move on.

Most of the functions of the FDA are to provide drug companies monopolies. Who watches the FDA?  While I don't have a problem with the idea of the CDC, I don't like the idea of the government buying caskets for half our citizens, burying them around the country, building detention centers for half the country, and pretty much planning to kill us all just in case of some "emergency."

On interstate highways... we already have those.  No need for further federal involvement.  Let the states manage their roads.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.



Because it's not true.  I only suggest capitalism for our free markets.  I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets.  I do see elective health care as a free market.  However, even for military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue I prefer local solutions over federal solutions.  Clearly the US Armed Forces and FBI are national.  However when you start talking about local police fire, and / or basic rescue the states seem like a better scope of control to ensure the job gets done right with some exceptions where one state might need help from neighboring states for exceptional events.  But even then why do we need national guard for a hurricane?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not true.  I only suggest capitalism for our free markets.  I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets.  I do see elective health care as a free market.
Click to expand...


" I do see elective health care as a free market."

The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.  

It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is.  What do you think the United States is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A FASCIST REGIME.*
> 
> When the governmnet regulates and taxes the economy fascism prevails.
> 
> Karl Mark defined fascism as an interim process towards socialism.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascism is extreme right wing government of a tiny minority imposing on a majority.  Capitalism and socialism are economic systems.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

The prototype fascist states - the 1940's Axis - - Mussolini and Hirohito were left wingers only Hitler was a right winger.

.


----------



## PrometheusBound

DiamondDave said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They lucked out by being born here.  Luck isn't free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you work your way up the ladder based on your talent, you're lucky to find a company that lets you do that instead of requiring you to sacrifice your personal life and personality by becoming a workoholic bootlicker, which has nothing to do with talent.   Only 5% of the people find jobs that reward without crushing the individual.  Of course, the Capitaliban preach that the Magic Market rewards practically all jobs rationally under their Greedhead utopia and luck has little to do with it.   How can it be rational when it means mindless submission to uncontrollable outside forces?
> 
> Another example of luck is that unknowable outside factors create opportunities, making choices into blind guesses.   Successful people mostly made their "right" choices purely by accident.   A typical example I found out about in 1980 was someone who got into geology when it was just for professors, like anthropology.   The oil business suddenly boomed and he became a millionaire, totally unexpectedly.   The earliest computer millionaires were just hobbyists who had no idea their playthings would have much practical value.
> 
> On the opposite side, someone right after World War II could have plausibly predicted that helicopters would replace trucks and buses.   Didn't happen, for reasons too complicated for anyone to understand except by hindsight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LETS you?? LETS you?? Since when is it the company's responsibility to have you do things to advance??? Sacrifice IS what it is all about.. you may indeed have to sacrifice 'personal time', family time, money, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and tons of frustration.. but if you fucking want more, it is what you have to do
> 
> Suck it up and drive on, pussy
Click to expand...


Boot licking Mamas' Boys who see the boss as some infallible father figure they must give strict obedience to are the real pussies.   Grow up and stand up like a man, not some childish and gutless wage slave.   The dumb jock bully bosses' slogan of "My Way or the Highway" means that their way is the low way.   Only high and mighty lowlife rule in such a system.


----------



## Synthaholic

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A FASCIST REGIME.*
> 
> When the governmnet regulates and taxes the economy fascism prevails.
> 
> Karl Mark defined fascism as an interim process towards socialism.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism is extreme right wing government of a tiny minority imposing on a majority.  Capitalism and socialism are economic systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The prototype fascist states - the 1940's Axis - - Mussolini and Hirohito were left wingers only Hitler was a right winger.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You gotta get on the same page as the other wingnuts - they claim Hitler was a Liberal, and that's why it's called National *Socialist* German Workers' *Party.


*


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> How about adequate but not excessive pay for everyone capable of producing wealth?
> 
> I like earning a decent wage... Who doesn't?  Why would anyone argue people should not have the ability to earn an adequate wage? I don't know anyone who does not have adequate pay, other than off-shored jobs and some on-shored illegals.   I know of plenty of examples of situations where I would agree someone is getting excessive pay at the cost of the consumer through a government protected and/or ignored monopoly. Break up the monopolies and oligopolies on said excessive situations, punish exporting of our jobs and importing of goods produced by slave like labor rates, and the issue of American wage rates will get fixed on it's own through capitalist markets.
> 
> I said " Assuming government workers are better and more trustworthy than non-government workers is a gross fallacy."  In response you said "No evidence, It's another thing that would be convenient to what you wish to be true."
> 
> In response I would say that you are just acting stupid.  If I've learned one thing in my life it is that people are people no matter where you go.  Some people assume their leaders are better than they are.  Heh, I know your leaders, I can tell you with experience people are people at all levels of all types of caste systems.  Good and bad people everywhere you go, in every group, at every level of income, in every job imaginable.
> 
> >> Capitalism is only made productive by competition.
> 
> On this statement of yours we are in 100% agreement.  Kudos, for recognizing this as a basic fact.  The reason capitalism works is due to the competition.  Take away the competition through socialist programs, government mandates, government provided and ignored monopolies and capitalism regresses into cronyism and enslavement of the consumer by monopolies.
> 
> >> Government services are always less expensive and better where competition can't be maintained.
> 
> Government, is a monopoly, there is no competition for government.  Just as competition makes capitalist markets work, giving an industry to government forever ensures that industry will be screwed up.
> 
> >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything.
> 
> Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation.
> 
> Look at Obama's health care web site, for example.  I could have done all of the web content and software portions of that web site by myself in 6-9m, and it would have worked well beyond expectations.  The hard part would have been the hosting, but it was the software that failed not the hardware setup.  Why did it fail?  Cronyism.  Instead of hiring the right team to do the job they hired a friend of Obama's wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with specific examples.
> 
> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries.  Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Just to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries. Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Our national military is the way it should be.  The military already contracts out, based in part, on capitalism.  Though some reform is necessary to ensure our tax dollars for our military don't go to China.
> 
> Air traffic Control should be managed by the airports.  Airports should all be privatized. We don't need the feds to make sure the planes don't fly into each other.
> 
> Law enforcement, is local, and fine.  No need for federal involvement in my local and state law enforcement.  Further we don't need ATF or DHS.  Though the FBI in a much reduced footprint is still useful.  The primary jobs of the federal police force is to prohibit us from using farm products, like poppies aka. the war on Drugs, and spying on Americans, aks the war on fear. We should declare victory on those wars and move on.
> 
> Most of the functions of the FDA are to provide drug companies monopolies. Who watches the FDA?  While I don't have a problem with the idea of the CDC, I don't like the idea of the government buying caskets for half our citizens, burying them around the country, building detention centers for half the country, and pretty much planning to kill us all just in case of some "emergency."
> 
> On interstate highways... we already have those.  No need for further federal involvement.  Let the states manage their roads.
Click to expand...


" Air traffic Control should be managed by the airports.  Airports should all be privatized. We don't need the feds to make sure the planes don't fly into each other."

A really dumb idea.  Air traffic control is one system with many nodes.  

I can see it now.  "United 662, we're having a sale today on traffic control to Cleveland.  $10 per mile thus week only.  Our competition is $14 per mile." 

Give me a break.  

Local law enforcement has no jurisdiction outside of whatever place pays them.  

I can see the public reaction to eliminating DHS.  Remember their reaction to lifting the prohibition of carrying pocket knives on board? 
No,  I think that we'll continue to follow the majority for making these decisions.  You may not like the title of extremist but it's pretty  accurate.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with specific examples.
> 
> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries.  Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Tell us how you would set up competitive militaries. Or Air Traffic Control.  Or law enforcement. Or FDA.  Or CDC.  Or Interstate Highways.
> 
> Our national military is the way it should be.  The military already contracts out, based in part, on capitalism.  Though some reform is necessary to ensure our tax dollars for our military don't go to China.
> 
> Air traffic Control should be managed by the airports.  Airports should all be privatized. We don't need the feds to make sure the planes don't fly into each other.
> 
> Law enforcement, is local, and fine.  No need for federal involvement in my local and state law enforcement.  Further we don't need ATF or DHS.  Though the FBI in a much reduced footprint is still useful.  The primary jobs of the federal police force is to prohibit us from using farm products, like poppies aka. the war on Drugs, and spying on Americans, aks the war on fear. We should declare victory on those wars and move on.
> 
> Most of the functions of the FDA are to provide drug companies monopolies. Who watches the FDA?  While I don't have a problem with the idea of the CDC, I don't like the idea of the government buying caskets for half our citizens, burying them around the country, building detention centers for half the country, and pretty much planning to kill us all just in case of some "emergency."
> 
> On interstate highways... we already have those.  No need for further federal involvement.  Let the states manage their roads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Air traffic Control should be managed by the airports.  Airports should all be privatized. We don't need the feds to make sure the planes don't fly into each other."
> 
> A really dumb idea.  Air traffic control is one system with many nodes.
> 
> I can see it now.  "United 662, we're having a sale today on traffic control to Cleveland.  $10 per mile thus week only.  Our competition is $14 per mile."
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> Local law enforcement has no jurisdiction outside of whatever place pays them.
> 
> I can see the public reaction to eliminating DHS.  Remember their reaction to lifting the prohibition of carrying pocket knives on board?
> 
> No,  I think that we'll continue to follow the majority for making these decisions.  You may not like the title of extremist but it's pretty  accurate.
Click to expand...


----------



## PrometheusBound

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> LETS you?? LETS you?? Since when is it the company's responsibility to have you do things to advance??? Sacrifice IS what it is all about.. you may indeed have to sacrifice 'personal time', family time, money, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and tons of frustration.. but if you fucking want more, it is what you have to do
> 
> Suck it up and drive on, pussy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly one thing the country has learned is that conservatives worship wealth. There is simply nothing they won't do for it.
> 
> It's pretty easy to see the consequences of giving people who value wealth over everything any responsibility for others. Any responsibility for anything.
> 
> It's easy to vote them out of government.  Harder,  but just as important, to not do business with them.  They are toxic people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that worships wealth.
> The wealth earned by others that you want to steal from them.
Click to expand...


Owners aren't earners.   They are just parasites like all other guillotine fodder, from time immemorial.


----------



## Contumacious

Synthaholic said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism is extreme right wing government of a tiny minority imposing on a majority.  Capitalism and socialism are economic systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> The prototype fascist states - the 1940's Axis - - Mussolini and Hirohito were left wingers only Hitler was a right winger.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta get on the same page as the other wingnuts - they claim Hitler was a Liberal, and that's why it's called National *Socialist* German Workers' *Party.*
Click to expand...

*

It is true that the nazi's roots were socialist.

But once he became a Fuhrer Hitler,  set aside socialism in favor of fascism. He formed very close alliances with industrialists like  the Krupp family.

The Krupp Family was as corrupt as Warren Buffett.

.*


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not true.  I only suggest capitalism for our free markets.  I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets.  I do see elective health care as a free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I do see elective health care as a free market."
> 
> The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.
> 
> It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.
Click to expand...


I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.  

Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures.  However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only.  Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements.  While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unabridged Socialist Dictionary:*
> 
> fair
> fe(&#601r/
> 
> share
> SHe(&#601r/
> 
> adjectives
> 
> 1. In accordance with the Communist Manifesto , the total amount of wealth that the Parasites can expropriate, steal and plunder.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to this definition,  the wealthy are fair.
Click to expand...


You know why?   Because Communism is Capitalism, Jr., just as Capitalism was Feudalism, Jr., which was Slavery, Jr.   Heirheads may convince themselves that they are rebelling against their fathers, but that is biologically impossible. 

  The Stalinists instituted the same Gulag sweatshops that Capitalism started with.   We will never get off the Road to Serfdom until we realize that anyone related to the previous regime must not be allowed to participate in a democracy, which can no more tolerate aristocracy than fire can mix with water.


----------



## Contumacious

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unabridged Socialist Dictionary:*
> 
> fair
> fe(&#601r/
> 
> share
> SHe(&#601r/
> 
> adjectives
> 
> 1. In accordance with the Communist Manifesto , the total amount of wealth that the Parasites can expropriate, steal and plunder.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to this definition,  the wealthy are fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know why?   Because Communism is Capitalism, Jr., just as Capitalism was Feudalism, Jr., which was Slavery, Jr.   Heirheads may convince themselves that they are rebelling against their fathers, but that is biologically impossible.
> 
> *  The Stalinists instituted the same Gulag sweatshops that Capitalism started with. *  We will never get off the Road to Serfdom until we realize that anyone related to the previous regime must not be allowed to participate in a democracy, which can no more tolerate aristocracy than fire can mix with water.
Click to expand...


*HUH?

WTF*?

I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty, and witty and gay,
And I pity
Any girl who isnt me today.....


That anger management course has come  in handy.

.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both are merely tools.  One works well in markets where significant cost,  quality and features competition can be maintained,  but not otherwise.  Nobody in their right mind would do business in a capitalist market without competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> In a capitalist system there are not GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES - so there is no one to interfere with your right to enter/exit the marketplace.
> 
> The Capitalist system , the free market,  is the only pure democracy where people vote with their money.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And those with more loot get more votes.   It's the best system money can buy.   Those who claim to be rugged individuals get that way by making others ragged individuals.


----------



## Contumacious

PrometheusBound said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both are merely tools.  One works well in markets where significant cost,  quality and features competition can be maintained,  but not otherwise.  Nobody in their right mind would do business in a capitalist market without competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> In a capitalist system there are not GOVERNMENT MANDATED MONOPOLIES - so there is no one to interfere with your right to enter/exit the marketplace.
> 
> The Capitalist system , the free market,  is the only pure democracy where people vote with their money.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those with more loot get more votes.   It's the best system money can buy.   Those who claim to be rugged individuals get that way by making others ragged individuals.
Click to expand...


Somehow the work ethic didn't make Americans prior to 1935 "ragged". But Tyranny and socialism certainly will.

.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " >> Your insistence that we eliminate screws because all you have is a hammer is not a solution to anything."
> 
> "Your ignorant statements won't lead to cooperation."
> 
> Why would you even attempt to deny your allegiance to one economic system fits all?  Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not true.  I only suggest capitalism for our free markets.  I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets.  I do see elective health care as a free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I do see elective health care as a free market."
> 
> The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.
> 
> It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.
Click to expand...


You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter.    All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how.  We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."


----------



## PrometheusBound

Contumacious said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to this definition,  the wealthy are fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know why?   Because Communism is Capitalism, Jr., just as Capitalism was Feudalism, Jr., which was Slavery, Jr.   Heirheads may convince themselves that they are rebelling against their fathers, but that is biologically impossible.
> 
> *  The Stalinists instituted the same Gulag sweatshops that Capitalism started with. *  We will never get off the Road to Serfdom until we realize that anyone related to the previous regime must not be allowed to participate in a democracy, which can no more tolerate aristocracy than fire can mix with water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *HUH?
> 
> WTF*?
> 
> I feel pretty,
> Oh, so pretty,
> I feel pretty, and witty and gay,
> And I pity
> Any girl who isnt me today.....
> 
> 
> That anger management course has come  in handy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Anything the ruling class won't allow to be said about itself strikes slave-minds as absurd.


----------



## RKMBrown

PrometheusBound said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not true.  I only suggest capitalism for our free markets.  I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets.  I do see elective health care as a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I do see elective health care as a free market."
> 
> The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.
> 
> It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter.    All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how.  We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."
Click to expand...


No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor.  That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets.  Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house.  Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share.  There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not true.  I only suggest capitalism for our free markets.  I don't see military, police, fire, and / or basic rescue as free markets.  I do see elective health care as a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I do see elective health care as a free market."
> 
> The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.
> 
> It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.
> 
> Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures.  However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only.  Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements.  While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.
Click to expand...


Obamacare is not insurance.  It doesn't have coverage.  It doesn't charge premiums.  What are you talking about?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " I do see elective health care as a free market."
> 
> The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.
> 
> It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter.    All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how.  We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor.  That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets.  Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house.  Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share.  There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.
Click to expand...


Or,  we can problem solve.


----------



## Contumacious

PrometheusBound said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why?   Because Communism is Capitalism, Jr., just as Capitalism was Feudalism, Jr., which was Slavery, Jr.   Heirheads may convince themselves that they are rebelling against their fathers, but that is biologically impossible.
> 
> *  The Stalinists instituted the same Gulag sweatshops that Capitalism started with. *  We will never get off the Road to Serfdom until we realize that anyone related to the previous regime must not be allowed to participate in a democracy, which can no more tolerate aristocracy than fire can mix with water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HUH?
> 
> WTF*?
> 
> I feel pretty,
> Oh, so pretty,
> I feel pretty, and witty and gay,
> And I pity
> Any girl who isn&#8217;t me today.....
> 
> 
> That anger management course has come  in handy.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything the ruling class won't allow to be said about itself strikes slave-minds as absurd.
Click to expand...


There are NO RULING CLASSES in Capitalist societies.

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making it hard for the Bootlicking Boytoys of the Bosses to get away with their simple-minded cocksure chatter.    All they are saying is, "We got ours, it doesn't matter how.  We're not going to let you get yours because that would make it look like we weren't superior to you."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor.  That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets.  Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house.  Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share.  There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or,  we can problem solve.
Click to expand...


What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution?  Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets?  Why do you hate children?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *HUH?
> 
> WTF*?
> 
> I feel pretty,
> Oh, so pretty,
> I feel pretty, and witty and gay,
> And I pity
> Any girl who isnt me today.....
> 
> 
> That anger management course has come  in handy.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything the ruling class won't allow to be said about itself strikes slave-minds as absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are NO RULING CLASSES in Capitalist societies.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How about in China.  Heavily capitalistic now but politically run by a single party.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. I think we should go after everyone's 401k and redistribute those to the poor.  That's the way to fix this, not taxing income, but rather charging back tax penalties on the people who have to many current assets.  Let's just cut to the nut here and do what you guys want, full on re-distribution of everything, every car, every house.  Cut them all up into pieces and burn em or share.  There should be no charge for anything. Everything should be free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or,  we can problem solve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution?  Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets?  Why do you hate children?
Click to expand...


I don't know anyone but,  apparently,  you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or,  we can problem solve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution?  Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets?  Why do you hate children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone but,  apparently,  you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.
Click to expand...

Why stop at 70% of income?  Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all?  Why should anyone have investments at all?  Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money?  If money if evil why do we have it at all?  Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What problems does that not solve? Why stop short of full re-distribution?  Why do you insist children go without? Why do you insist grand-ma does not get her fair share of the assets?  Why do you hate children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone but,  apparently,  you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why stop at 70% of income?  Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all?  Why should anyone have investments at all?  Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money?  If money if evil why do we have it at all?  Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.
Click to expand...


Typical conservative black and white extremism. 


Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality. 

Like in most things,  the middle of the road works best.  How about Pre Bush.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anyone but,  apparently,  you who wants anything more than the distribution of wealth most people think that we have today instead of the extreme that we do have.
> 
> 
> 
> Why stop at 70% of income?  Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all?  Why should anyone have investments at all?  Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money?  If money if evil why do we have it at all?  Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative black and white extremism.
> 
> 
> Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.
> 
> Like in most things,  the middle of the road works best.  How about Pre Bush.
Click to expand...

You are the one defending re-distribution.  Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets.  I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why stop at 70% of income?  Why not just take assets? Why should anyone have savings at all?  Why should anyone have investments at all?  Why not just redistribute everything to make sure no one has more than the next guy? For that matter what's the point of money?  If money if evil why do we have it at all?  Why don't you just decide who lives where and hand out the food? Everyone gets what ever they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative black and white extremism.
> 
> 
> Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.
> 
> Like in most things,  the middle of the road works best.  How about Pre Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one defending re-distribution.  Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets.  I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?
Click to expand...


You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to. 

Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money.  I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory.  But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated. 

We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets.  Why fix something that's not broken. 

But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken.  It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.  

The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.  

Let's do what has worked before,  again.  Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " I do see elective health care as a free market."
> 
> The problem being that the vast majority of health care delivery is not elective. So it's about as far from a free market as we can get.
> 
> It's largely a noncompetitive capitalist market and that's the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.
> 
> Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures.  However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only.  Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements.  While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is not insurance.  It doesn't have coverage.  It doesn't charge premiums.  What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits 
4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.

Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative black and white extremism.
> 
> 
> Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.
> 
> Like in most things,  the middle of the road works best.  How about Pre Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending re-distribution.  Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets.  I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to.
> 
> Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money.  I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory.  But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated.
> 
> We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets.  Why fix something that's not broken.
> 
> But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken.  It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.
> 
> The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.
> 
> Let's do what has worked before,  again.  Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.
Click to expand...


Anyone that believes wealth is distributed is dysfunctional.
Wealth is EARNED.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative black and white extremism.
> 
> 
> Either extreme wealth inequality or extreme wealth equality.
> 
> Like in most things,  the middle of the road works best.  How about Pre Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending re-distribution.  Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets.  I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to.
> 
> Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money.  I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory.  But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated.
> 
> We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets.  Why fix something that's not broken.
> 
> But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken.  It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.
> 
> The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.
> 
> Let's do what has worked before,  again.  Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.
Click to expand...


When did it work before what "effective" tax rate worked? Make up your mind.  Or is it that you don't understand the difference between marginal rates and actual effective rates?  

Why should the evil rich be able to have no income and just sit on hundreds of billions of assets? Why do you think they will declare any income for themselves when you are just gonna take it?  Why do you think executives are so stupid that they can't just pay themselves at some island account where there are no or very little taxes?  How many US corporations have to move their headquarters before you wake up?  Why have you not looked into the past to find out about the many tax dodges employed by the rich back when taxes were high? What are the historical effective rates?  Do you know them or not?

If you have NO CLUE about what you are talking about why bother?  

If you want to take peoples assets for real your gonna have to stop pussy footing around.  Just say what you really want to do. 

Or are you avoiding assets and focusing on income because you have tons of assets and no income?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take that as you cede all the other issues I covered.
> 
> Thus we are down to non-elective life saving procedures.  However, as discussed before OCA is not only for non-elective life saving procedures, nor is it for Hospital Emergencies only.  Obama care covers the gamut of elective pregnancies, sex changes, and birth control to hip, elbow, knee replacements.  While I'm happy some folks will get a chance to become the six million dollar man for "free" it's not sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is not insurance.  It doesn't have coverage.  It doesn't charge premiums.  What are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
> As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
> 1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
> 2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
> 3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
> 4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
> 5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
> 6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.
> 
> Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
> Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?
Click to expand...


The topic is not what ACA requires.  It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.  

Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them. 

He didn't lie.  Republicans are.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is not insurance.  It doesn't have coverage.  It doesn't charge premiums.  What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
> As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
> 1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
> 2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
> 3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
> 4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
> 5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
> 6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.
> 
> Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
> Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not what ACA requires.  It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.
> 
> Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.
> 
> He didn't lie.  Republicans are.
Click to expand...


The law required the companies THROW OUT THE PLANS THAT DID NOT MEET OBAMA'S DEMANDS.  Why are you being OBTUSE? Obama lied.  I realize calling him out on a lie is silly, since he's never said an honest sentence his entire life.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
> As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
> 1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
> 2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
> 3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
> 4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
> 5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
> 6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.
> 
> Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
> Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is not what ACA requires.  It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.
> 
> Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.
> 
> He didn't lie.  Republicans are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law required the companies THROW OUT THE PLANS THAT DID NOT MEET OBAMA'S DEMANDS.  Why are you being OBTUSE? Obama lied.  I realize calling him out on a lie is silly, since he's never said an honest sentence his entire life.
Click to expand...


Read. Learn.  Stop being stupid. 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/december/17/grandfathered-plans-faq.aspx


----------



## PMZ

From the references above. 

Framers of the Affordable Care Act allowed some health plans to be exempt from some of the laws rules and protections in the interests of a smooth transition and to allow businesses and individuals to keep current policies without having to make substantial changes. More than a third of all Americans who get insurance through their jobs are enrolled in such plans, although that number is expected to decline every year.
Nonetheless, consumers should know the status of their plans since that may determine whether they are eligible for certain protections and benefits created by the health law.  For example, an employee at a large company may wonder why his job-based insurance doesn't include the free preventive services he's heard about. Or someone who purchases her own coverage may wonder whether she will be eligible for broader benefits when new insurance marketplaces open next fall. To answer those questions, you must understand the status of your plan and how grandfathering works.  Here are the basics:


----------



## American4Americ

Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".

The left disgusts me.


----------



## PMZ

American4Americ said:


> Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".
> 
> The left disgusts me.



The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up. 

Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans. 

It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences. 

We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.  

I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> American4Americ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".
> 
> The left disgusts me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
Click to expand...


Stop lying.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> From the references above.
> 
> Framers of the Affordable Care Act allowed some health plans to be exempt from some of the laws rules and protections in the interests of a smooth transition and to allow businesses and individuals to keep current policies without having to make substantial changes. More than a third of all Americans who get insurance through their jobs are enrolled in such plans, although that number is expected to decline every year.
> Nonetheless, consumers should know the status of their plans since that may determine whether they are eligible for certain protections and benefits created by the health law.  For example, an employee at a large company may wonder why his job-based insurance doesn't include the free preventive services he's heard about. Or someone who purchases her own coverage may wonder whether she will be eligible for broader benefits when new insurance marketplaces open next fall. To answer those questions, you must understand the status of your plan and how grandfathering works.  Here are the basics:



Right, Obama gave tribute to his campaign donors, the large corporations, a 1 year exemption.
For the rest of us small business owners we have to comply in 8 weeks.
Only a dumb ass believes there will be no changes in health insurance rules, regulations, taxes and massive premium increases that follow.
That would be you unless you are man enough to admit that the ACA will increase across the board premiums for those that do not qualify for a subsidy 30%+.
Mine just doubled, 2 very, very healthy adults that are still athletic with NO claims history and no prescription pills taken. $600 a month and now $1200 under the new laws.
Only a damn fool refuses to admit that allowing pre existing conditions into the market dramatically raises everyone's premiums.
Except for those that have taxpayers subsidizing their premiums.
And that is probably you. Real affordable when someone else is paying your tab.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is not insurance.  It doesn't have coverage.  It doesn't charge premiums.  What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
> As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
> 1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
> 2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
> 3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
> 4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
> 5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
> 6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.
> 
> Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
> Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is not what ACA requires.  It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.
> 
> Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.
> 
> He didn't lie.  Republicans are.
Click to expand...


Dumb ass, every company HAS to change them to comply with the new rules, laws and regulations.
Just one of them is the pre-existing condition clause.
You are a stupid liar if you claim that companies get grandfathered for that new rule or any of the new rules.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> American4Americ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".
> 
> The left disgusts me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
Click to expand...


If the right disgusts you so much how come you keep wanting more and more of their money?
You love the right. They give money to you.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has laws that mandate 6 things that were not mandated before and adds large cost increases for insurance companies:
> As of January 1, 2014 by statute ALL health insurers must now report to their insured per written notice that the health insurance company:
> 1. MUST pay new taxes and fees which add to health plan costs
> 2. MUST cover anyone even if they have a pre existing medical condition
> 3. MUST offer new benefits and future new benefits
> 4. MUST limit how much your age can affect health plan costs, and may not adjust rates due to gender or health status
> 5. MUST limit member's out of pocket costs and comply with minimal actuarial value requirements
> 6. MUST participate in the risk adjustment and reinsurance mechanisms of the PPACA.
> 
> Only a dumb ass bought the spin and lies of "nothing changes, you can keep your insurance and the average savings will be $2500 a family."
> Would that make you a dumb ass for not having a clue what the bill says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is not what ACA requires.  It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.
> 
> Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.
> 
> He didn't lie.  Republicans are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, every company HAS to change them to comply with the new rules, laws and regulations.
> Just one of them is the pre-existing condition clause.
> You are a stupid liar if you claim that companies get grandfathered for that new rule or any of the new rules.
Click to expand...


If you are able,  Google "ACA grandfather".  Read. You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American4Americ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".
> 
> The left disgusts me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
Click to expand...


You define every thing inconvenient to you a lie.  We have a name for that.  Lying.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American4Americ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals will not be satisfied until they have stripped "the rich" of every single penny they can, have them beginning for a meal as "retribution".
> 
> The left disgusts me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the right disgusts you so much how come you keep wanting more and more of their money?
> You love the right. They give money to you.
Click to expand...


Nobody gives money to me jerkwad.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the right disgusts you so much how come you keep wanting more and more of their money?
> You love the right. They give money to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody gives money to me jerkwad.
Click to expand...


That's right.  The jerkwads simply take it at gunpoint.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the right disgusts you so much how come you keep wanting more and more of their money?
> You love the right. They give money to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody gives money to me jerkwad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  The jerkwads simply take it at gunpoint.
Click to expand...


If people hold you up at gunpoint every day move to a different neighborhood. Or get a gun. Yeah that's it.  Out draw them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> They sent middle class job to China.



Really, Comrade &#1080;&#1076;&#1080;&#1086;&#1090;?  Which "middle class" jobs did "they" send to China? Button pushers in old style smoke stack industries? 

Say Comrade, WHO was it that drove the steel industry out of America? Wasn't it the EPA, driven by the Greens? In other words, wasn't it actually you Communists who drove heavy manufacturing out of the USA? 

"They" is you fucking Communists. 



> "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.



Who sent jobs to China, Comrade? *You did!*


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They sent middle class job to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, Comrade &#1080;&#1076;&#1080;&#1086;&#1090;?  Which "middle class" jobs did "they" send to China? Button pushers in old style smoke stack industries?
> 
> Say Comrade, WHO was it that drove the steel industry out of America? Wasn't it the EPA, driven by the Greens? In other words, wasn't it actually you Communists who drove heavy manufacturing out of the USA?
> 
> "They" is you fucking Communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They",  those that did that in exchange for mega bonuses, didn't leave.  That would be inconvenient.  They just harvested their workers careers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who sent jobs to China, Comrade? *You did!*
Click to expand...


Adolf,  business leaders sent jobs to China.  Why?  Conservative propaganda says to shrink to success.  The smart companies don't need wealth creating workers,  just grossly overpaid executives.  

That's a stupid idea.  People like me saw that right away.  Most Americans have learned it over the last decade.  People as slow as you,  probably never.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Adolf,  business leaders sent jobs to China.



No Comrade; it was YOU and your fellow Communists. You outlawed the manufacture of products due to concerns of pollution.

Lying now doesn't help you.



> Why?  Conservative propaganda says to shrink to success.  The smart companies don't need wealth creating workers,  just grossly overpaid executives.



Again Comrade, you are outright lying. Heavy manufacturing left due to regulation - primarily environmental regulation. Do you know that it is illegal to build a modern CPU in the USA? EVEN IF Intel wanted to pay the higher costs of U.S. labor - you Communists would not allow them to make chips here. The NPN process uses arsenic as an etching agent and the disposal of the residue is not permitted by the EPA.

Who sent the jobs to China? YOU DID!



> That's a stupid idea.  People like me saw that right away.  Most Americans have learned it over the last decade.  People as slow as you,  probably never.



You Communists drove manufacturing out of this nation.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  business leaders sent jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Comrade; it was YOU and your fellow Communists. You outlawed the manufacture of products due to concerns of pollution.
> 
> Lying now doesn't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Conservative propaganda says to shrink to success.  The smart companies don't need wealth creating workers,  just grossly overpaid executives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Comrade, you are outright lying. Heavy manufacturing left due to regulation - primarily environmental regulation. Do you know that it is illegal to build a modern CPU in the USA? EVEN IF Intel wanted to pay the higher costs of U.S. labor - you Communists would not allow them to make chips here. The NPN process uses arsenic as an etching agent and the disposal of the residue is not permitted by the EPA.
> 
> Who sent the jobs to China? YOU DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stupid idea.  People like me saw that right away.  Most Americans have learned it over the last decade.  People as slow as you,  probably never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Communists drove manufacturing out of this nation.
Click to expand...


Adolf,  I know lots of wealth creating workers.  None of them asked to have their jobs sent to China.  

What conservatism taught business is that growing is hard,  and shrinking is easy and can be just as personally lucrative because conservatives are so easily fooled.  Every time one executive gave another executive a multi million dollar bonus all conservatives cheered on cue from Fox and the money channels. 

The propagandists "forgot" that every one of those wealth creators was also a customer.  

Bummer!


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Adolf,  I know lots of wealth creating workers.  None of them asked to have their jobs sent to China.



YOU and your fellow Communist sent the jobs to China. YOU outlawed manufacturing in this nation. 



> What conservatism taught business is that growing is hard,  and shrinking is easy and can be just as personally lucrative because conservatives are so easily fooled.  Every time one executive gave another executive a multi million dollar bonus all conservatives cheered on cue from Fox and the money channels.
> 
> The propagandists "forgot" that every one of those wealth creators was also a customer.
> 
> Bummer!



You Communists made it illegal to manufacture products in this nation. Bye-by jobs...


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  I know lots of wealth creating workers.  None of them asked to have their jobs sent to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU and your fellow Communist sent the jobs to China. YOU outlawed manufacturing in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What conservatism taught business is that growing is hard,  and shrinking is easy and can be just as personally lucrative because conservatives are so easily fooled.  Every time one executive gave another executive a multi million dollar bonus all conservatives cheered on cue from Fox and the money channels.
> 
> The propagandists "forgot" that every one of those wealth creators was also a customer.
> 
> Bummer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Communists made it illegal to manufacture products in this nation. Bye-by jobs...
Click to expand...


Adolf,  business runs business.  Democracy runs government.  Democracy dictated that workers should not have to put their lives on the line at work.  That rule applies to all companies in the US,  equally. 

Now a nutball minority comes along and says democracy is nuts.  Workers are like parts.  If one breaks,  get another.  

And the nutball minority wonders why democracy fires them from government. 

And conservative businesses wonder where their customers went.  

And government wonders where their revenue went.  

All the cost of people not thinking for themselves.  

The only question is,  do Sheeple not think for themselves because they can't or just won't.  Does bobble heading come from stupidity or laziness.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right disgusts me.  They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You define every thing inconvenient to you a lie.  We have a name for that.  Lying.
Click to expand...


>> The right disgusts me.  

You said you are the right.  Lie numbers one and two.

>> They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to. 

The middle class got paid for that they did.  Lie number three.

>> Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up. 

Again, you are either lying or stupid here, income is only one form of asset. We'll call this embellishment and stupidity.

>> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans. 

Stealing is a crime, unless its the government doing it.  Lie number four.

>> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences. 

This zero sum wealth basis of yours just makes you sound like an idiot.  By your measure all wealth is fixed and thus if someone makes something he's taking something away from someone else.  That is more than ridiculous, it's retarded. 

>> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.  

Duh.

>> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.

Lie number five, you have proven you are incapable of thinking.  Ok that was just a jab


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You define every thing inconvenient to you a lie.  We have a name for that.  Lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> The right disgusts me.
> 
> You said you are the right.  Lie numbers one and two.
> 
> >> They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to.
> 
> The middle class got paid for that they did.  Lie number three.
> 
> >> Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Again, you are either lying or stupid here, income is only one form of asset. We'll call this embellishment and stupidity.
> 
> >> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> Stealing is a crime, unless its the government doing it.  Lie number four.
> 
> >> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> This zero sum wealth basis of yours just makes you sound like an idiot.  By your measure all wealth is fixed and thus if someone makes something he's taking something away from someone else.  That is more than ridiculous, it's retarded.
> 
> >> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> >> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> Lie number five, you have proven you are incapable of thinking.  Ok that was just a jab
Click to expand...


Proof of what I said. 

You take truth that's inconvenient to your delusion and call it lies.  

That is a precise emulation of Republican propaganda on Fox.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You define every thing inconvenient to you a lie.  We have a name for that.  Lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> The right disgusts me.
> 
> You said you are the right.  Lie numbers one and two.
> 
> >> They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to.
> 
> The middle class got paid for that they did.  Lie number three.
> 
> >> Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Again, you are either lying or stupid here, income is only one form of asset. We'll call this embellishment and stupidity.
> 
> >> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> Stealing is a crime, unless its the government doing it.  Lie number four.
> 
> >> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> This zero sum wealth basis of yours just makes you sound like an idiot.  By your measure all wealth is fixed and thus if someone makes something he's taking something away from someone else.  That is more than ridiculous, it's retarded.
> 
> >> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> >> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> Lie number five, you have proven you are incapable of thinking.  Ok that was just a jab
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof of what I said.
> 
> You take truth that's inconvenient to your delusion and call it lies.
> 
> That is a precise emulation of Republican propaganda on Fox.
Click to expand...


And once again... caught in your lies you resort to deflection, put your hands over your ears and yell FOX FOX FOX

What the hell is with you & Fox?  Do you think their talks shows are news?  Dude it's entertainment for conservatives.  No different than the Colbert report for democrats on the comedy channel.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending re-distribution.  Why stop at 70% of income why not just distribute assets? What's the difference? Income is assets.  I paid 2m in income taxes why not take 2m in assets what's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fund the payment of your tax bill any way you want to.
> 
> Capitalism is based on a theory that people only do challenging things for money.  I personally believe that there's way too many exceptions to that to call it a reliable theory.  But that doesn't mean that there's nobody so motivated.
> 
> We know that capitalism works acceptably well in competitive markets.  Why fix something that's not broken.
> 
> But capitalism the way that it's practiced here and now is broken.  It has led to a certifiably dysfunctional extreme distribution of wealth.
> 
> The way that we've been able to solve this problem in the past is through our progressive income tax.
> 
> Let's do what has worked before,  again.  Rather that ignore our social instability until it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes wealth is distributed is dysfunctional.
> Wealth is EARNED.
Click to expand...


That's just a claim.    The fact that the plutocracy believes in inheritance proves that they had no problem with getting their own wealth through luck or cheating.    There is no way that Heirheads can be said to earn their money.    Not even what they earned after Daddy set them up should count, because the system works the way the NBA would if the Finals winner got the #1 Draft Pick.    That would lead to the same imbalance we have in the society and the NBA would soon be a lopsided joke.    Then it would be disbanded.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >> The right disgusts me.
> 
> You said you are the right.  Lie numbers one and two.
> 
> >> They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to.
> 
> The middle class got paid for that they did.  Lie number three.
> 
> >> Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Again, you are either lying or stupid here, income is only one form of asset. We'll call this embellishment and stupidity.
> 
> >> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> Stealing is a crime, unless its the government doing it.  Lie number four.
> 
> >> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> This zero sum wealth basis of yours just makes you sound like an idiot.  By your measure all wealth is fixed and thus if someone makes something he's taking something away from someone else.  That is more than ridiculous, it's retarded.
> 
> >> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> >> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> Lie number five, you have proven you are incapable of thinking.  Ok that was just a jab
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of what I said.
> 
> You take truth that's inconvenient to your delusion and call it lies.
> 
> That is a precise emulation of Republican propaganda on Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again... caught in your lies you resort to deflection, put your hands over your ears and yell FOX FOX FOX
> 
> What the hell is with you & Fox?  Do you think their talks shows are news?  Dude it's entertainment for conservatives.  No different than the Colbert report for democrats on the comedy channel.
Click to expand...


Fox is the delivery mechanism for Republican propaganda.  People believe their innuendo.  Without it the dixiecrats would be powerless and many more people would be holding the Republican Party accountable for their gross malfeasance. 

It's a threat to our country greater than Communism ever was.  Not because Communism was not equally dysfunctional but because it could never overcome the protection of democracy. 

Why?  They didn't have a propaganda tool like Fox.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Adolf,  business runs business.



Within the laws of the state.

Starting in the 1970's - the radical left began imposing environmental laws on manufacturing that made it essentially illegal to manufacture steel, PCB's, PVC, and most textiles.

You are a troll - paid by the Communists to post idiocy. You commonly post in the Global Warming threads, seeking to further crush all business.

So WHO is sending jobs to China?

You are are, you and your masters.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the references above.
> 
> Framers of the Affordable Care Act allowed some health plans to be exempt from some of the laws rules and protections in the interests of a smooth transition and to allow businesses and individuals to keep current policies without having to make substantial changes. More than a third of all Americans who get insurance through their jobs are enrolled in such plans, although that number is expected to decline every year.
> Nonetheless, consumers should know the status of their plans since that may determine whether they are eligible for certain protections and benefits created by the health law.  For example, an employee at a large company may wonder why his job-based insurance doesn't include the free preventive services he's heard about. Or someone who purchases her own coverage may wonder whether she will be eligible for broader benefits when new insurance marketplaces open next fall. To answer those questions, you must understand the status of your plan and how grandfathering works.  Here are the basics:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, Obama gave tribute to his campaign donors, the large corporations, a 1 year exemption.
> For the rest of us small business owners we have to comply in 8 weeks.
> Only a dumb ass believes there will be no changes in health insurance rules, regulations, taxes and massive premium increases that follow.
> That would be you unless you are man enough to admit that the ACA will increase across the board premiums for those that do not qualify for a subsidy 30%+.
> Mine just doubled, 2 very, very healthy adults that are still athletic with NO claims history and no prescription pills taken. $600 a month and now $1200 under the new laws.
> Only a damn fool refuses to admit that allowing pre existing conditions into the market dramatically raises everyone's premiums.
> Except for those that have taxpayers subsidizing their premiums.
> And that is probably you. Real affordable when someone else is paying your tab.
Click to expand...


It will bankrupt all the insurance companies and lead to the same kind of public health care, modeled on what we get in other protective services, such as the police and military.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  business leaders sent jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Comrade; it was YOU and your fellow Communists. You outlawed the manufacture of products due to concerns of pollution.
> 
> Lying now doesn't help you.
> 
> 
> 
> Again Comrade, you are outright lying. Heavy manufacturing left due to regulation - primarily environmental regulation. Do you know that it is illegal to build a modern CPU in the USA? EVEN IF Intel wanted to pay the higher costs of U.S. labor - you Communists would not allow them to make chips here. The NPN process uses arsenic as an etching agent and the disposal of the residue is not permitted by the EPA.
> 
> Who sent the jobs to China? YOU DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stupid idea.  People like me saw that right away.  Most Americans have learned it over the last decade.  People as slow as you,  probably never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Communists drove manufacturing out of this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adolf,  I know lots of wealth creating workers.  None of them asked to have their jobs sent to China.
> 
> What conservatism taught business is that growing is hard,  and shrinking is easy and can be just as personally lucrative because conservatives are so easily fooled.  Every time one executive gave another executive a multi million dollar bonus all conservatives cheered on cue from Fox and the money channels.
> 
> The propagandists "forgot" that every one of those wealth creators was also a customer.
> 
> Bummer!
Click to expand...


Hard work means easy money for the Jabba the Hutt Capitalist parasites.   Unfortunately, their unquenchable appetite for bloodsucking loot hasn't made their stomachs explode.   We'll have to get rid of them actively, instead of just waiting for them to collapse from their dead weight.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PrometheusBound said:


> Hard work means easy money for the Jabba the Hutt Capitalist parasites.   Unfortunately, their unquenchable appetite for bloodsucking loot hasn't made their stomachs explode.   We'll have to get rid of them actively, instead of just waiting for them to collapse from their dead weight.



What would a fat, dumb, lazy, union slob like you know about hard work?

You haven't done two honest hours of work in a day, in your entire life.


----------



## RKMBrown

PrometheusBound said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the references above.
> 
> Framers of the Affordable Care Act allowed some health plans to be exempt from some of the law&#8217;s rules and protections in the interests of a smooth transition and to allow businesses and individuals to keep current policies without having to make substantial changes. More than a third of all Americans who get insurance through their jobs are enrolled in such plans, although that number is expected to decline every year.
> Nonetheless, consumers should know the status of their plans since that may determine whether they are eligible for certain protections and benefits created by the health law.  For example, an employee at a large company may wonder why his job-based insurance doesn't include the free preventive services he's heard about. Or someone who purchases her own coverage may wonder whether she will be eligible for broader benefits when new insurance marketplaces open next fall. To answer those questions, you must understand the status of your plan and how grandfathering works.  Here are the basics:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, Obama gave tribute to his campaign donors, the large corporations, a 1 year exemption.
> For the rest of us small business owners we have to comply in 8 weeks.
> Only a dumb ass believes there will be no changes in health insurance rules, regulations, taxes and massive premium increases that follow.
> That would be you unless you are man enough to admit that the ACA will increase across the board premiums for those that do not qualify for a subsidy 30%+.
> Mine just doubled, 2 very, very healthy adults that are still athletic with NO claims history and no prescription pills taken. $600 a month and now $1200 under the new laws.
> Only a damn fool refuses to admit that allowing pre existing conditions into the market dramatically raises everyone's premiums.
> Except for those that have taxpayers subsidizing their premiums.
> And that is probably you. Real affordable when someone else is paying your tab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will bankrupt all the insurance companies and lead to the same kind of public health care, modeled on what we get in other protective services, such as the police and military.
Click to expand...


^ this.  There is no way I'm gonna pay the thousands of dollars a month for insurance that this Obuma care policy is leading to.  Within two years, my guess is my company will drop insurance and give us cash instead.  At that point I'll probably go without insurance paying the fine till I need an expensive procedure.  I never paid a dime in life insurance either, saved up my own nest egg.  I bet on myself instead.  Why pay for something you don't need rather than creating a nest egg that earns enough interest, on it's own, to pay for everything you might need?

My guess is the number of people who don't have insurance is about to skyrocket.

We have our "annual" insurance meeting this Wednesday.  Can't wait.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You define every thing inconvenient to you a lie.  We have a name for that.  Lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >> The right disgusts me.
> 
> You said you are the right.  Lie numbers one and two.
> 
> >> They have, through the government under Bush that they purchased, taken much of the wealth that the middle class created and hung on to.
> 
> The middle class got paid for that they did.  Lie number three.
> 
> >> Now they bray that the 20% are fully entitled to the 85% of the wealth that they've vacuumed up.
> 
> Again, you are either lying or stupid here, income is only one form of asset. We'll call this embellishment and stupidity.
> 
> >> Bullshit.  It was stolen,  thank you very much,  by the Republicans.
> 
> Stealing is a crime, unless its the government doing it.  Lie number four.
> 
> >> It has led the US to a very dysfunctional wealth inequality that has expensive consequences.
> 
> This zero sum wealth basis of yours just makes you sound like an idiot.  By your measure all wealth is fixed and thus if someone makes something he's taking something away from someone else.  That is more than ridiculous, it's retarded.
> 
> >> We will either take the less or more expensive route out of here.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> >> I'm thinking that we are not smart enough to avoid the expensive route.
> 
> Lie number five, you have proven you are incapable of thinking.  Ok that was just a jab
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof of what I said.
> 
> You take truth that's inconvenient to your delusion and call it lies.
> 
> That is a precise emulation of Republican propaganda on Fox.
Click to expand...


It is actually a Negative Sum, worse than the Zero Sum their publicists say doesn't exist.   Class-bias demoralizes talent, which creates all the wealth stolen from above.   Of course, the Capitaliban cult will claim that is because the talented are lazy if they refuse to become Cash Cows at the Corporate Dairy.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  business runs business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Within the laws of the state.
> 
> Starting in the 1970's - the radical left began imposing environmental laws on manufacturing that made it essentially illegal to manufacture steel, PCB's, PVC, and most textiles.
> 
> You are a troll - paid by the Communists to post idiocy. You commonly post in the Global Warming threads, seeking to further crush all business.
> 
> So WHO is sending jobs to China?
> 
> You are are, you and your masters.
Click to expand...


Adolf,  your point that business owns labor,  slavery,  and has the right to endanger anybody and anyplace they want to,  is in practice many places around the world.  Experience it first hand.  Go to Mexico City or Beijing and take a deep breath,  and,  when you stop coughing, move there if that's what you prefer. 

You must be part of the anti-American drag us to the bottom of the heap movement. 

I think that we ought to return to the days of capable business leaders who solve problems rather than create them.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, Obama gave tribute to his campaign donors, the large corporations, a 1 year exemption.
> For the rest of us small business owners we have to comply in 8 weeks.
> Only a dumb ass believes there will be no changes in health insurance rules, regulations, taxes and massive premium increases that follow.
> That would be you unless you are man enough to admit that the ACA will increase across the board premiums for those that do not qualify for a subsidy 30%+.
> Mine just doubled, 2 very, very healthy adults that are still athletic with NO claims history and no prescription pills taken. $600 a month and now $1200 under the new laws.
> Only a damn fool refuses to admit that allowing pre existing conditions into the market dramatically raises everyone's premiums.
> Except for those that have taxpayers subsidizing their premiums.
> And that is probably you. Real affordable when someone else is paying your tab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will bankrupt all the insurance companies and lead to the same kind of public health care, modeled on what we get in other protective services, such as the police and military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ this.  There is no way I'm gonna pay the thousands of dollars a month for insurance that this Obuma care policy is leading to.  Within two years, my guess is my company will drop insurance and give us cash instead.  At that point I'll probably go without insurance paying the fine till I need an expensive procedure.  I never paid a dime in life insurance either, saved up my own nest egg.  I bet on myself instead.  Why pay for something you don't need rather than creating a nest egg that earns enough interest, on it's own, to pay for everything you might need?
> 
> My guess is the number of people who don't have insurance is about to skyrocket.
> 
> We have our "annual" insurance meeting this Wednesday.  Can't wait.
Click to expand...


That's one advantage of wealth regardless of how it's obtained.  Choice.  

Many companies are now investing in their employees health rather than just paying for repairs.  Win,  win.  Something many businesses never even consider.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Adolf,  your point that business owns labor,  slavery,  and has the right to endanger anybody and anyplace they want to,  is in practice many places around the world.  Experience it first hand.  Go to Mexico City or Beijing and take a deep breath,  and,  when you stop coughing, move there if that's what you prefer.



That's not my point, retard.

The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it

Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.



> You must be part of the anti-American drag us to the bottom of the heap movement.
> 
> I think that we ought to return to the days of capable business leaders who solve problems rather than create them.



Again fucktard - YOU and your fellow Communists are the reason that Manufacturing left this nation. And you continue your assault.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will bankrupt all the insurance companies and lead to the same kind of public health care, modeled on what we get in other protective services, such as the police and military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ this.  There is no way I'm gonna pay the thousands of dollars a month for insurance that this Obuma care policy is leading to.  Within two years, my guess is my company will drop insurance and give us cash instead.  At that point I'll probably go without insurance paying the fine till I need an expensive procedure.  I never paid a dime in life insurance either, saved up my own nest egg.  I bet on myself instead.  Why pay for something you don't need rather than creating a nest egg that earns enough interest, on it's own, to pay for everything you might need?
> 
> My guess is the number of people who don't have insurance is about to skyrocket.
> 
> We have our "annual" insurance meeting this Wednesday.  Can't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one advantage of wealth regardless of how it's obtained.  Choice.
> 
> Many companies are now investing in their employees health rather than just paying for repairs.  Win,  win.  Something many businesses never even consider.
Click to expand...


AYUP.  Unless the fines are allowed to go through the roof.  The invest in health vs. paying for repairs is a much, much more fiscally sound approach.  Get healthy, save, save, save, earn interest, create strong family ties and perhaps even a shared risk policy (nest egg) for your family.  I love HSAs wish the democrats did not hate them so much.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  your point that business owns labor,  slavery,  and has the right to endanger anybody and anyplace they want to,  is in practice many places around the world.  Experience it first hand.  Go to Mexico City or Beijing and take a deep breath,  and,  when you stop coughing, move there if that's what you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my point, retard.
> 
> The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it
> 
> Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be part of the anti-American drag us to the bottom of the heap movement.
> 
> I think that we ought to return to the days of capable business leaders who solve problems rather than create them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again fucktard - YOU and your fellow Communists are the reason that Manufacturing left this nation. And you continue your assault.
Click to expand...


Adolf,  you are spitting on the crowd again. 

The point that you keep making OVER and over is that you are a loser.  My point is that that's your choice  but you don't have the choice of creating other losers.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Adolf,  you are spitting on the crowd again.



Retard, you're desperate to distract from the fact that:

The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it

Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.



> The point that you keep making OVER and over is that you are a loser.  My point is that that's your choice  but you don't have the choice of creating other losers.



You're not going to get paid Troll - you have gotten the shit kicked out of you and are exposed as the drooling fool that you are.

Crawl back to ThinkProgress or whatever hate site you slithered out of - you are crushed you little worm.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of what I said.
> 
> You take truth that's inconvenient to your delusion and call it lies.
> 
> That is a precise emulation of Republican propaganda on Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again... caught in your lies you resort to deflection, put your hands over your ears and yell FOX FOX FOX
> 
> What the hell is with you & Fox?  Do you think their talks shows are news?  Dude it's entertainment for conservatives.  No different than the Colbert report for democrats on the comedy channel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox is the delivery mechanism for Republican propaganda.  People believe their innuendo.  Without it the dixiecrats would be powerless and many more people would be holding the Republican Party accountable for their gross malfeasance.
> 
> It's a threat to our country greater than Communism ever was.  Not because Communism was not equally dysfunctional but because it could never overcome the protection of democracy.
> 
> Why?  They didn't have a propaganda tool like Fox.
Click to expand...

You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again... caught in your lies you resort to deflection, put your hands over your ears and yell FOX FOX FOX
> 
> What the hell is with you & Fox?  Do you think their talks shows are news?  Dude it's entertainment for conservatives.  No different than the Colbert report for democrats on the comedy channel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is the delivery mechanism for Republican propaganda.  People believe their innuendo.  Without it the dixiecrats would be powerless and many more people would be holding the Republican Party accountable for their gross malfeasance.
> 
> It's a threat to our country greater than Communism ever was.  Not because Communism was not equally dysfunctional but because it could never overcome the protection of democracy.
> 
> Why?  They didn't have a propaganda tool like Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...
Click to expand...


Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.  

How much did Communism here cost us?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  you are spitting on the crowd again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, you're desperate to distract from the fact that:
> 
> The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it
> 
> Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point that you keep making OVER and over is that you are a loser.  My point is that that's your choice  but you don't have the choice of creating other losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to get paid Troll - you have gotten the shit kicked out of you and are exposed as the drooling fool that you are.
> 
> Crawl back to ThinkProgress or whatever hate site you slithered out of - you are crushed you little worm.
Click to expand...


Watch the spit Adolf.  Only your most ardent supports will tolerate this. 

Here's a deal for you.  Let's let the voters decide winners and losers because that's all that really counts. 

You've done a good  job of representing Nazis. 

Let's see now who votes for that.


----------



## PrometheusBound

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  you are spitting on the crowd again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard[/COLOR][/SIZE]
> 
> Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point that you keep making OVER and over is that you are a loser.  My point is that that's your choice  but you don't have the choice of creating other losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to get paid Troll - you have gotten the shit kicked out of you and are exposed as the drooling fool that you are.
> 
> Crawl back to ThinkProgress or whatever hate site you slithered out of - you are crushed you little worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the spit Adolf.  Only your most ardent supports will tolerate this.
> 
> Here's a deal for you.  Let's let the voters decide winners and losers because that's all that really counts.
> 
> You've done a good  job of representing Nazis.
> 
> Let's see now who votes for that.
Click to expand...


The Tea Potty will vote for that!   Dripping Baggies think they'll get tea from their Potty when all they'll get is trickledown.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is the delivery mechanism for Republican propaganda.  People believe their innuendo.  Without it the dixiecrats would be powerless and many more people would be holding the Republican Party accountable for their gross malfeasance.
> 
> It's a threat to our country greater than Communism ever was.  Not because Communism was not equally dysfunctional but because it could never overcome the protection of democracy.
> 
> Why?  They didn't have a propaganda tool like Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.
> 
> How much did Communism here cost us?
Click to expand...


Before we enacted this democrat form of communism, our national outlays were 70% military 30% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Now it's 30% military 70% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Before we caved to these socialist systems our debt to GDP ratio was one of the best in the world, now it's one of the worst in the world.

How much did it cost us?  So far 17t and our National Identity.  Hell we even elected losers like Bush and Obama for president, we are a laughing stock of a nation.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.
> 
> How much did Communism here cost us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before we enacted this democrat form of communism, our national outlays were 70% military 30% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Now it's 30% military 70% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Before we caved to these socialist systems our debt to GDP ratio was one of the best in the world, now it's one of the worst in the world.
> 
> How much did it cost us?  So far 17t and our National Identity.  Hell we even elected losers like Bush and Obama for president, we are a laughing stock of a nation.
Click to expand...


Republicans,  I guess,  are suprised at the baby boomer transition to retirement affecting SS and Medicare.  

We've only had 60 years of advanced notice.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.
> 
> How much did Communism here cost us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before we enacted this democrat form of communism, our national outlays were 70% military 30% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Now it's 30% military 70% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Before we caved to these socialist systems our debt to GDP ratio was one of the best in the world, now it's one of the worst in the world.
> 
> How much did it cost us?  So far 17t and our National Identity.  Hell we even elected losers like Bush and Obama for president, we are a laughing stock of a nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans,  I guess,  are suprised at the baby boomer transition to retirement affecting SS and Medicare.
> 
> We've only had 60 years of advanced notice.
Click to expand...


Nope, not surprised at all.  The 17t debt has nothing to do with SS & Medicare. The debt is due to the over spending that is occurring in the discretionary spending.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is not what ACA requires.  It is the context within which President Obama said people who like their insurance can keep it.
> 
> Obamacare allowed exactly that by grandfathering existing policies if the companies offering them did not change them.
> 
> He didn't lie.  Republicans are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, every company HAS to change them to comply with the new rules, laws and regulations.
> Just one of them is the pre-existing condition clause.
> You are a stupid liar if you claim that companies get grandfathered for that new rule or any of the new rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are able,  Google "ACA grandfather".  Read. You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


And how many times did the Obama administration modify who and what is allowed to be grandfathered as a large benefit to big business?

None of the 6 things that I listed are grandfathered in and you support this payback with grandfathering that only large businesses get and NO individual gets.
Outrageous anyone that supports the small business owner would support the carve outs Obama has given to large corporations.
But it is temporary as the % of losing grandfathering status will be high with the many rules companies CAN NOT AFFORD to pay for that are required to stay in grandfather status.
I read the law, you don't. If a company reduces benefits in any way he loses it.


----------



## MikeK

Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._

The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and incomes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.  

In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before we enacted this democrat form of communism, our national outlays were 70% military 30% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Now it's 30% military 70% discretionary & entitlement spending.  Before we caved to these socialist systems our debt to GDP ratio was one of the best in the world, now it's one of the worst in the world.
> 
> How much did it cost us?  So far 17t and our National Identity.  Hell we even elected losers like Bush and Obama for president, we are a laughing stock of a nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans,  I guess,  are suprised at the baby boomer transition to retirement affecting SS and Medicare.
> 
> We've only had 60 years of advanced notice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not surprised at all.  The 17t debt has nothing to do with SS & Medicare. The debt is due to the over spending that is occurring in the discretionary spending.
Click to expand...


The debt is due to Bush's holy wars,  Bush's tax cuts,  stimulation required to get out of the Great Recession,  and the impact of the Great Recession on revenue. 

No Bush,  no debt.  

In fact,  if the popular vote had carried the day,  and Gore/Lieberman were declared winners by SCOTUS,  and they just continued Clintonomics,  the CBO says we could have a multi trillion surplus now.  Even Reagan's massive debt gone.


----------



## Gadawg73

MikeK said:


> Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._
> 
> The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and income taxes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.
> 
> In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.



Very funny.
They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code. 
People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.


----------



## dcraelin

like I said in an earlier post. Both left and right can agree to do away with tax-exempt bonds. They fund most of the idiotic wasteful projects at the local government level.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> like I said in an earlier post. Both left and right can agree to do away with tax-exempt bonds. They fund most of the idiotic wasteful projects at the local government level.



They allow communities to build assets more affordably.  It's not up to you to judge what they need or not.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._
> 
> The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and income taxes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.
> 
> In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
Click to expand...


I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves. 

20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.


----------



## DiamondDave

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._
> 
> The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and income taxes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.
> 
> In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
Click to expand...


Just because you don't like how someone got it or the fact that you do not do with it as you think they should, does not give you the right to confiscate it differently, use government to redistribute it, or anything else

Fucking Marxist piece of shit


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._
> 
> The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and income taxes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.
> 
> In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
Click to expand...


I have seen the lives of taxpayers who are working two jobs in order to pay for the welfare/warfare state.

I have seen taxpayers who can not retire or must postpone retirement into the mid 70's because they have to pay for the welfare/warfare state.

They are miserable.

.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._
> 
> The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and income taxes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.
> 
> In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
Click to expand...


Yes they did earn it according to the definition of earn, which means to obtain something of value through voluntary exchange.  That stands against the way government obtains things of value which is through armed robbery.

Watching an ethical reprobate like you pontificating about whether people have "earned" what they have is the most hilarious thing I've seen posted in this forum in months.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have seen the lives of taxpayers who are working two jobs in order to pay for the welfare/warfare state.
> 
> I have seen taxpayers who can not retire or must postpone retirement into the mid 70's because they have to pay for the welfare/warfare state.
> 
> They are miserable.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


As long as we elect democrats,  very little in taxes goes to welfare when business has everyone employed and nothing goes to warfare.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  your point that business owns labor,  slavery,  and has the right to endanger anybody and anyplace they want to,  is in practice many places around the world.  Experience it first hand.  Go to Mexico City or Beijing and take a deep breath,  and,  when you stop coughing, move there if that's what you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my point, retard.
> 
> The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it
> 
> Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be part of the anti-American drag us to the bottom of the heap movement.
> 
> I think that we ought to return to the days of capable business leaders who solve problems rather than create them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again fucktard - YOU and your fellow Communists are the reason that Manufacturing left this nation. And you continue your assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adolf,  you are spitting on the crowd again.
> 
> The point that you keep making OVER and over is that you are a loser.  My point is that that's your choice  but you don't have the choice of creating other losers.
Click to expand...


Obama and his drones are the ones creating losers.  They are multiplying like flies under his rule.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again... caught in your lies you resort to deflection, put your hands over your ears and yell FOX FOX FOX
> 
> What the hell is with you & Fox?  Do you think their talks shows are news?  Dude it's entertainment for conservatives.  No different than the Colbert report for democrats on the comedy channel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is the delivery mechanism for Republican propaganda.  People believe their innuendo.  Without it the dixiecrats would be powerless and many more people would be holding the Republican Party accountable for their gross malfeasance.
> 
> It's a threat to our country greater than Communism ever was.  Not because Communism was not equally dysfunctional but because it could never overcome the protection of democracy.
> 
> Why?  They didn't have a propaganda tool like Fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...
Click to expand...


He says that because he is a communist.  If he became absolute dictator tomorrow I have no doubt that he would expropriate the property of the rich and nationalize all businesses.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox is the delivery mechanism for Republican propaganda.  People believe their innuendo.  Without it the dixiecrats would be powerless and many more people would be holding the Republican Party accountable for their gross malfeasance.
> 
> It's a threat to our country greater than Communism ever was.  Not because Communism was not equally dysfunctional but because it could never overcome the protection of democracy.
> 
> Why?  They didn't have a propaganda tool like Fox.
> 
> 
> 
> You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.
> 
> How much did Communism here cost us?
Click to expand...


The "cost" is purely on the spending side, and 90% of that is the result of Democrat programs.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  you are spitting on the crowd again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, you're desperate to distract from the fact that:
> 
> The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it
> 
> Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point that you keep making OVER and over is that you are a loser.  My point is that that's your choice  but you don't have the choice of creating other losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to get paid Troll - you have gotten the shit kicked out of you and are exposed as the drooling fool that you are.
> 
> Crawl back to ThinkProgress or whatever hate site you slithered out of - you are crushed you little worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the spit Adolf.  Only your most ardent supports will tolerate this.
> 
> Here's a deal for you.  Let's let the voters decide winners and losers because that's all that really counts.
> 
> You've done a good  job of representing Nazis.
> 
> Let's see now who votes for that.
Click to expand...


You want the voters to decide which businesses are winners and which are losers?  I thought you claimed you aren't a communist.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did earn it according to the definition of earn, which means to obtain something of value through voluntary exchange.  That stands against the way government obtains things of value which is through armed robbery.
> 
> Watching an ethical reprobate like you pontificating about whether people have "earned" what they have is the most hilarious thing I've seen posted in this forum in months.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff. 

Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible. 

Bill Gates is one of my heroes and happened to be in the right place at the right time.  There are many people who could have done as well as he did if they had his interests and were in his place at that time.  

It's much more a lottery than capitalism.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, you're desperate to distract from the fact that:
> 
> The reason that manufacturing jobs left America is because you leftists imposed laws that virtually outlawed it
> 
> Own up to the fact that YOU sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to get paid Troll - you have gotten the shit kicked out of you and are exposed as the drooling fool that you are.
> 
> Crawl back to ThinkProgress or whatever hate site you slithered out of - you are crushed you little worm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the spit Adolf.  Only your most ardent supports will tolerate this.
> 
> Here's a deal for you.  Let's let the voters decide winners and losers because that's all that really counts.
> 
> You've done a good  job of representing Nazis.
> 
> Let's see now who votes for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want the voters to decide which businesses are winners and which are losers?  I thought you claimed you aren't a communist.
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea that we hire and fire our government but have no choice at all who's in business? 

If we did, the present ones would be lined up for firing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> As long as we elect democrats,  very little in taxes goes to welfare when business has everyone employed and nothing goes to warfare.



Comrade Retard, isn't welfare at an all-time high?







Da, it is Comrade Retard - it most certainly is....


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did earn it according to the definition of earn, which means to obtain something of value through voluntary exchange.  That stands against the way government obtains things of value which is through armed robbery.
> 
> Watching an ethical reprobate like you pontificating about whether people have "earned" what they have is the most hilarious thing I've seen posted in this forum in months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.
> 
> Bill Gates is one of my heroes and happened to be in the right place at the right time.  There are many people who could have done as well as he did if they had his interests and were in his place at that time.
> 
> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.
Click to expand...



I told you before Gates got his money because he was granted a monopoly on the desktop operating system market.  Then leveraged that monopoly into a government approved the office monopoly.

If government were to do it's job breaking up monopolies we'd have a lot more millionaires and a lot less billionaires.  But that won't happen because both parties are owned by the billionaires.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say the dumbest things I've ever heard. Fox is a threat greater than Communism, because democracy can't overcome free speech. ROFL omg ROFL tears ROFL...lol he he he he hah hah sigh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.
> 
> How much did Communism here cost us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "cost" is purely on the spending side, and 90% of that is the result of Democrat programs.
Click to expand...


One of your many delusions is that the only people not Communists are those addicted to Fox/Republican propaganda. 

I'm sticking with the independent thinkers.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the spit Adolf.  Only your most ardent supports will tolerate this.
> 
> Here's a deal for you.  Let's let the voters decide winners and losers because that's all that really counts.
> 
> You've done a good  job of representing Nazis.
> 
> Let's see now who votes for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want the voters to decide which businesses are winners and which are losers?  I thought you claimed you aren't a communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea that we hire and fire our government but have no choice at all who's in business?
> 
> If we did, the present ones would be lined up for firing.
Click to expand...


Are you admitting that you want government to decide who runs corporations?  Really?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at just the financial cost to America from our flirtation with conservative government.  TRILLIONS in debt.
> 
> How much did Communism here cost us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "cost" is purely on the spending side, and 90% of that is the result of Democrat programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of your many delusions is that the only people not Communists are those addicted to Fox/Republican propaganda.
> 
> I'm sticking with the independent thinkers.
Click to expand...


"Independent thinkers" is your euphemism meaning "communists."


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.




No Comrade Retard, that is most certainly NOT what Capitalism is based on.

It's a shame you didn't finish 3rd grade.



> Bill Gates is one of my heroes and happened to be in the right place at the right time.



ROFL

That's all, huh? It wasn't that Digital Research went on vacation and blew off IBM - it wasn't that Gates aggressively marketed an alternative, it was just luck, huh Comrade Retard?

You must think the truth matters - huh fuckwad?



> There are many people who could have done as well as he did if they had his interests and were in his place at that time.
> 
> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.



ROFL

Even you aren't retarded enough to believe the stupid shit you post, Comrade Retard.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did earn it according to the definition of earn, which means to obtain something of value through voluntary exchange.  That stands against the way government obtains things of value which is through armed robbery.
> 
> Watching an ethical reprobate like you pontificating about whether people have "earned" what they have is the most hilarious thing I've seen posted in this forum in months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.
Click to expand...


You could make the same claim about communism.  Capitalism is based on the institution of private property and voluntary exchange - two things you have demonstrated an implacable hostility towards.



PMZ said:


> Bill Gates is one of my heroes and happened to be in the right place at the right time.  There are many people who could have done as well as he did if they had his interests and were in his place at that time.



Wrong, Komrade, there are very few people who could have done what Bill Gates did.  Of course, there are millions of envious mediocrities like you who like to think they could have done just as well.



PMZ said:


> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.



The lament of the loser.

If Microsoft had been run by the same people who are implementing Obamacare, it would have went bankrupt long before it ever published Windows or MS Office.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Comrade Retard, that is most certainly NOT what Capitalism is based on.
> 
> It's a shame you didn't finish 3rd grade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates is one of my heroes and happened to be in the right place at the right time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> That's all, huh? It wasn't that Digital Research went on vacation and blew off IBM - it wasn't that Gates aggressively marketed an alternative, it was just luck, huh Comrade Retard?
> 
> You must think the truth matters - huh fuckwad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many people who could have done as well as he did if they had his interests and were in his place at that time.
> 
> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Even you aren't retarded enough to believe the stupid shit you post, Comrade Retard.
Click to expand...


Adolf,  as long as we have you representing the Nazis we never have to worry about them getting elected.  

Thanks for being you.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did earn it according to the definition of earn, which means to obtain something of value through voluntary exchange.  That stands against the way government obtains things of value which is through armed robbery.
> 
> Watching an ethical reprobate like you pontificating about whether people have "earned" what they have is the most hilarious thing I've seen posted in this forum in months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could make the same claim about communism.  Capitalism is based on the institution of private property and voluntary exchange - two things you have demonstrated an implacable hostility towards.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Gates is one of my heroes and happened to be in the right place at the right time.  There are many people who could have done as well as he did if they had his interests and were in his place at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, Komrade, there are very few people who could have done what Bill Gates did.  Of course, there are millions of envious mediocrities like you who like to think they could have done just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lament of the loser.
> 
> If Microsoft had been run by the same people who are implementing Obamacare, it would have went bankrupt long before it ever published Windows or MS Office.
Click to expand...


If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the same claim about communism.  Capitalism is based on the institution of private property and voluntary exchange - two things you have demonstrated an implacable hostility towards.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Komrade, there are very few people who could have done what Bill Gates did.  Of course, there are millions of envious mediocrities like you who like to think they could have done just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lament of the loser.
> 
> If Microsoft had been run by the same people who are implementing Obamacare, it would have went bankrupt long before it ever published Windows or MS Office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
Click to expand...


They implemented exactly what they were told to implement:  a giant cluster fuck.

However, I wasn't referring to just the website.  All of Obamacare is a giant clusterfuck.  The website is just the place where it first became undeniable.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that nobody here is surprised at anything you don't understand.  You seem to make a living not understanding stuff.
> 
> Capitalism is based on workers creating wealth through value adding skills.  People making millions are not creating that much wealth.  It's not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the same claim about communism.  Capitalism is based on the institution of private property and voluntary exchange - two things you have demonstrated an implacable hostility towards.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Komrade, there are very few people who could have done what Bill Gates did.  Of course, there are millions of envious mediocrities like you who like to think they could have done just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's much more a lottery than capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lament of the loser.
> 
> If Microsoft had been run by the same people who are implementing Obamacare, it would have went bankrupt long before it ever published Windows or MS Office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
Click to expand...


Mr Dingle Berry Sir:

How were those private businesses chosen?

Was it because they were the best or because the owner(s) have ties to the Obama administration?

.


----------



## Contumacious

*Exec at HealthCare.gov contractor went to school with first lady, donated to Obama campaign*

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the same claim about communism.  Capitalism is based on the institution of private property and voluntary exchange - two things you have demonstrated an implacable hostility towards.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Komrade, there are very few people who could have done what Bill Gates did.  Of course, there are millions of envious mediocrities like you who like to think they could have done just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The lament of the loser.
> 
> If Microsoft had been run by the same people who are implementing Obamacare, it would have went bankrupt long before it ever published Windows or MS Office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry Sir:
> 
> How were those private businesses chosen?
> 
> Was it because they were the best or because the owner(s) have ties to the Obama administration?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The government generally operates under strict contracting guidelines. 
Cost,  quality,  capability. 

I assume this was not an exception. 

I believe that most,  but not all, of the website difficulties are Republicans continuing their war on good sense. 

The real problems are to be expected and will be fixed soon.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could make the same claim about communism.  Capitalism is based on the institution of private property and voluntary exchange - two things you have demonstrated an implacable hostility towards.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, Komrade, there are very few people who could have done what Bill Gates did.  Of course, there are millions of envious mediocrities like you who like to think they could have done just as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The lament of the loser.
> 
> If Microsoft had been run by the same people who are implementing Obamacare, it would have went bankrupt long before it ever published Windows or MS Office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They implemented exactly what they were told to implement:  a giant cluster fuck.
> 
> However, I wasn't referring to just the website.  All of Obamacare is a giant clusterfuck.  The website is just the place where it first became undeniable.
Click to expand...


I know many conservatives are upset by personal responsibility.  People paying their own way. 

And many conservative business people hate workers getting paid what they're worth. Thats why business avoids doing that.  

Slaves are just so much more obedient.


----------



## PMZ

Obamacare is very simple. 

Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs. 

Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.



In other words, you don't believe everyone should be responsible for covering their own healthcare costs.

Almost everything you post is either a lie or a logical contradiction, Komrade.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They implemented exactly what they were told to implement:  a giant cluster fuck.
> 
> However, I wasn't referring to just the website.  All of Obamacare is a giant clusterfuck.  The website is just the place where it first became undeniable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know many conservatives are upset by personal responsibility.  People paying their own way.
Click to expand...



What you really mean by "personal responsibility" is being responsible for whatever you and your ilk want to make us responsible for.  You're right about that, I don't have the slightest interest in the responsibilities you and your fellow Komrades want to assign to me.  The whole point of Obamacare is for some to pay the way for others.  It's the opposite of "personal responsibility, as is all democrat social programs.



PMZ said:


> And many conservative business people hate workers getting paid what they're worth. That&#8217;s why business avoids doing that.
> 
> Slaves are just so much more obedient.



What you and the other turds hate is that workers get paid exactly what they're worth.  Ina market economy, hat you earn is determined by the value that your fellow consumers place on what you produce.  That's why you hate the free market so much.  You know deep down what the value of what you produce is.

Businesses go to great lengths to determine the market wage to pay their workers.  Failure to do so means either losing a lot of money or losing a lot of valuable skilled workers.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry Sir:
> 
> How were those private businesses chosen?
> 
> Was it because they were the best or because the owner(s) have ties to the Obama administration?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government generally operates under strict contracting guidelines.
> Cost,  quality,  capability.
> 
> I assume this was not an exception.
> 
> I believe that most,  but not all, of the website difficulties are Republicans continuing their war on good sense.
> 
> The real problems are to be expected and will be fixed soon.
Click to expand...


How did Republicans have anything to do with this debacle?  Everyone in the forum is dying to know.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry Sir:
> 
> How were those private businesses chosen?
> 
> Was it because they were the best or because the owner(s) have ties to the Obama administration?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government generally operates under strict contracting guidelines.
> Cost,  quality,  capability.
> 
> I assume this was not an exception.
> 
> I believe that most,  but not all, of the website difficulties are Republicans continuing their war on good sense.
> 
> The real problems are to be expected and will be fixed soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did Republicans have anything to do with this debacle?  Everyone in the forum is dying to know.
Click to expand...


They have been an unrelenting and and unprincipled enemy of this progress as part of their strategy to drag President Obama,  Democrats,  and the country down to below their performance under Bush.  

Obamacare stands as tangible evidence of their failure under Bush,  and their failure to recover their performance,  and even their failure to support the country under Obama.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe everyone should be responsible for covering their own healthcare costs.
> 
> Almost everything you post is either a lie or a logical contradiction, Komrade.
Click to expand...


This is exactly the opposite of what I said,  Adolf.  

Those that business is taking advantage of by not paying a living to are required and enabled to be responsible for their health care costs. 

Without that enabling they only have the choice of not paying their health care bills. 

We choose to not make business accountable for living wages.  That choice puts the responsibility on us.  

I know that responsibility sucks if you're you.  

Tough shit.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They implemented exactly what they were told to implement:  a giant cluster fuck.
> 
> However, I wasn't referring to just the website.  All of Obamacare is a giant clusterfuck.  The website is just the place where it first became undeniable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know many conservatives are upset by personal responsibility.  People paying their own way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you really mean by "personal responsibility" is being responsible for whatever you and your ilk want to make us responsible for.  You're right about that, I don't have the slightest interest in the responsibilities you and your fellow Komrades want to assign to me.  The whole point of Obamacare is for some to pay the way for others.  It's the opposite of "personal responsibility, as is all democrat social programs.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many conservative business people hate workers getting paid what they're worth. Thats why business avoids doing that.
> 
> Slaves are just so much more obedient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you and the other turds hate is that workers get paid exactly what they're worth.  What you earn is determined by the value that your fellow consumers place on what you produce.  That's why you hate the free market so much.  You know deep down what the value of what you produce is.
> 
> Businesses go to great lengths to determine the market wage to pay their workers.  Failure to do so means either losing a lot of money or losing a lot of valuable skilled workers.
Click to expand...


Businesses do the research that you refer to, not to determine the value that workers add, but to find out how little others are getting away with paying workers, and how much to executives.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe everyone should be responsible for covering their own healthcare costs.
> 
> Almost everything you post is either a lie or a logical contradiction, Komrade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly the opposite of what I said,  Adolf.
> 
> Those that business is taking advantage of by not paying a living to are required and enabled to be responsible for their health care costs.
> 
> Without that enabling they only have the choice of not paying their health care bills.
> 
> We choose to not make business accountable for living wages.  That choice puts the responsibility on us.
> 
> I know that responsibility sucks if you're you.
> 
> Tough shit.
Click to expand...


Your first error is in believing that business is responsible for paying a "living wage."  I've never seen any drone, no matter how devoted or deluded, ever even attempt to support that contention.  Your second error is your belief that business is responsible for your healthcare.  Businesses are responsible only for what their owners agree to be responsible for.  You cannot impose responsibilities on someone without their consent.  All you can do is make them follow orders at gunpoint.  The latter course of action is called the ethic of liberalism.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government generally operates under strict contracting guidelines.
> Cost,  quality,  capability.
> 
> I assume this was not an exception.
> 
> I believe that most,  but not all, of the website difficulties are Republicans continuing their war on good sense.
> 
> The real problems are to be expected and will be fixed soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did Republicans have anything to do with this debacle?  Everyone in the forum is dying to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have been an unrelenting and and unprincipled enemy of this progress as part of their strategy to drag President Obama,  Democrats,  and the country down to below their performance under Bush.
> 
> Obamacare stands as tangible evidence of their failure under Bush,  and their failure to recover their performance,  and even their failure to support the country under Obama.
Click to expand...


True, Republicans do have an unrelenting hostility to Obama, Democrats and their socialist boondoggles, but that still doesn't explain how they are responsible for the failure of Obamacare.  They have had absolutely no input into Obamacare.  Claiming they are responsible is like claiming Poland was responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Please explain how anything any Republican did caused Obama's website to be a failure.  So far all you've done is whine.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't believe everyone should be responsible for covering their own healthcare costs.
> 
> Almost everything you post is either a lie or a logical contradiction, Komrade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the opposite of what I said,  Adolf.
> 
> Those that business is taking advantage of by not paying a living to are required and enabled to be responsible for their health care costs.
> 
> Without that enabling they only have the choice of not paying their health care bills.
> 
> We choose to not make business accountable for living wages.  That choice puts the responsibility on us.
> 
> I know that responsibility sucks if you're you.
> 
> Tough shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first error is in believing that business is responsible for paying a "living wage."  I've never seen any drone, no matter how devoted or deluded, ever even attempt to support that contention.  Your second error is your belief that business is responsible for your healthcare.  Businesses are responsible only for what their owners agree to be responsible for.  You cannot impose responsibilities on someone with their consent.  All you can do is make them follow orders at gunpoint.  The latter course of action is called the ethic of liberalism.
Click to expand...


All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others. 

Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa. 

If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business. 

Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Republicans have anything to do with this debacle?  Everyone in the forum is dying to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have been an unrelenting and and unprincipled enemy of this progress as part of their strategy to drag President Obama,  Democrats,  and the country down to below their performance under Bush.
> 
> Obamacare stands as tangible evidence of their failure under Bush,  and their failure to recover their performance,  and even their failure to support the country under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, Republicans do have an unrelenting hostility to Obama, Democrats and their socialist boondoggles, but that still doesn't explain how they are responsible for the failure of Obamacare.  They have had absolutely no input into Obamacare.  Claiming they are responsible is like claiming Poland was responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany.
> 
> Please explain how anything any Republican did caused Obama's website to be a failure.  So far all you've done is whine.
Click to expand...


You idiot.  Obamacare is a success.  It's being fully implemented.  

The Republican Party is losing. Big time.  They should have invested their energy in improving rather than lying about Democrats.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know many conservatives are upset by personal responsibility.  People paying their own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you really mean by "personal responsibility" is being responsible for whatever you and your ilk want to make us responsible for.  You're right about that, I don't have the slightest interest in the responsibilities you and your fellow Komrades want to assign to me.  The whole point of Obamacare is for some to pay the way for others.  It's the opposite of "personal responsibility, as is all democrat social programs.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And many conservative business people hate workers getting paid what they're worth. Thats why business avoids doing that.
> 
> Slaves are just so much more obedient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you and the other turds hate is that workers get paid exactly what they're worth.  What you earn is determined by the value that your fellow consumers place on what you produce.  That's why you hate the free market so much.  You know deep down what the value of what you produce is.
> 
> Businesses go to great lengths to determine the market wage to pay their workers.  Failure to do so means either losing a lot of money or losing a lot of valuable skilled workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses do the research that you refer to, not to determine the value that workers add, but to find out how little others are getting away with paying workers, and how much to executives.
Click to expand...


I've told you a thousand times that the Labor Theory of Value has been thoroughly discredited, but here you are again using it in a post.

When are you going to admit what is obvious to everyone: that you're a commie?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you really mean by "personal responsibility" is being responsible for whatever you and your ilk want to make us responsible for.  You're right about that, I don't have the slightest interest in the responsibilities you and your fellow Komrades want to assign to me.  The whole point of Obamacare is for some to pay the way for others.  It's the opposite of "personal responsibility, as is all democrat social programs.
> 
> 
> 
> What you and the other turds hate is that workers get paid exactly what they're worth.  What you earn is determined by the value that your fellow consumers place on what you produce.  That's why you hate the free market so much.  You know deep down what the value of what you produce is.
> 
> Businesses go to great lengths to determine the market wage to pay their workers.  Failure to do so means either losing a lot of money or losing a lot of valuable skilled workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do the research that you refer to, not to determine the value that workers add, but to find out how little others are getting away with paying workers, and how much to executives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told you a thousand times that the Labor Theory of Value has been thoroughly discredited, but here you are again using it in a post.
> 
> When are you going to admit what is obvious to everyone, that you're a commie?
Click to expand...


You're a Nazi.  To them,  everyone except them is a Communist.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the opposite of what I said,  Adolf.
> 
> Those that business is taking advantage of by not paying a living to are required and enabled to be responsible for their health care costs.
> 
> Without that enabling they only have the choice of not paying their health care bills.
> 
> We choose to not make business accountable for living wages.  That choice puts the responsibility on us.
> 
> I know that responsibility sucks if you're you.
> 
> Tough shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first error is in believing that business is responsible for paying a "living wage."  I've never seen any drone, no matter how devoted or deluded, ever even attempt to support that contention.  Your second error is your belief that business is responsible for your healthcare.  Businesses are responsible only for what their owners agree to be responsible for.  You cannot impose responsibilities on someone with their consent.  All you can do is make them follow orders at gunpoint.  The latter course of action is called the ethic of liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others.
Click to expand...


Laws do not make anyone more responsible anymore than pointing a gun at your temple makes you more responsible.



PMZ said:


> Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa.



Wrong.  Business servers the purposes of their owners, and if they are smart, they serve the purposes of their customers.  Everyone else can butt out.



PMZ said:


> If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business.   Businesses are not an arm of the government.
> 
> Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?



Who is "us?"  If a business wasn't of use to someone, then it wouldn't exist.  Your opinion of its usefulness isn't relevant.

You need to be taught that you're a fascist asshole who thinks he's entitled to run other people's lives.  Then you go around sanctimoniously spouting off about freedom as if you favored the idea.

What I recall about Chick Fil A is that some gay thugs attempted to extort certain concessions from the business and they got their asses handed to them.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses do the research that you refer to, not to determine the value that workers add, but to find out how little others are getting away with paying workers, and how much to executives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you a thousand times that the Labor Theory of Value has been thoroughly discredited, but here you are again using it in a post.
> 
> When are you going to admit what is obvious to everyone, that you're a commie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a Nazi.  To them,  everyone except them is a Communist.
Click to expand...


Who is "them?"  What you don't understand is that commies and Nazis are just two sides of the same coin, and you are that coin.  You're the one who wants to run everyone else's life.  You're the one who thinks a business is just an extension of the government, that is has "obligations."  Those are Nazi ideas.


----------



## PMZ

Actually,  you're the extreme right wing extremist Nazi.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Actually,  you're the extreme right wing extremist Nazi.



You're the one who has been spouting all the Nazi ideas:


Businesses have "obligations" determined by the government

Businesses exist to serve government purposes.

People exist to serve the purposes of the government.

Government has the authority to use people to accomplish it's aims.

everything you own is a gift of the government which it can revoke whenever it likes.

Those ideas are all consistent with Nazi ideology, not with mine.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  you're the extreme right wing extremist Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who has been spouting all the Nazi ideas:
> 
> 
> Businesses have "obligations" determined by the government
> 
> Businesses exist to serve government purposes.
> 
> People exist to serve the purposes of the government.
> 
> Government has the authority to use people to accomplish it's aims.
> 
> everything you own is a gift of the government which it can revoke whenever it likes.
> 
> Those ideas are all consistent with Nazi ideology, not with mine.
Click to expand...


Who did you think was responsible for our country.  Business?


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I said in an earlier post. Both left and right can agree to do away with tax-exempt bonds. They fund most of the idiotic wasteful projects at the local government level.
> 
> 
> 
> They allow communities to build assets more affordably.  It's not up to you to judge what they need or not.
Click to expand...

No, your right in that its not up to me to judge the projects,but it should be up to voters not corrupt local officials which is usually the case. But even so, if they decide to build idiotic projects they should pay the market rate for the funds, not essentially crowding out productive investment in the private sector.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: this specious note: _Communism sucks, but I want to piss rich people off._
> 
> The 91% tax rate didn't seriously diminish the incomes or the net worth of its designated tax bracket, which was the multi-millionaire class.  Even at that rate of taxation the net worth and income taxes of these people still substantially exceeded those of the average person.
> 
> In other words the 91% rate didn't make the rich poor.  It simply made them a little less rich -- and it served to heal a badly damaged economy by effecting a productive redistribution of the Nation's wealth resource.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny.
> They ended that top rate of 91% as all that did was run investment dollars into non taxable income such as municipal bonds and the other tax free places in the 20,000 page which is now 70,000 page IRS code.
> People with money pay little to no taxes on their income under the current code. Raise the tax to over 50% those people do not show any income that is taxable. They receive stock options, deferred payments, load up the SEP IRAs and regular IRA, max their HSA and the rest goes into tax free investments.
> Most of which are in the bond market which is low return.
> Add in the rest that goes overseas where as of now just the large corporations have over 20 trillion there now untaxable.
> End the capital gains and corporate tax and that money comes home in 24 hours, all of it.
> Imagine the boom with all that money being invested in this country.
> But no, how dare someone make a profit and not be forced to have government plunder it from them. Not fair.
> What is fair is everyone should have the same and all suffer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the lives of migrant workers and the lives of the megawealthy. I agree that many of the megawealthy live miserable lives but that's their choice.  Choice is freedom.  Poverty enslaves.
> 
> 20% of us have 85% of the wealth.  They didn't earn it.  Nobody earns billions.
Click to expand...


My grandfather started growing apples in the Hudson River valley west of the Hudson river across from Poughkeepsie NY in 1919 on land owned by my grandmothers family the Terhunes since the 1680s. Grandpa would drive to Miami and charter a plane over to Cuba and bring back migrant workers to pick the apples every year and charter a bus to bring them to NY where he had living quarters built for them. Bus and fly them home every year. We owned 450 acres of land in Cuba until Castro stole it from us. Grandpa hated the Batista government and supported the reform but that was when Castro stated all land owners regardless of nationality could keep their property. I travel through Bainbridge Ga. often and see migrant workers there. Few are in poverty.
They have LEFT poverty to come here. Your claim that they left a better life to live in poverty is the typical knee jerk leftist lie.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the opposite of what I said,  Adolf.
> 
> Those that business is taking advantage of by not paying a living to are required and enabled to be responsible for their health care costs.
> 
> Without that enabling they only have the choice of not paying their health care bills.
> 
> We choose to not make business accountable for living wages.  That choice puts the responsibility on us.
> 
> I know that responsibility sucks if you're you.
> 
> Tough shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first error is in believing that business is responsible for paying a "living wage."  I've never seen any drone, no matter how devoted or deluded, ever even attempt to support that contention.  Your second error is your belief that business is responsible for your healthcare.  Businesses are responsible only for what their owners agree to be responsible for.  You cannot impose responsibilities on someone with their consent.  All you can do is make them follow orders at gunpoint.  The latter course of action is called the ethic of liberalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others.
> 
> Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa.
> 
> If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business.
> 
> Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?
Click to expand...

You are just a retarded turd, bubbling toxic fumes.  A business is nothing more than a group of people.  You don't own people, you ass hole.  They are not your slave you prick. We don't owe you shit.  You want to exchange money or services for products & services maybe we can make a deal, but not for you.  I would not "serve" you for any amount of money.  Not a billion dollars for an hour of work.   I don't serve satan.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first error is in believing that business is responsible for paying a "living wage."  I've never seen any drone, no matter how devoted or deluded, ever even attempt to support that contention.  Your second error is your belief that business is responsible for your healthcare.  Businesses are responsible only for what their owners agree to be responsible for.  You cannot impose responsibilities on someone with their consent.  All you can do is make them follow orders at gunpoint.  The latter course of action is called the ethic of liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others.
> 
> Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa.
> 
> If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business.
> 
> Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just a retarded turd, bubbling toxic fumes.  A business is nothing more than a group of people.  You don't own people, you ass hole.  They are not your slave you prick. We don't owe you shit.  You want to exchange money or services for products & services maybe we can make a deal, but not for you.  I would not "serve" you for any amount of money.  Not a billion dollars for an hour of work.   I don't serve satan.
Click to expand...


I love it when conservatives show their true colors. I hope that every voter is thinking about rants like this on the way to the polls.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first error is in believing that business is responsible for paying a "living wage."  I've never seen any drone, no matter how devoted or deluded, ever even attempt to support that contention.  Your second error is your belief that business is responsible for your healthcare.  Businesses are responsible only for what their owners agree to be responsible for.  You cannot impose responsibilities on someone with their consent.  All you can do is make them follow orders at gunpoint.  The latter course of action is called the ethic of liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others.
> 
> Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa.
> 
> If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business.
> 
> Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just a retarded turd, bubbling toxic fumes.  A business is nothing more than a group of people.  You don't own people, you ass hole.  They are not your slave you prick. We don't owe you shit.  You want to exchange money or services for products & services maybe we can make a deal, but not for you.  I would not "serve" you for any amount of money.  Not a billion dollars for an hour of work.   I don't serve satan.
Click to expand...


Now you're starting to understand PMS.  He's the worst kind of Nazi.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Adolf,  as long as we have you representing the Nazis we never have to worry about them getting elected.



Comrade Retard;

You believe that calling me "Adolf" has some sort of meaning - that because I oppose Marxism, you can smear me as a Nazi.

You believe this because you are mentally retarded, with at best a second grade education.

You don't know what capitalism is, you don't know what the market is. You spew Communist rhetoric, buy have no grasp of Marx.





> Thanks for being you.



Back atcha, Comrade.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others.
> 
> Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa.
> 
> If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business.
> 
> Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?
> 
> 
> 
> You are just a retarded turd, bubbling toxic fumes.  A business is nothing more than a group of people.  You don't own people, you ass hole.  They are not your slave you prick. We don't owe you shit.  You want to exchange money or services for products & services maybe we can make a deal, but not for you.  I would not "serve" you for any amount of money.  Not a billion dollars for an hour of work.   I don't serve satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're starting to understand PMS.  He's the worst kind of Nazi.
Click to expand...


What's worse, the NAZI stormtroopers who gassed the jews or the germans like PMZ that looked the other way while backing their government to the very end pretending to this day that the gassing never happened, or worse was justified?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws make it harder for people to impose what's best for them on others. They encourage responsibility. Clearly potential criminals don't like that.  They consider not being able to so impose, a restriction on their freedom.  Which it is.  They don't deserve to be free at the expense of others.
> 
> Business serves we the people.  Not vice versa.  Government serves we,  the people.  Not vice versa.
> 
> If certain businesses aren't of use to us,  they deserve our disdain. They certainly don't deserve our business.
> 
> Such businesses need to be taught.  Remember the Chick A Fil CEO?
> 
> 
> 
> You are just a retarded turd, bubbling toxic fumes.  A business is nothing more than a group of people.  You don't own people, you ass hole.  They are not your slave you prick. We don't owe you shit.  You want to exchange money or services for products & services maybe we can make a deal, but not for you.  I would not "serve" you for any amount of money.  Not a billion dollars for an hour of work.   I don't serve satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're starting to understand PMS.  He's the worst kind of Nazi.
Click to expand...


And you are the best kind of Nazi????


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just a retarded turd, bubbling toxic fumes.  A business is nothing more than a group of people.  You don't own people, you ass hole.  They are not your slave you prick. We don't owe you shit.  You want to exchange money or services for products & services maybe we can make a deal, but not for you.  I would not "serve" you for any amount of money.  Not a billion dollars for an hour of work.   I don't serve satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're starting to understand PMS.  He's the worst kind of Nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's worse, the NAZI stormtroopers who gassed the jews or the germans like PMZ that looked the other way while backing their government to the very end pretending to this day that the gassing never happened, or worse was justified?
Click to expand...


What's worse,  criminals or cops that don't prevent 100% of crimes?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf,  as long as we have you representing the Nazis we never have to worry about them getting elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade Retard;
> 
> You believe that calling me "Adolf" has some sort of meaning - that because I oppose Marxism, you can smear me as a Nazi.
> 
> You believe this because you are mentally retarded, with at best a second grade education.
> 
> You don't know what capitalism is, you don't know what the market is. You spew Communist rhetoric, buy have no grasp of Marx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for being you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back atcha, Comrade.
Click to expand...


We'll see what's working on election day,  won't we.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're starting to understand PMS.  He's the worst kind of Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's worse, the NAZI stormtroopers who gassed the jews or the germans like PMZ that looked the other way while backing their government to the very end pretending to this day that the gassing never happened, or worse was justified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's worse,  criminals or cops that don't prevent 100% of crimes?
Click to expand...

Criminals.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> We'll see what's working on election day,  won't we.



And you think this has some sort of meaning or relevance, Comrade Retard...


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see what's working on election day,  won't we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this has some sort of meaning or relevance, Comrade Retard...
Click to expand...


It certainly does in a democracy,  Adolf.  See,  we all know that assholes like you exist.  That can't be fixed.  But we can,  and will, keep them out of government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> It certainly does in a democracy,



No Comrade Retard, it does not.

If you GLORIOUS Bolsheviks win every last legislative spot, it will have absolutely no influence on the fact that you are an uneducated dolt with no grasp of the term you toss about.



> Adolf.  See,  we all know that assholes like you exist.  That can't be fixed.  But we can,  and will, keep them out of government.



Comrade Retard, non sequitur is not a substitute for logic and reason.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly does in a democracy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Comrade Retard, it does not.
> 
> If you GLORIOUS Bolsheviks win every last legislative spot, it will have absolutely no influence on the fact that you are an uneducated dolt with no grasp of the term you toss about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adolf.  See,  we all know that assholes like you exist.  That can't be fixed.  But we can,  and will, keep them out of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade Retard, non sequitur is not a substitute for logic and reason.
Click to expand...


Fasten your seat belt Adolf.  You're about to learn a lesson in democracy.  And why we have no intention of giving it up for your Nazi  aristocracy.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If by implementing Obamacare you men the imperfect website,  that was all done by private business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry Sir:
> 
> How were those private businesses chosen?
> 
> Was it because they were the best or because the owner(s) have ties to the Obama administration?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The government generally operates under strict contracting guidelines.
> Cost,  quality,  capability. *
> 
> I assume this was not an exception.
> 
> I believe that most,  but not all, of the website difficulties are Republicans continuing their war on good sense.
> 
> The real problems are to be expected and will be fixed soon.
Click to expand...


"generally" but not this time:


*Exec at HealthCare.gov contractor went to school with first lady, donated to Obama campaign*

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dingle Berry Sir:
> 
> How were those private businesses chosen?
> 
> Was it because they were the best or because the owner(s) have ties to the Obama administration?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The government generally operates under strict contracting guidelines.
> Cost,  quality,  capability. *
> 
> I assume this was not an exception.
> 
> I believe that most,  but not all, of the website difficulties are Republicans continuing their war on good sense.
> 
> The real problems are to be expected and will be fixed soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "generally" but not this time:
> 
> 
> *Exec at HealthCare.gov contractor went to school with first lady, donated to Obama campaign*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hopefully,  you don't consider this proof of anything at all.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.




Subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the debt within a decade.
Wages are earned. My son makes $80 a hour at age 23 doing IT work.
HVAC, auto mechanics, plumbing and tool and die just to name a few.
Dumb asses with no education and no skills do not deserve a "living wage".
They deserve what their skill level pays and what the demand for it is.
Called capitalism. Not perfect but that Mexican neighbor of mine that worked his ass off for 10 years and now lives in a 400K home as he owns a landscaping company and works 60 hour weeks did it.
Can not make it on the job as it is not a "living wage"?
GET TWO JOBS OR THREE.
No cry babies.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the debt within a decade.
> Wages are earned. My son makes $80 a hour at age 23 doing IT work.
> HVAC, auto mechanics, plumbing and tool and die just to name a few.
> Dumb asses with no education and no skills do not deserve a "living wage".
> They deserve what their skill level pays and what the demand for it is.
> Called capitalism. Not perfect but that Mexican neighbor of mine that worked his ass off for 10 years and now lives in a 400K home as he owns a landscaping company and works 60 hour weeks did it.
> Can not make it on the job as it is not a "living wage"?
> GET TWO JOBS OR THREE.
> No cry babies.
Click to expand...


Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added. 

Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers. 

If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the debt within a decade.
> Wages are earned. My son makes $80 a hour at age 23 doing IT work.
> HVAC, auto mechanics, plumbing and tool and die just to name a few.
> Dumb asses with no education and no skills do not deserve a "living wage".
> They deserve what their skill level pays and what the demand for it is.
> Called capitalism. Not perfect but that Mexican neighbor of mine that worked his ass off for 10 years and now lives in a 400K home as he owns a landscaping company and works 60 hour weeks did it.
> Can not make it on the job as it is not a "living wage"?
> GET TWO JOBS OR THREE.
> No cry babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, nimrod.  Under capitalism workers are paid according to the supply and demand for labor.   Different kinds of labor have different prices.

It's no big surprise that you don't understand the first thing about capitalism.  How else could anyone spout the idiot Marxist dogma that you spout unless they were totally ignorant?



PMZ said:


> Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers.
> 
> If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.



Sorry, but there is zero evidence that companies collude to keep wages down.  Executive pay is only evidence that Union agitation got state legislators to pass laws making it hard for anyone to take over a company and kick out the entrenched management.  That's right, you can blame unions and state legislators for high executive pay.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're starting to understand PMS.  He's the worst kind of Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's worse, the NAZI stormtroopers who gassed the jews or the germans like PMZ that looked the other way while backing their government to the very end pretending to this day that the gassing never happened, or worse was justified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's worse,  criminals or cops that don't prevent 100% of crimes?
Click to expand...


The worst is cops who are criminals.  That's a good metaphor for describing just about every Democrat politician in office.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the debt within a decade.
> Wages are earned. My son makes $80 a hour at age 23 doing IT work.
> HVAC, auto mechanics, plumbing and tool and die just to name a few.
> Dumb asses with no education and no skills do not deserve a "living wage".
> They deserve what their skill level pays and what the demand for it is.
> Called capitalism. Not perfect but that Mexican neighbor of mine that worked his ass off for 10 years and now lives in a 400K home as he owns a landscaping company and works 60 hour weeks did it.
> Can not make it on the job as it is not a "living wage"?
> GET TWO JOBS OR THREE.
> No cry babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, nimrod.  Under capitalism workers are paid according to the supply and demand for labor.   Different kinds of labor have different prices.
> 
> It's no big surprise that you don't understand the first thing about capitalism.  How else could anyone spout the idiot Marxist dogma that you spout unless they were totally ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers.
> 
> If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but there is zero evidence that companies collude to keep wages down.  Executive pay is only evidence that Union agitation got state legislators to pass laws making it hard for anyone to take over a company and kick out the entrenched management.  That's right, you can blame unions and state legislators for high executive pay.
Click to expand...


You ever hear of benchmarking numbnuts? 

You ever hear of executives hiring lawyers to negotiate their compensation? 

You ever hear of executives making 1,000 X worker pay? 

You ever hear the the wealth inequality in America is extreme and getting worse? 

Do you ever leave your parents basement numbnuts?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, nimrod.  Under capitalism workers are paid according to the supply and demand for labor.   Different kinds of labor have different prices.
> 
> It's no big surprise that you don't understand the first thing about capitalism.  How else could anyone spout the idiot Marxist dogma that you spout unless they were totally ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers.
> 
> If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but there is zero evidence that companies collude to keep wages down.  Executive pay is only evidence that Union agitation got state legislators to pass laws making it hard for anyone to take over a company and kick out the entrenched management.  That's right, you can blame unions and state legislators for high executive pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ever hear of benchmarking numbnuts?
Click to expand...


Yes I have, moron.  How does that equate to "collusion?"



PMZ said:


> You ever hear of executives hiring lawyers to negotiate their compensation?



Sure, and so do movie stars and professional athletes.  So what?



PMZ said:


> You ever hear of executives making 1,000 X worker pay?



Yes, I've seen liberal morons bleating that day after day.



PMZ said:


> You ever hear the the wealth inequality in America is extreme and getting worse?



How does one avoid left-wing propaganda?



PMZ said:


> Do you ever leave your parents basement numbnuts?



Getting everything you know from DailKOS and ThinkProgress means you've left home?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, nimrod.  Under capitalism workers are paid according to the supply and demand for labor.   Different kinds of labor have different prices.
> 
> It's no big surprise that you don't understand the first thing about capitalism.  How else could anyone spout the idiot Marxist dogma that you spout unless they were totally ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but there is zero evidence that companies collude to keep wages down.  Executive pay is only evidence that Union agitation got state legislators to pass laws making it hard for anyone to take over a company and kick out the entrenched management.  That's right, you can blame unions and state legislators for high executive pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ever hear of benchmarking numbnuts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have, moron.  How does that equate to "collusion?"
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and so do movie stars and professional athletes.  So what?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've seen liberal morons bleating that day after day.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ever hear the the wealth inequality in America is extreme and getting worse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does one avoid left-wing propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever leave your parents basement numbnuts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting everything you know from DailKOS and ThinkProgress means you've left home?
Click to expand...


The thing that you add here is perfectly predictable posting.  If I could turn my brain off,  I could write every one. 

Let's start here.  How is benchmarking not collusion?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is very simple.
> 
> Everyone is responsible for covering their own health care costs.
> 
> Those who business chooses to not pay a living wage to,  for full time work,  are subsidized by those who are paid a living wage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the debt within a decade.
> Wages are earned. My son makes $80 a hour at age 23 doing IT work.
> HVAC, auto mechanics, plumbing and tool and die just to name a few.
> Dumb asses with no education and no skills do not deserve a "living wage".
> They deserve what their skill level pays and what the demand for it is.
> Called capitalism. Not perfect but that Mexican neighbor of mine that worked his ass off for 10 years and now lives in a 400K home as he owns a landscaping company and works 60 hour weeks did it.
> Can not make it on the job as it is not a "living wage"?
> GET TWO JOBS OR THREE.
> No cry babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added.
> 
> Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers.
> 
> If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.
Click to expand...


Don't like working for someone else?
Start your own company and be the executive at your own company.
Called capitalism. Of course you left out the most important part.
WHO CAPITALIZES THE COMPANY? 
The design workers, the production workers, the salesman, the servicemen or THE CAPITALISTS?
Tell us how a company hires one worker without CAPITAL at risk.
Capital is the life blood of a company and who brings it?
RISK TAKERS.
That would disappear if there was not a profit in it.
Your 1000 to 1 BS is false. The top CEO a of Fortune 500 company, ONE PERSON it is 350 to 1.
For executives it is less than 2 to 1. 
For Federal workers they get paid an average of $123,000 a year for mostly clerical work.
More than twice as much as the private sector.
But we hear no complaints from you on that.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subsidies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the debt within a decade.
> Wages are earned. My son makes $80 a hour at age 23 doing IT work.
> HVAC, auto mechanics, plumbing and tool and die just to name a few.
> Dumb asses with no education and no skills do not deserve a "living wage".
> They deserve what their skill level pays and what the demand for it is.
> Called capitalism. Not perfect but that Mexican neighbor of mine that worked his ass off for 10 years and now lives in a 400K home as he owns a landscaping company and works 60 hour weeks did it.
> Can not make it on the job as it is not a "living wage"?
> GET TWO JOBS OR THREE.
> No cry babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added.
> 
> Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers.
> 
> If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't like working for someone else?
> Start your own company and be the executive at your own company.
> Called capitalism. Of course you left out the most important part.
> WHO CAPITALIZES THE COMPANY?
> The design workers, the production workers, the salesman, the servicemen or THE CAPITALISTS?
> Tell us how a company hires one worker without CAPITAL at risk.
> Capital is the life blood of a company and who brings it?
> RISK TAKERS.
> That would disappear if there was not a profit in it.
> Your 1000 to 1 BS is false. The top CEO a of Fortune 500 company, ONE PERSON it is 350 to 1.
> For executives it is less than 2 to 1.
> For Federal workers they get paid an average of $123,000 a year for mostly clerical work.
> More than twice as much as the private sector.
> But we hear no complaints from you on that.
Click to expand...


Labor is the life blood of a company.  That's what creates the wealth the company sells.  Consumers are the life blood of the company.  Raw materials are the life blood of the company. Product design is the life blood of the company. Most capital comes from retained earnings. Not from outside but inside the corporation. 

Saying that government is mostly clerical work is like saying company executives do mostly clerical work.

Let's take a company with $20/hr labor.  Say $40K per year. 

X 1,000 = $40,000,000/YR

Unheard of total CEO compensation? 

I think not.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism pays workers in proportion to value added.
> 
> Our system is companies colluding to pay workers as little as possible and executives as much as possible.  The evidence?  Executive pay as much as 1,000 X worker pay.  The products that make companies successful are designed,  made,  sold and serviced by workers.
> 
> If that makes sense to you you are not a capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like working for someone else?
> Start your own company and be the executive at your own company.
> Called capitalism. Of course you left out the most important part.
> WHO CAPITALIZES THE COMPANY?
> The design workers, the production workers, the salesman, the servicemen or THE CAPITALISTS?
> Tell us how a company hires one worker without CAPITAL at risk.
> Capital is the life blood of a company and who brings it?
> RISK TAKERS.
> That would disappear if there was not a profit in it.
> Your 1000 to 1 BS is false. The top CEO a of Fortune 500 company, ONE PERSON it is 350 to 1.
> For executives it is less than 2 to 1.
> For Federal workers they get paid an average of $123,000 a year for mostly clerical work.
> More than twice as much as the private sector.
> But we hear no complaints from you on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Labor is the life blood of a company.  That's what creates the wealth the company sells.  Consumers are the life blood of the company.  Raw materials are the life blood of the company. Product design is the life blood of the company. Most capital comes from retained earnings. Not from outside but inside the corporation.
> 
> Saying that government is mostly clerical work is like saying company executives do mostly clerical work.
> 
> Let's take a company with $20/hr labor.  Say $40K per year.
> 
> X 1,000 = $40,000,000/YR
> 
> Unheard of total CEO compensation?
> 
> I think not.
Click to expand...


Who pays to build the building that the labor works in?
What company do you own and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR OWN MONEY have you invested in it?
Guess where I got the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I invested in MY company?
FROM MY LABOR.
Same with ALL capital invested in ANY AND ALL businesses.
The lifeblood of a company is the CAPITAL INVESTED in it because without that capital NO LABOR happens, ever.
So how much money do you have AT RISK employing others in your business?
All capital is from the labor of someone and those that risk their capital EARNED it through their labor.
Tell us where your BBA and MBA is from also.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ, why are you so jealous and envious of others that have worked harder than you, risked their hard earned capital and now have more than you?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't like working for someone else?
> Start your own company and be the executive at your own company.
> Called capitalism. Of course you left out the most important part.
> WHO CAPITALIZES THE COMPANY?
> The design workers, the production workers, the salesman, the servicemen or THE CAPITALISTS?
> Tell us how a company hires one worker without CAPITAL at risk.
> Capital is the life blood of a company and who brings it?
> RISK TAKERS.
> That would disappear if there was not a profit in it.
> Your 1000 to 1 BS is false. The top CEO a of Fortune 500 company, ONE PERSON it is 350 to 1.
> For executives it is less than 2 to 1.
> For Federal workers they get paid an average of $123,000 a year for mostly clerical work.
> More than twice as much as the private sector.
> But we hear no complaints from you on that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is the life blood of a company.  That's what creates the wealth the company sells.  Consumers are the life blood of the company.  Raw materials are the life blood of the company. Product design is the life blood of the company. Most capital comes from retained earnings. Not from outside but inside the corporation.
> 
> Saying that government is mostly clerical work is like saying company executives do mostly clerical work.
> 
> Let's take a company with $20/hr labor.  Say $40K per year.
> 
> X 1,000 = $40,000,000/YR
> 
> Unheard of total CEO compensation?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who pays to build the building that the labor works in?
> What company do you own and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR OWN MONEY have you invested in it?
> Guess where I got the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I invested in MY company?
> FROM MY LABOR.
> Same with ALL capital invested in ANY AND ALL businesses.
> The lifeblood of a company is the CAPITAL INVESTED in it because without that capital NO LABOR happens, ever.
> So how much money do you have AT RISK employing others in your business?
> All capital is from the labor of someone and those that risk their capital EARNED it through their labor.
> Tell us where your BBA and MBA is from also.
Click to expand...


Take your building and machinery and remove labor.  

You got no products,  no sales,  no production, no customers,  nothing  but the bank wondering where the payments are.  Then repossessing it.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ, why are you so jealous and envious of others that have worked harder than you, risked their hard earned capital and now have more than you?



Believe me  no jealousy. And nobody worked harder or smarter than I.  And I had time to enjoy and raise a happy family and to retire comfortably.  I've been blessed with the good fortune of good parents,  a passion for science and engineering,  a challenging career,  one life long wife and children and grandchildren who love me. 

What exactly should I be jealous of?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Labor is the life blood of a company.  That's what creates the wealth the company sells.  Consumers are the life blood of the company.  Raw materials are the life blood of the company. Product design is the life blood of the company. Most capital comes from retained earnings. Not from outside but inside the corporation.
> 
> Saying that government is mostly clerical work is like saying company executives do mostly clerical work.
> 
> Let's take a company with $20/hr labor.  Say $40K per year.
> 
> X 1,000 = $40,000,000/YR
> 
> Unheard of total CEO compensation?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who pays to build the building that the labor works in?
> What company do you own and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR OWN MONEY have you invested in it?
> Guess where I got the hundreds of thousands of dollars that I invested in MY company?
> FROM MY LABOR.
> Same with ALL capital invested in ANY AND ALL businesses.
> The lifeblood of a company is the CAPITAL INVESTED in it because without that capital NO LABOR happens, ever.
> So how much money do you have AT RISK employing others in your business?
> All capital is from the labor of someone and those that risk their capital EARNED it through their labor.
> Tell us where your BBA and MBA is from also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your building and machinery and remove labor.
> 
> You got no products,  no sales,  no production, no customers,  nothing  but the bank wondering where the payments are.  Then repossessing it.
Click to expand...


You have it ass backwards.
Remove the capital which buys the building and machinery FIRST then you have no workers or labor.
But that is what you want the good socialist you are.
But since you avoided my questions like a monkey on fire again, how much skin do you have in the game? How many years have you been in business yourself, where did you get your undergraduate BBA and then your MBA?
And just curious, you ever play any football?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ, why are you so jealous and envious of others that have worked harder than you, risked their hard earned capital and now have more than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me  no jealousy. And nobody worked harder or smarter than I.  And I had time to enjoy and raise a happy family and to retire comfortably.  I've been blessed with the good fortune of good parents,  a passion for science and engineering,  a challenging career,  one life long wife and children and grandchildren who love me.
> 
> What exactly should I be jealous of?
Click to expand...


I believe you but your posts do not back that up.


----------



## Gadawg73

NO bank loans any money these days, and for good reason, unless the business is well capitalized.
Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. 
Not the same for skilled jobs. Good plumber with 7 years under his belt makes 75K easy here in metro Atlanta. Many of them are under 30.


----------



## Gadawg73

Must be nice to be retired. With massive increases in taxes, regulations, fees, rules and statutes the small business man has to put that off until late in life.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> NO bank loans any money these days, and for good reason, unless the business is well capitalized.
> Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen.
> Not the same for skilled jobs. Good plumber with 7 years under his belt makes 75K easy here in metro Atlanta. Many of them are under 30.



"Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "

The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses. 

Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt. 

Masterful fucking plan.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO bank loans any money these days, and for good reason, unless the business is well capitalized.
> Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen.
> Not the same for skilled jobs. Good plumber with 7 years under his belt makes 75K easy here in metro Atlanta. Many of them are under 30.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.
Click to expand...


China is an export economy only for the masses. 
You are an intelligent man. Why the stubborness and refusal to admit that capital is the only thing that funds a start up business? Why can't you admit that is a fact?
How else does a business start without capital investment? 
You were the one that forced business to make your products for an affordable price. You shop and buy goods that are affordable to you.
Blame yourself if the shoes you wear are made in China. You will not pay a man $20 a hour in wages and benefits for a pair of shoes someone with a 5th grade education that can run a machine.
Why do you want to keep people stupid and label them as unintelligent propping up remedial manufacturing jobs in this country? Sounds elitist to me.


----------



## Gadawg73

Uneducated and lethargic workers are a dime a dozen here. The only ones with a very strong work ethic are the Hispanics you see that are out on the street looking for work. 
I can not find workers to pay $15 a hour that are American. Why work when they can draw benefits and all you hear is "If you pay cash and do not send me a 1099 or W-2".
Welcome to the reality of America.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO bank loans any money these days, and for good reason, unless the business is well capitalized.
> Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen.
> Not the same for skilled jobs. Good plumber with 7 years under his belt makes 75K easy here in metro Atlanta. Many of them are under 30.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> China is an export economy only for the masses.
> You are an intelligent man. Why the stubborness and refusal to admit that capital is the only thing that funds a start up business? Why can't you admit that is a fact?
> How else does a business start without capital investment?
> You were the one that forced business to make your products for an affordable price. You shop and buy goods that are affordable to you.
> Blame yourself if the shoes you wear are made in China. You will not pay a man $20 a hour in wages and benefits for a pair of shoes someone with a 5th grade education that can run a machine.
> Why do you want to keep people stupid and label them as unintelligent propping up remedial manufacturing jobs in this country? Sounds elitist to me.
Click to expand...


We,  the people are responsible for government.  We hire and fire our representatives.  Democracy. 

The only choices we have in business are who to buy what from.  And who we work for.  The middle class doesn't have the choice to buy or work. 

If we could fire the fat cat, starve the wealth creators, over stuff the wealth suckers, shrink to success,  innovation killers, we would,  and replace them with visionaries and problem solvers. 

But,  that hiring and firing of executives takes place at country club bars among the bar flies collected there.


----------



## PMZ

The most common non solution to any real problem, offered by conservatives, is to start your own business.  

That's going on at a record rate. 

 Lawn mowing.  

What a wealth creator that is.  We gave China all of our manufacturing technology,  fattened all of the fat cats,  and now we mow their lawns. 

I did that @ 10.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> The most common non solution to any real problem, offered by conservatives, is to start your own business.
> 
> That's going on at a record rate.
> 
> Lawn mowing.
> 
> What a wealth creator that is.  We gave China all of our manufacturing technology,  fattened all of the fat cats,  and now we mow their lawns.
> 
> I did that @ 10.



I like the irony, we're outsourcing our lower end work to China, which you're against, and you're against doing lower end work after the age of 10.  Off-shoring jobs is great for our economy.  

1)  It reduces prices for American consumers

2)  It increases the competitiveness of American company prices which increases jobs selling products and services domestically and internationally.

3)  It creates higher end, better paying, decision making jobs here.

4)  It isn't just an outflow of jobs, it creates hybrid processes and other new jobs here.

5)  It increases the wealth of consumers in other countries, who then become markets for our products.

BTW, I know what I'm talking about.  I am a proud offshore mover of many IT support jobs to India in multiple of my positions in GE management and in management consulting.  You are someone who just swallows the leftist fear mantra.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most common non solution to any real problem, offered by conservatives, is to start your own business.
> 
> That's going on at a record rate.
> 
> Lawn mowing.
> 
> What a wealth creator that is.  We gave China all of our manufacturing technology,  fattened all of the fat cats,  and now we mow their lawns.
> 
> I did that @ 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the irony, we're outsourcing our lower end work to China, which you're against, and you're against doing lower end work after the age of 10.  Off-shoring jobs is great for our economy.
> 
> 1)  It reduces prices for American consumers
> 
> 2)  It increases the competitiveness of American company prices which increases jobs selling products and services domestically and internationally.
> 
> 3)  It creates higher end, better paying, decision making jobs here.
> 
> 4)  It isn't just an outflow of jobs, it creates hybrid processes and other new jobs here.
> 
> 5)  It increases the wealth of consumers in other countries, who then become markets for our products.
> 
> BTW, I know what I'm talking about.  I am a proud offshore mover of many IT support jobs to India in multiple of my positions in GE management and in management consulting.  You are someone who just swallows the leftist fear mantra.
Click to expand...


I believe that business is successful from a national perspective when there is a well paying job that challenges every workers capabilities. 

We've never been further from that standard.  

Your position,  businesses position, is that executives and businesses are both making record money,  so there's no problem. 

Do you really believe that $17T in debt is no problem?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Your position,  businesses position, is that executives and businesses are both making record money,  so there's no problem.
> 
> Do you really believe that $17T in debt is no problem?





Where did you come up with that strawman?  You have to walk me through the logic on that one.  I realize once I get sucked into a liberal's mind with no logical way out, I may never escape.  That that was such a bizarre leap, I have to ask...


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.



You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard.


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard.
Click to expand...


We have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, we're burying businesses and government makes job providers pay for people who don't work.  Government forces employees to join unions who then use that leverage to attain artificially high salary and benefits while reducing accountability and making it impossible to fire the incompetent.  And now government is sticking employers with responsibility to provide health care or get fined.  Add that to the massive regulations, red tape and bureaucracy employers go through already and is only growing.

Then Obama and the leftists are all like WTF?  Why are companies moving overseas?  



Here's a dollar, buy a clue.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> We have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, we're burying businesses and government makes job providers pay for people who don't work.  Government forces employees to join unions who then use that leverage to attain artificially high salary and benefits while reducing accountability and making it impossible to fire the incompetent.  And now government is sticking employers with responsibility to provide health care or get fined.  Add that to the massive regulations, red tape and bureaucracy employers go through already and is only growing.
> 
> Then Obama and the leftists are all like WTF?  Why are companies moving overseas?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy a clue.



Not to mention environmental laws that essentially outlawed the steel and printed circuit board industries.


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, we're burying businesses and government makes job providers pay for people who don't work.  Government forces employees to join unions who then use that leverage to attain artificially high salary and benefits while reducing accountability and making it impossible to fire the incompetent.  And now government is sticking employers with responsibility to provide health care or get fined.  Add that to the massive regulations, red tape and bureaucracy employers go through already and is only growing.
> 
> Then Obama and the leftists are all like WTF?  Why are companies moving overseas?
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a dollar, buy a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention environmental laws that essentially outlawed the steel and printed circuit board industries.
Click to expand...


Great point uncensored.  And wow, they are stupid.  Is building power plants in Nevada across the border from California because the liberal government on principle won't approve a new plant in California really better for the California environment?

And what about oil refineries being built in Canada and Mexico because the US won't allow new refineries built in the US?  So the plant is across the border outside our ability to regulate safety?  Or sailing oil on a boat across an ocean?  How are those better for the environment exactly?

Liberalism is group stupidity.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position,  businesses position, is that executives and businesses are both making record money,  so there's no problem.
> 
> Do you really believe that $17T in debt is no problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you come up with that strawman?  You have to walk me through the logic on that one.  I realize once I get sucked into a liberal's mind with no logical way out, I may never escape.  That that was such a bizarre leap, I have to ask...
Click to expand...


Our debt demonstrably comes from Bush's tax cuts,  Bush's holy wars,  the effect of the Great Recession on revenue and the cost of buying our way out of the Great Recession. 

The Great Recession is the product of Wall St mismanagement in the housing boom and bust,  and giving away millions of good American jobs and the consumption that they allowed. 

Now instead of high value adding manufacturing,  we're mowing lawns. 

Brilliant.


----------



## PMZ

The extreme right counters with if we just acted like a poor country our problems would be solved. 

We couldn't breathe the air or drink the water. 

We could have lavishly wealthy economic royalty and abject poverty side by side.  

We could move millions to non-living wages. 

We could trash the future for today. 

We could use up what fossil fuels remain and then go back to the caves. 

We could have real good old fashioned plagues killing millions because health care is a right of wealth only. 

We could eliminate education for all but the wealthy and send the unemployed teachers into prostitution like real poor countries do. 

This is the Republican vision.  The anti-American dream.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Our debt demonstrably comes from Bush's tax cuts,



Is it, Comrade Retard?

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. 

Now it is $17.1 trillion.

Obama has added more debt than any president in history, nearly double the debt that Bush added - even though he has three more years on his term.




> Bush's holy wars,  the effect of the Great Recession on revenue and the cost of buying our way out of the Great Recession.
> 
> The Great Recession is the product of Wall St mismanagement in the housing boom and bust,  and giving away millions of good American jobs and the consumption that they allowed.



Comrade Retard, you may be an idiot and a lair, but at least.... uh.... um.. 

There is no "at least," you're just an idiot and a liar.



> Now instead of high value adding manufacturing,  we're mowing lawns.
> 
> Brilliant.



You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard!


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position,  businesses position, is that executives and businesses are both making record money,  so there's no problem.
> 
> Do you really believe that $17T in debt is no problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you come up with that strawman?  You have to walk me through the logic on that one.  I realize once I get sucked into a liberal's mind with no logical way out, I may never escape.  That that was such a bizarre leap, I have to ask...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our debt demonstrably comes from Bush's tax cuts,  Bush's holy wars,  the effect of the Great Recession on revenue and the cost of buying our way out of the Great Recession.
> 
> The Great Recession is the product of Wall St mismanagement in the housing boom and bust,  and giving away millions of good American jobs and the consumption that they allowed.
> 
> Now instead of high value adding manufacturing,  we're mowing lawns.
> 
> Brilliant.
Click to expand...




Whew, I was too confused by your naked frolic through the forest to be sucked into the random hallways in your brain.  Just so you know, with normal people, you start at point a, then walk through the steps to arrive at point b.  I won't tempt fate again.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard.
Click to expand...


I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity. 

And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity.
> 
> And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.
Click to expand...


Offshoring jobs is great for our economy.  It's bad for socialists because you love fear, it's a great tool.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity.
> 
> And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.



In fact you eco-Communists are exactly who sent the jobs to China.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity.
> 
> And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact you eco-Communists are exactly who sent the jobs to China.
Click to expand...


Go to Beijing.  Take a deep breath.  That's your dream for Nazi America.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity.
> 
> And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact you eco-Communists are exactly who sent the jobs to China.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to Beijing.  Take a deep breath.  That's your dream for Nazi America.
Click to expand...


That doesn't even make sense for you


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our debt demonstrably comes from Bush's tax cuts,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it, Comrade Retard?
> 
> When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.
> 
> Now it is $17.1 trillion.
> 
> Obama has added more debt than any president in history, nearly double the debt that Bush added - even though he has three more years on his term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush's holy wars,  the effect of the Great Recession on revenue and the cost of buying our way out of the Great Recession.
> 
> The Great Recession is the product of Wall St mismanagement in the housing boom and bust,  and giving away millions of good American jobs and the consumption that they allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade Retard, you may be an idiot and a lair, but at least.... uh.... um..
> 
> There is no "at least," you're just an idiot and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now instead of high value adding manufacturing,  we're mowing lawns.
> 
> Brilliant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard!
Click to expand...


Must be the Nazi Party line says that debt is caused by dates.  Not policies.  I guess if you're dumb enough to be a Nazi,  you're dumb enough to fall for that. 

I think that what's wrong with business now is pretty clear.  It's being run by maggots.  Dumb maggots.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't have sent the jobs to China, Comrade Retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity.
> 
> And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Offshoring jobs is great for our economy.  It's bad for socialists because you love fear, it's a great tool.
Click to expand...


Sure is.  Customers are a pain in the ass.  As long as our lawns get mowed,  we'll be fine.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't.  Business executives did.  Now America is paying big time for their stupidity.
> 
> And you Nazis are supporting them.  The poorer the country is the less resistance there will be to the SS saving us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offshoring jobs is great for our economy.  It's bad for socialists because you love fear, it's a great tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure is.  Customers are a pain in the ass.  As long as our lawns get mowed,  we'll be fine.
Click to expand...


You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Offshoring jobs is great for our economy.  It's bad for socialists because you love fear, it's a great tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is.  Customers are a pain in the ass.  As long as our lawns get mowed,  we'll be fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...
Click to expand...


I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is.  Customers are a pain in the ass.  As long as our lawns get mowed,  we'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.
Click to expand...


So how is that going to happen when they lose their jobs because you make their employer's products more expensive than foreign competitor prices?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact you eco-Communists are exactly who sent the jobs to China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Beijing.  Take a deep breath.  That's your dream for Nazi America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense for you
Click to expand...


I'll do it slowly for you. 

He used the term eco_communist. 

So he favors pollution. 

Beijing has the most air pollution in the world. And it's mostly Communist. 

If he takes a deep breath he will feel,  taste,  smell,  and see what he wants. 

If he likes what he feels,  tastes,  smells,  and sees,  he can stay there.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how is that going to happen when they lose their jobs because you make their employer's products more expensive than foreign competitor prices?
Click to expand...


Buy American.  

Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.

They've forgotten innovation. 

They also don't know anything about productivity which has always allowed us a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. 

We use to have business leaders.  Now we have grossly overpaid business followers. 

They wouldn't make it in politics.  They'd either be fired after one term or impeached.

They needed someone to mow their lawns so they layed some off.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Beijing.  Take a deep breath.  That's your dream for Nazi America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll do it slowly for you.
> 
> He used the term eco_communist.
> 
> So he favors pollution.
> 
> Beijing has the most air pollution in the world. And it's mostly Communist.
> 
> If he takes a deep breath he will feel,  taste,  smell,  and see what he wants.
> 
> If he likes what he feels,  tastes,  smells,  and sees,  he can stay there.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, an eco_communist is someone who promotes communism through economic issues, they don't actually care about the environment, they care about communism.  "eco" is just a weapon to get there.  You seem to be supporting the contention...

However, even using your logic (OK, I'm risking it again), our choices are to be eco_communists or be in favor of pollution.  And you're using a Communist country to show where Nazism will lead us.  Oh crap, I'm lost now in your hell.  Help!


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Buy American.
> 
> Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.



You're obviously not a business owner.  In the 5 years of Obama recession, all they care about is price...


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll do it slowly for you.
> 
> He used the term eco_communist.
> 
> So he favors pollution.
> 
> Beijing has the most air pollution in the world. And it's mostly Communist.
> 
> If he takes a deep breath he will feel,  taste,  smell,  and see what he wants.
> 
> If he likes what he feels,  tastes,  smells,  and sees,  he can stay there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I understand it, an eco_communist is someone who promotes communism through economic issues, they don't actually care about the environment, they care about communism.  "eco" is just a weapon to get there.  You seem to be supporting the contention...
> 
> However, even using your logic (OK, I'm risking it again), our choices are to be eco_communists or be in favor of pollution.  And you're using a Communist country to show where Nazism will lead us.  Oh crap, I'm lost now in your hell.  Help!
Click to expand...


Eco-Communists, to sensible people, means someone who prioritizes ecological issues. (he calls everyone outside of the Fox Cult,  Communists) 

Therefore those who oppose eco-Communists favor trashing the environment in order to make more money regardless of the cost to others. 

I have always regarded you as slow but I'm going to have to invent a new category.  Not slow but stopped.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Eco-Communists, to sensible people, means someone who prioritizes ecological issues. (he calls everyone outside of the Fox Cult,  Communists)



That's their marketing literature.  I'm talking about the reality.  The Eco left are those who elect Democrats using ecological arguments.  They are group thinkers who sell out the environment for the collective just as fast as NOW sold out Kathleen Wiley or the NAACP sold out Clarance Thomas, Colin Powell, Condie Rice...



PMZ said:


> Therefore those who oppose eco-Communists favor trashing the environment in order to make more money regardless of the cost to others



So there are left wing environmentalists who parrot the Democratic party and people in favor of pollution, there are no other options.  Got it.  Thanks for finding me lost in the tunnels of your inane mind and pulling me out by the way with your mindless blather.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is.  Customers are a pain in the ass.  As long as our lawns get mowed,  we'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.
Click to expand...


Then you should want the government to quit sucking all the investment capital out of the country, but no, you support every socialist boondoggle that comes down the pike.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should want the government to quit sucking all the investment capital out of the country, but no, you support every socialist boondoggle that comes down the pike.
Click to expand...


My favorite is the 35% liberal tax on repatriated money liberals demand that prevents any money from being repatriated while they talk about blocking exporting jobs.

When W reduced the rate to 5% for one year, federal tax receipts exploded, nobody wants 65% of their money in the US when they could have 100% overseas.  It's about control.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Beijing.  Take a deep breath.  That's your dream for Nazi America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll do it slowly for you.
> 
> He used the term eco_communist.
> 
> So he favors pollution.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  He simply opposes eco-communists like you who want to impose industry killing regulations simply because you hate capitalism.  Concern for the environment is just a ruse you and your ilk use to put socialism over on the voters.



PMZ said:


> [Beijing has the most air pollution in the world. And it's mostly Communist.



Beijing cast communism aside about 30 years ago.  It now has a totalitarian government, still, but the economy is closer to a form of crony capitalism, sort of like the U.S.A under Obama.



PMZ said:


> [If he takes a deep breath he will feel,  taste,  smell,  and see what he wants.
> 
> If he likes what he feels,  tastes,  smells,  and sees,  he can stay there.



You're a lying piece of shit, Komrade.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Go to Beijing.  Take a deep breath.  That's your dream for Nazi America.



So you admit that you did send all the jobs to China, but you did it for our own good?

You never were real bright, TM....


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> That doesn't even make sense for you



Truthmatters to PMZ!


What she is fumbling to say is that the Communists didn't send manufacturing to China, but if the Communists hadn't sent manufacturing to China, our air quality would be as poor as Peking's


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is.  Customers are a pain in the ass.  As long as our lawns get mowed,  we'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who wants customers to pay higher prices, sweetheart...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you support every piece of legislation that makes it more difficult for businesses to grow and expand.


----------



## g5000

"Fair" is whatever the government says it is.  Trust the government...trust the government...trust the government...you are getting sleeeeeepy...


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want employed customers to be able to afford higher prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how is that going to happen when they lose their jobs because you make their employer's products more expensive than foreign competitor prices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buy American.
> 
> Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.
> 
> They've forgotten innovation.
> 
> They also don't know anything about productivity which has always allowed us a higher standard of living than the rest of the world.
Click to expand...


They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.



PMZ said:


> We use to have business leaders.  Now we have grossly overpaid business followers.



When business survival depends on kicking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.




PMZ said:


> They wouldn't make it in politics.  They'd either be fired after one term or impeached.
> 
> They needed someone to mow their lawns so they layed some off.



Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Workers in manufacturing are a dime a dozen. "
> 
> The product of trading their careers for executive bonuses.
> 
> Now their role as consumers is also in China.  And the cost of supporting dime a dozen workers is on the tax payer. Building our debt.
> 
> Masterful fucking plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is an export economy only for the masses.
> You are an intelligent man. Why the stubborness and refusal to admit that capital is the only thing that funds a start up business? Why can't you admit that is a fact?
> How else does a business start without capital investment?
> You were the one that forced business to make your products for an affordable price. You shop and buy goods that are affordable to you.
> Blame yourself if the shoes you wear are made in China. You will not pay a man $20 a hour in wages and benefits for a pair of shoes someone with a 5th grade education that can run a machine.
> Why do you want to keep people stupid and label them as unintelligent propping up remedial manufacturing jobs in this country? Sounds elitist to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We,  the people are responsible for government.  We hire and fire our representatives.  Democracy.
> 
> The only choices we have in business are who to buy what from.  And who we work for.  The middle class doesn't have the choice to buy or work.
> 
> If we could fire the fat cat, starve the wealth creators, over stuff the wealth suckers, shrink to success,  innovation killers, we would,  and replace them with visionaries and problem solvers.
> 
> But,  that hiring and firing of executives takes place at country club bars among the bar flies collected there.
Click to expand...


You left out the choice of working for yourself.
The middle class has every opportunity there is the choice to buy and work.
I AM middle class never making more than $125K a year in my life ever. 
No offense my man but you have never been around many executives, country club bars or anywhere like that. All of your lines are rank partisan hack rhetoric repeated every election cycle by Democrats. First time I heard it I fell off my dinosaur.
You have too much time and need a hobby, your material is stale.


----------



## Gadawg73

And still after dozens of posts PMZ can not refute that ALL business is created BY CAPITAL.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> And still after dozens of posts PMZ can not refute that ALL business is created BY CAPITAL.



The stupidest post ever by anybody. 
If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.  

Thats the nature of capital.  

On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.  

Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.  

You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.  

Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how is that going to happen when they lose their jobs because you make their employer's products more expensive than foreign competitor prices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buy American.
> 
> Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.
> 
> They've forgotten innovation.
> 
> They also don't know anything about productivity which has always allowed us a higher standard of living than the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We use to have business leaders.  Now we have grossly overpaid business followers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When business survival depends on kicking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't make it in politics.  They'd either be fired after one term or impeached.
> 
> They needed someone to mow their lawns so they layed some off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.
Click to expand...


What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still after dozens of posts PMZ can not refute that ALL business is created BY CAPITAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidest post ever by anybody.
> If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.
> 
> Thats the nature of capital.
> 
> On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.
> 
> Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.
> 
> You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.
> 
> Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.
Click to expand...


First you claim money doesn't matter and then you admit that an entrepenuer can borrow money to get his business started.  Well, which is it.  Do businessmen need money or not?

And you aren't going to hire anyone without money.

Innovation isn't the hard part.  Complying with all the government regulations is the hard part.

Talk about idiots running business.  What could be more idiotic than the federal government running business?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buy American.
> 
> Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.
> 
> They've forgotten innovation.
> 
> They also don't know anything about productivity which has always allowed us a higher standard of living than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.
> 
> 
> 
> When business survival depends on licking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't make it in politics.  They'd either be fired after one term or impeached.
> 
> They needed someone to mow their lawns so they layed some off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
Click to expand...


Running the country into the ground takes no skill at all, and that's all most politicians do.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still after dozens of posts PMZ can not refute that ALL business is created BY CAPITAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidest post ever by anybody.
> If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.
> 
> Thats the nature of capital.
> 
> On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.
> 
> Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.
> 
> You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.
> 
> Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.
Click to expand...


How many businesses do you own?
You call me an idiot all the while claiming that when you pile cash in your garage and watch it for a year while it sits there, that is investing capital in a business.
You are bat shit crazy.
You have never started any business or had one cent at risk ever.
Claiming that piling cash in the garage and waiting a year is capital investing is ignorance.
Thought you could do better than that Moe. That is as milk weak an argument as I have ever seen here.
I own 3 businesses and have 300K of my own money at risk. 
You pile your cash in the garage and call that capital investing. I put my capital at risk and hire people and put them to work.
How many folks did you have to hire to watch your capital piled in your garage?
Geez, this is all you have? Disappointed.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buy American.
> 
> Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.
> 
> They've forgotten innovation.
> 
> They also don't know anything about productivity which has always allowed us a higher standard of living than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.
> 
> 
> 
> When business survival depends on kicking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't make it in politics.  They'd either be fired after one term or impeached.
> 
> They needed someone to mow their lawns so they layed some off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
Click to expand...


What business have you ever run?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.
> 
> 
> 
> When business survival depends on kicking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What business have you ever run?
Click to expand...


What country have you ever run?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still after dozens of posts PMZ can not refute that ALL business is created BY CAPITAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidest post ever by anybody.
> If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.
> 
> Thats the nature of capital.
> 
> On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.
> 
> Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.
> 
> You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.
> 
> Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> You call me an idiot all the while claiming that when you pile cash in your garage and watch it for a year while it sits there, that is investing capital in a business.
> You are bat shit crazy.
> You have never started any business or had one cent at risk ever.
> Claiming that piling cash in the garage and waiting a year is capital investing is ignorance.
> Thought you could do better than that Moe. That is as milk weak an argument as I have ever seen here.
> I own 3 businesses and have 300K of my own money at risk.
> You pile your cash in the garage and call that capital investing. I put my capital at risk and hire people and put them to work.
> How many folks did you have to hire to watch your capital piled in your garage?
> Geez, this is all you have? Disappointed.
Click to expand...


You said that capital was the life blood of business. 

Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidest post ever by anybody.
> If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.
> 
> Thats the nature of capital.
> 
> On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.
> 
> Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.
> 
> You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.
> 
> Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> You call me an idiot all the while claiming that when you pile cash in your garage and watch it for a year while it sits there, that is investing capital in a business.
> You are bat shit crazy.
> You have never started any business or had one cent at risk ever.
> Claiming that piling cash in the garage and waiting a year is capital investing is ignorance.
> Thought you could do better than that Moe. That is as milk weak an argument as I have ever seen here.
> I own 3 businesses and have 300K of my own money at risk.
> You pile your cash in the garage and call that capital investing. I put my capital at risk and hire people and put them to work.
> How many folks did you have to hire to watch your capital piled in your garage?
> Geez, this is all you have? Disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What business have you ever run?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What country have you ever run?
Click to expand...


You are the one lecturing us on business.
And can not back up one word of it much less formulate a cohesive and relevant sentence about it. 
You also speak of loans and you do not even know that is debt capital. 
Equity investors provide capital in exchange for ownership in the company.
And operating capital which are fund generated by the business operations which is the ONLY capital influenced by the labor of the employees.
So since you keep lecturing us on business what business have you ever run?
If none then tell us what you do have experience in and we will respect you for that and we will tell what our experiences are and continue to hear you lecture on owning a business which you have admitted you have zero experience in.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidest post ever by anybody.
> If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.
> 
> Thats the nature of capital.
> 
> On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.
> 
> Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.
> 
> You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.
> 
> Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> You call me an idiot all the while claiming that when you pile cash in your garage and watch it for a year while it sits there, that is investing capital in a business.
> You are bat shit crazy.
> You have never started any business or had one cent at risk ever.
> Claiming that piling cash in the garage and waiting a year is capital investing is ignorance.
> Thought you could do better than that Moe. That is as milk weak an argument as I have ever seen here.
> I own 3 businesses and have 300K of my own money at risk.
> You pile your cash in the garage and call that capital investing. I put my capital at risk and hire people and put them to work.
> How many folks did you have to hire to watch your capital piled in your garage?
> Geez, this is all you have? Disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
Click to expand...


If you do understand that money and lots of it is required to create goods and services then you are ignorant about everything and anything business.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidest post ever by anybody.
> If you take a pile of money and set it out in the garage in the morning it will be there unchanged.  In a week,  a month,  a year,  it will also be unchanged.
> 
> That&#8217;s the nature of capital.
> 
> On the other hand if you are into creating wealth you think up innovative products.  You fulfill a need.  You learn a skill.  You hire skilled labor.
> 
> Anybody with a good business plan can borrow money on the quality of it.  Money is the easy part.  Innovation is the hard part.
> 
> You are as good an example as I've seen of the idiots running business in America.  It's no wonder the Bush family got to rape our economy.
> 
> Until we find some real business leaders,  we'll be stuck where Bush left us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> You call me an idiot all the while claiming that when you pile cash in your garage and watch it for a year while it sits there, that is investing capital in a business.
> You are bat shit crazy.
> You have never started any business or had one cent at risk ever.
> Claiming that piling cash in the garage and waiting a year is capital investing is ignorance.
> Thought you could do better than that Moe. That is as milk weak an argument as I have ever seen here.
> I own 3 businesses and have 300K of my own money at risk.
> You pile your cash in the garage and call that capital investing. I put my capital at risk and hire people and put them to work.
> How many folks did you have to hire to watch your capital piled in your garage?
> Geez, this is all you have? Disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
Click to expand...


Explain how you create goods and services without buildings, without tools, without computers and without machinery?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many businesses do you own?
> You call me an idiot all the while claiming that when you pile cash in your garage and watch it for a year while it sits there, that is investing capital in a business.
> You are bat shit crazy.
> You have never started any business or had one cent at risk ever.
> Claiming that piling cash in the garage and waiting a year is capital investing is ignorance.
> Thought you could do better than that Moe. That is as milk weak an argument as I have ever seen here.
> I own 3 businesses and have 300K of my own money at risk.
> You pile your cash in the garage and call that capital investing. I put my capital at risk and hire people and put them to work.
> How many folks did you have to hire to watch your capital piled in your garage?
> Geez, this is all you have? Disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how you create goods and services without buildings, without tools, without computers and without machinery?
Click to expand...


Life blood? 

Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan. Unless you're in the lawn mowing business or some other me too gig, the design of the product or service,  the demand for it,  your competitive advantages,  your supply chain,  your logistics,  your customer service plan,  HR plan etc, are what makes or breaks the business. 

This doesn't take into account that the vast majority of businesses are ongoing,  not new. Ongoing businesses take capital from retained earnings. 

You guys are trying to sell plutocracy.  To the wealthy goes the wealth and power. There is nothing less American. 

It's easy to see how conservatism in government and business changed America from exceptional to,  at best ordinary.  

You must be so proud.


----------



## dcraelin

the small business administration subsidizes lots of small businesses. Tax giveaways and other subsidies by local governments help fund lots of business expansions, while pushing the burden of taxes more and more on everyday folks. Its become a racket.


----------



## PMZ

Successful,  growing,  well run business benefits everyone.  The SBA helps people capable of learning to achieve that.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how you create goods and services without buildings, without tools, without computers and without machinery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life blood?
> 
> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan. Unless you're in the lawn mowing business or some other me too gig, the design of the product or service,  the demand for it,  your competitive advantages,  your supply chain,  your logistics,  your customer service plan,  HR plan etc, are what makes or breaks the business.
> 
> This doesn't take into account that the vast majority of businesses are ongoing,  not new. Ongoing businesses take capital from retained earnings.
> 
> You guys are trying to sell plutocracy.  To the wealthy goes the wealth and power. There is nothing less American.
> 
> It's easy to see how conservatism in government and business changed America from exceptional to,  at best ordinary.
> 
> You must be so proud.
Click to expand...


>>> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan.

ROFL not if you have socialists forcing high costs on businesses through taxation and regulation, not if you have dumbocrats vilifying profit, threatening higher taxes and chasing off investors.  Where do you think this money comes from?  Are you mental?

The dumbocrats completely destroyed our green energy market.  How?  by taking tax dollars from viable producers and redistributing them to Obama's best friends to make the POS producers competitors of the viable producers... Democrats are criminals.  The only reason Obama is not in jail is because democrats get away with murder in this country.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how you create goods and services without buildings, without tools, without computers and without machinery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life blood?
> 
> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan. Unless you're in the lawn mowing business or some other me too gig, the design of the product or service,  the demand for it,  your competitive advantages,  your supply chain,  your logistics,  your customer service plan,  HR plan etc, are what makes or breaks the business.
> 
> This doesn't take into account that the vast majority of businesses are ongoing,  not new. Ongoing businesses take capital from retained earnings.
> 
> You guys are trying to sell plutocracy.  To the wealthy goes the wealth and power. There is nothing less American.
> 
> It's easy to see how conservatism in government and business changed America from exceptional to,  at best ordinary.
> 
> You must be so proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan.
> 
> ROFL not if you have socialists forcing high costs on businesses through taxation and regulation, not if you have dumbocrats vilifying profit, threatening higher taxes and chasing off investors.  Where do you think this money comes from?  Are you mental?
> 
> The dumbocrats completely destroyed our green energy market.  How?  by taking tax dollars from viable producers and redistributing them to Obama's best friends to make the POS producers competitors of the viable producers... Democrats are criminals.  The only reason Obama is not in jail is because democrats get away with murder in this country.
Click to expand...


You want guaranteed wealth redistribution up.  Despite our extreme wealth inequality that resulted from years of massive wealth redistribution up. 

Why? There is still 15% in the hands of the 80%. You won't be regarded as true royalty until there is more abject poverty among more people.


----------



## dcraelin

dcraelin said:


> the small business administration subsidizes lots of small businesses. Tax giveaways and other subsidies by local governments help fund lots of business expansions, while pushing the burden of taxes more and more on everyday folks. Its become a racket.





PMZ said:


> Successful,  growing,  well run business benefits everyone.  The SBA helps people capable of learning to achieve that.


Generally the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing businesses. If they cant make it thats tough. When the government gets involved in stuff like this it invariably screws things up.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the small business administration subsidizes lots of small businesses. Tax giveaways and other subsidies by local governments help fund lots of business expansions, while pushing the burden of taxes more and more on everyday folks. Its become a racket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Successful,  growing,  well run business benefits everyone.  The SBA helps people capable of learning to achieve that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Generally the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing businesses. If they cant make it thats tough. When the government gets involved in stuff like this it invariably screws things up.
Click to expand...


You present no evidence.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life blood?
> 
> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan. Unless you're in the lawn mowing business or some other me too gig, the design of the product or service,  the demand for it,  your competitive advantages,  your supply chain,  your logistics,  your customer service plan,  HR plan etc, are what makes or breaks the business.
> 
> This doesn't take into account that the vast majority of businesses are ongoing,  not new. Ongoing businesses take capital from retained earnings.
> 
> You guys are trying to sell plutocracy.  To the wealthy goes the wealth and power. There is nothing less American.
> 
> It's easy to see how conservatism in government and business changed America from exceptional to,  at best ordinary.
> 
> You must be so proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan.
> 
> ROFL not if you have socialists forcing high costs on businesses through taxation and regulation, not if you have dumbocrats vilifying profit, threatening higher taxes and chasing off investors.  Where do you think this money comes from?  Are you mental?
> 
> The dumbocrats completely destroyed our green energy market.  How?  by taking tax dollars from viable producers and redistributing them to Obama's best friends to make the POS producers competitors of the viable producers... Democrats are criminals.  The only reason Obama is not in jail is because democrats get away with murder in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want guaranteed wealth redistribution up.  Despite our extreme wealth inequality that resulted from years of massive wealth redistribution up.
> 
> Why? There is still 15% in the hands of the 80%. You won't be regarded as true royalty until there is more abject poverty among more people.
Click to expand...


blah blah blah, you think you can make people rich by paying them to sit on their asses... what a retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan.
> 
> ROFL not if you have socialists forcing high costs on businesses through taxation and regulation, not if you have dumbocrats vilifying profit, threatening higher taxes and chasing off investors.  Where do you think this money comes from?  Are you mental?
> 
> The dumbocrats completely destroyed our green energy market.  How?  by taking tax dollars from viable producers and redistributing them to Obama's best friends to make the POS producers competitors of the viable producers... Democrats are criminals.  The only reason Obama is not in jail is because democrats get away with murder in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want guaranteed wealth redistribution up.  Despite our extreme wealth inequality that resulted from years of massive wealth redistribution up.
> 
> Why? There is still 15% in the hands of the 80%. You won't be regarded as true royalty until there is more abject poverty among more people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> blah blah blah, you think you can make people rich by paying them to sit on their asses... what a retard.
Click to expand...


People seek wealth in order to afford sitting on their asses.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want guaranteed wealth redistribution up.  Despite our extreme wealth inequality that resulted from years of massive wealth redistribution up.
> 
> Why? There is still 15% in the hands of the 80%. You won't be regarded as true royalty until there is more abject poverty among more people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blah blah blah, you think you can make people rich by paying them to sit on their asses... what a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People seek wealth in order to afford sitting on their asses.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself you lazy shit.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buy American.
> 
> Poor business people believe that price is the only variable in product choice.
> 
> They've forgotten innovation.
> 
> They also don't know anything about productivity which has always allowed us a higher standard of living than the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.
> 
> 
> 
> When business survival depends on kicking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't make it in politics.  They'd either be fired after one term or impeached.
> 
> They needed someone to mow their lawns so they layed some off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
Click to expand...


The skill to run a business is far higher.  If you fail, you go broke.  When you run a country if you fail, you simply use guns to take more from your victims.

Obama has done nothing right, he's a liar, a race baiter, he has no skill at all.  Maybe you should have picked someone who knew more than how to find the Senate mens room and vote "present" on bills, ya think?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten a thing, Komrade, but people like you make it impossible to invest in their businesses and improve their productivity.  There's no point in innovating when the bureaucrats will outlaw your innovations and the politicians will tax away any profits your innovations may yield.
> 
> 
> 
> When business survival depends on kicking government butt hole, you don't get a lot of business leaders. If you want business leaders, then Washington should quite trying to run every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's true, because the only thing required to make it in politics is to be a skilled liar and a two-faced scumbag.  Running a business requires a different skill set, except for in the age of Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The skill to run a business is far higher.  If you fail, you go broke.  When you run a country if you fail, you simply use guns to take more from your victims.
> 
> Obama has done nothing right, he's a liar, a race baiter, he has no skill at all.  Maybe you should have picked someone who knew more than how to find the Senate mens room and vote "present" on bills, ya think?
Click to expand...


I know lots of business owners who aren't even very good at that.  Don't you read the posts here? 

They wouldn't stand a chance of even getting elected to government.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> blah blah blah, you think you can make people rich by paying them to sit on their asses... what a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People seek wealth in order to afford sitting on their asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speak for yourself you lazy shit.
Click to expand...


I see that I hit the mark.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People seek wealth in order to afford sitting on their asses.
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself you lazy shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that I hit the mark.
Click to expand...


I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What skill does it take to run a business compared to running a country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The skill to run a business is far higher.  If you fail, you go broke.  When you run a country if you fail, you simply use guns to take more from your victims.
> 
> Obama has done nothing right, he's a liar, a race baiter, he has no skill at all.  Maybe you should have picked someone who knew more than how to find the Senate mens room and vote "present" on bills, ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know lots of business owners who aren't even very good at that.  Don't you read the posts here?
Click to expand...


Your Marxists drivel are not educational.



PMZ said:


> They wouldn't stand a chance of even getting elected to government.



That has nothing to do with being good at it.  Obama won two national elections and he's an angry, arrogant finger pointing loser and a liar.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how you create goods and services without buildings, without tools, without computers and without machinery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life blood?
> 
> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan. Unless you're in the lawn mowing business or some other me too gig, the design of the product or service,  the demand for it,  your competitive advantages,  your supply chain,  your logistics,  your customer service plan,  HR plan etc, are what makes or breaks the business.
> 
> This doesn't take into account that the vast majority of businesses are ongoing,  not new. Ongoing businesses take capital from retained earnings.
> 
> You guys are trying to sell plutocracy.  To the wealthy goes the wealth and power. There is nothing less American.
> 
> It's easy to see how conservatism in government and business changed America from exceptional to,  at best ordinary.
> 
> You must be so proud.
Click to expand...


In this market money is an easy resource to obtain?
You have no clue because you have no skin in the game.
Capital is hard to get now as investors are leaving this country and investing overseas.
Ever heard of China? You talk out of both sides of your mouth.
You state that corporations are leaving the country taking investment dollars with them and then you claim there is plenty of money here for capital investing left here.
Which is it?
The power goes to those of us that risk hundreds of thousands of dollars to employ others and IF we make a profit.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that capital was the life blood of business.
> 
> Tell us how that works.  How money creates goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how you create goods and services without buildings, without tools, without computers and without machinery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life blood?
> 
> Money is the easiest resource to get for a good business plan. Unless you're in the lawn mowing business or some other me too gig, the design of the product or service,  the demand for it,  your competitive advantages,  your supply chain,  your logistics,  your customer service plan,  HR plan etc, are what makes or breaks the business.
> 
> This doesn't take into account that the vast majority of businesses are ongoing,  not new. Ongoing businesses take capital from retained earnings.
> 
> You guys are trying to sell plutocracy.  To the wealthy goes the wealth and power. There is nothing less American.
> 
> It's easy to see how conservatism in government and business changed America from exceptional to,  at best ordinary.
> 
> You must be so proud.
Click to expand...


Wow, you are really dense.
Economic growth is what creates more jobs and that is predominantly new capital ventures with new businesses, NOT existing businesses.
Most businesses FAIL because of massive regulations, taxes and statutes. 
A business owner no matter how small needs to have knowledge in finance, accounting, legal, management, office management, taxes, government, liability, personnel, insurance, marketing, sales and customer service to even have a chance. 
The United States Small Business Administration statistics over a 20 year period has it that out of ALL businesses started over the last 20 years 52% of them fail within 3 years.
Please go to another subject other than business as you are making yourself look very foolish here.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Successful,  growing,  well run business benefits everyone.  The SBA helps people capable of learning to achieve that.



SBA statistics make you look like a fool.
52% of all start up businesses fail and SBA exists because everyone knows that economic growth, NOT existing businesses, is what grows the economy and create jobs.


----------



## Gadawg73

A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.



So is a well executed robbery.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself you lazy shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that I hit the mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know work if it was stapled to your forehead.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that I hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know work if it was stapled to your forehead.
Click to expand...


My left nut produced more than you did all year, this while I was sleeping last night.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a well executed robbery.
Click to expand...


Making yourself look even stupider by equating a legal business making a profit with theft.
Stalin would have been proud.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a well executed robbery.
Click to expand...


No,  taxation is a well executed robbery.

.

.


----------



## tooAlive

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a well executed robbery.
Click to expand...


So it's okay for a government to profit from the people, but it's wrong when an individual does it.

Far-left logic at its finest.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know work if it was stapled to your forehead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My left nut produced more than you did all year, this while I was sleeping last night.
Click to expand...


All your left nut is capable of is producing more pirate captains and we got too many now.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know work if it was stapled to your forehead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My left nut produced more than you did all year, this while I was sleeping last night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All your left nut is capable of is producing more pirate captains and we got too many now.
Click to expand...


One of my "progeny" is studying to be a physician, the other is an RN, the other is studying to be an Engineer.


----------



## PMZ

tooAlive said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a well executed robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's okay for a government to profit from the people, but it's wrong when an individual does it.
> 
> Far-left logic at its finest.
Click to expand...


How does a government profit from the people?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well run business is one that makes a PROFIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a well executed robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  taxation is a well executed robbery.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You choose to live here.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself you lazy shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that I hit the mark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?
Click to expand...


Why do conservatives believe that they alone work 40 hours a week?


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a well executed robbery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  taxation is a well executed robbery.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You choose to live here.
Click to expand...


Well, I am hoping that the parasitic 50% will move to Venezuela.

.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  taxation is a well executed robbery.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am hoping that the parasitic 50% will move to Venezuela.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You'd improve the odds of escaping from half of America by moving there yourself.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> How does a government profit from the people?



At the point of a gun.....


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am hoping that the parasitic 50% will move to Venezuela.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd improve the odds of escaping from half of America by moving there yourself.
Click to expand...


Well you and your ilk are the ones who will suck bureaucratic dick for food stamps. Go there and enjoy .

.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that I hit the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives believe that they alone work 40 hours a week?
Click to expand...

I used to work 80-100..

How many hours a week do you work?  Why are you avoiding the question smart ass?


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a government profit from the people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the point of a gun.....
Click to expand...


Really?  Having problems with police alot, eh!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> Really?  Having problems with police alot, eh!!



Never had the police try and collect taxes from me - have you?

Most armed robbers have coats that read "IRS" on them.


----------



## PMZ

The Republican dream for America. 

50% of Americans enslaved by non-living wages. Not even tax payers. 

40% workers.  The old American middle class. The builders of everyone's wealth. 

10% aristocracy.  The royalty that we thought we rid ourselves of in the Revolution. 

Remember when America was one country?


----------



## Gadawg73

Such a great thing, the IRS.
They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122. 
Total defense of your case was $43,000.
Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Such a great thing, the IRS.
> They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
> They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
> You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
> Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
> After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
> Total defense of your case was $43,000.
> Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.



Is there a solution in here someplace? 

Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work 40hrs a week.  How many hours a week do you work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives believe that they alone work 40 hours a week?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to work 80-100..
> 
> How many hours a week do you work?  Why are you avoiding the question smart ass?
Click to expand...


I'll bet your family really missed you.


----------



## Gadawg73

You plunderers are ignorant.
My 26 year old son is a recruiter commission only with a base draw that the commission applies to. After that draw is met any extra commission is now taxed as bonus at 45%. 
Someone making less than 60K a year has to pay 45% tax on commission sales after their draw of $3500 a month is met.
All while the moocher class is doubling every 5 years.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> You plunderers are ignorant.
> My 26 year old son is a recruiter commission only with a base draw that the commission applies to. After that draw is met any extra commission is now taxed as bonus at 45%.
> Someone making less than 60K a year has to pay 45% tax on commission sales after their draw of $3500 a month is met.
> All while the moocher class is doubling every 5 years.



The moocher class. 

Here's a solution for your son.  Get a minimum wage job.  Make a non living wage.  No taxes.  Of course not enough for lots of things but still, no taxes. 

That's real mooching.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do conservatives believe that they alone work 40 hours a week?
> 
> 
> 
> I used to work 80-100..
> 
> How many hours a week do you work?  Why are you avoiding the question smart ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll bet your family really missed you.
Click to expand...


Back then I only slept 4hrs during the week.  Plenty of time to spend with the family.  Lots of my hours at home.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a great thing, the IRS.
> They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
> They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
> You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
> Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
> After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
> Total defense of your case was $43,000.
> Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a solution in here someplace?
> 
> Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.
Click to expand...


You assume wrong again.
Imagine that. I am not a Republican and look here on this site to see me bash them daily in other threads.
The solution is the Fair Tax. You support the 80,000 page tax code that gives your friends and big corporate interests tax breaks and exemptions, tax credits all won by thousands of K Street lawyers in DC. I doubt you even know anything about where K Street is and what kind of office buildings line that stretch there. I do as that is the real world.
I seek to take politics out of the tax code. You support politics in the tax code and support politicians adding to it yearly to carve out freebies for your friends.
As an independent I seek equal protections and applications of taxation on all Americans.
And as Johns Hopkins studies have shown for decades the tax revenues would almost double after application of a KNOWN tax which eliminates the tens of billions of dollars spent on running audits into the personal lives of what others make and hundreds of billions wasted by everyone now on compliance.
But of course you know nothing about any of this as you have never run a business or spent tens of thousands of dollars on tax compliance alone.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a great thing, the IRS.
> They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
> They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
> You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
> Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
> After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
> Total defense of your case was $43,000.
> Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a solution in here someplace?
> 
> Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume wrong again.
> Imagine that. I am not a Republican and look here on this site to see me bash them daily in other threads.
> The solution is the Fair Tax. You support the 80,000 page tax code that gives your friends and big corporate interests tax breaks and exemptions, tax credits all won by thousands of K Street lawyers in DC. I doubt you even know anything about where K Street is and what kind of office buildings line that stretch there. I do as that is the real world.
> I seek to take politics out of the tax code. You support politics in the tax code and support politicians adding to it yearly to carve out freebies for your friends.
> As an independent I seek equal protections and applications of taxation on all Americans.
> And as Johns Hopkins studies have shown for decades the tax revenues would almost double after application of a KNOWN tax which eliminates the tens of billions of dollars spent on running audits into the personal lives of what others make and hundreds of billions wasted by everyone now on compliance.
> But of course you know nothing about any of this as you have never run a business or spent tens of thousands of dollars on tax compliance alone.
Click to expand...


The fair tax is merely a way to enhance the flow of wealth up, that would worsen our near record wealth inequality,  and virtually end the middle class. It would finish the mission of Reagan and the Bush's to create an America of economic royalty served by serfs. Back to feudalism. 

http://geekpolitics.com/10-pros-and-cons-of-the-fair-tax/


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a solution in here someplace?
> 
> Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume wrong again.
> Imagine that. I am not a Republican and look here on this site to see me bash them daily in other threads.
> The solution is the Fair Tax. You support the 80,000 page tax code that gives your friends and big corporate interests tax breaks and exemptions, tax credits all won by thousands of K Street lawyers in DC. I doubt you even know anything about where K Street is and what kind of office buildings line that stretch there. I do as that is the real world.
> I seek to take politics out of the tax code. You support politics in the tax code and support politicians adding to it yearly to carve out freebies for your friends.
> As an independent I seek equal protections and applications of taxation on all Americans.
> And as Johns Hopkins studies have shown for decades the tax revenues would almost double after application of a KNOWN tax which eliminates the tens of billions of dollars spent on running audits into the personal lives of what others make and hundreds of billions wasted by everyone now on compliance.
> But of course you know nothing about any of this as you have never run a business or spent tens of thousands of dollars on tax compliance alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fair tax is merely a way to enhance the flow of wealth up, that would worsen our near record wealth inequality,  and virtually end the middle class. It would finish the mission of Reagan and the Bush's to create an America of economic royalty served by serfs. Back to feudalism.
> 
> Fair Tax Pros and Cons
Click to expand...


You mean it puts an end to the current policy of looting people who work hard.  That's what commies like you always mean when you talk about "redistribution" of wealth upward.  All your Marxist blather about "economic royalty" and "serfs" only fools the vast mass of Democrat parasites into voting themselves into slavery.   No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.  You don't help the poor by punishing the rich.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume wrong again.
> Imagine that. I am not a Republican and look here on this site to see me bash them daily in other threads.
> The solution is the Fair Tax. You support the 80,000 page tax code that gives your friends and big corporate interests tax breaks and exemptions, tax credits all won by thousands of K Street lawyers in DC. I doubt you even know anything about where K Street is and what kind of office buildings line that stretch there. I do as that is the real world.
> I seek to take politics out of the tax code. You support politics in the tax code and support politicians adding to it yearly to carve out freebies for your friends.
> As an independent I seek equal protections and applications of taxation on all Americans.
> And as Johns Hopkins studies have shown for decades the tax revenues would almost double after application of a KNOWN tax which eliminates the tens of billions of dollars spent on running audits into the personal lives of what others make and hundreds of billions wasted by everyone now on compliance.
> But of course you know nothing about any of this as you have never run a business or spent tens of thousands of dollars on tax compliance alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fair tax is merely a way to enhance the flow of wealth up, that would worsen our near record wealth inequality,  and virtually end the middle class. It would finish the mission of Reagan and the Bush's to create an America of economic royalty served by serfs. Back to feudalism.
> 
> Fair Tax Pros and Cons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean it puts an end to the current policy of looting people who work hard.  That's what commies like you always mean when you talk about "redistribution" of wealth upward.  All your Marxist blather about "economic royalty" and "serfs" only fools the vast mass of Democrat parasites into voting themselves into slavery.   No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.  You don't help the poor by punishing the rich.
Click to expand...


You don't understand.  The pirates have won.  The amount of wealth for  80% of Americans to share is only the chump change.  You can only loot so often you know.  Bush did such a great job for you that it will take several generations for the middle class to recreate  enough wealth to be worth your time stealing. 

Go enjoy Versailles while we rebuild.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> The moocher class.
> 
> Here's a solution for your son.  Get a minimum wage job.  Make a non living wage.  No taxes.  Of course not enough for lots of things but still, no taxes.
> 
> That's real mooching.



Why wouldn't he just go on SSI, Foodstamps, and section 8 housing like you?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> You don't understand.  The pirates have won.  The amount of wealth for  80% of Americans to share is only the chump change.  You can only loot so often you know.  Bush did such a great job for you that it will take several generations for the middle class to recreate  enough wealth to be worth your time stealing.
> 
> Go enjoy Versailles while we rebuild.



You're a loser.  Anyone can achieve anything they are capable of and willing to work for in this country.  If you're an intellectual coward who wants to blame your problems on someone else, fine.  But don't believe that is anyone's fault but your own.

You are actually TM aren't you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You plunderers are ignorant.
> My 26 year old son is a recruiter commission only with a base draw that the commission applies to. After that draw is met any extra commission is now taxed as bonus at 45%.
> Someone making less than 60K a year has to pay 45% tax on commission sales after their draw of $3500 a month is met.
> All while the moocher class is doubling every 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The moocher class.
> 
> Here's a solution for your son.  Get a minimum wage job.  Make a non living wage.  No taxes.  Of course not enough for lots of things but still, no taxes.
> 
> That's real mooching.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Komrade.  That isn't mooching.  Mooching is when other people are paying your bills against their will.

It's hardly surprising that a Komrade wouldn't know the meaning of the term Mooch.  That's because it's how they all survive.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fair tax is merely a way to enhance the flow of wealth up, that would worsen our near record wealth inequality,  and virtually end the middle class. It would finish the mission of Reagan and the Bush's to create an America of economic royalty served by serfs. Back to feudalism.
> 
> Fair Tax Pros and Cons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it puts an end to the current policy of looting people who work hard.  That's what commies like you always mean when you talk about "redistribution" of wealth upward.  All your Marxist blather about "economic royalty" and "serfs" only fools the vast mass of Democrat parasites into voting themselves into slavery.   No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.  You don't help the poor by punishing the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The pirates have won.  The amount of wealth for  80% of Americans to share is only the chump change.  You can only loot so often you know.  Bush did such a great job for you that it will take several generations for the middle class to recreate  enough wealth to be worth your time stealing.
> 
> Go enjoy Versailles while we rebuild.
Click to expand...


The only "pirates" are turds like you who whine constantly about the "20%" or the "1%."  To be a pirate you have to take things from the people who own them by force.  That's what the welfare state does, not what wealthy people do.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moocher class.
> 
> Here's a solution for your son.  Get a minimum wage job.  Make a non living wage.  No taxes.  Of course not enough for lots of things but still, no taxes.
> 
> That's real mooching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't he just go on SSI, Foodstamps, and section 8 housing like you?
Click to expand...


 Never did that, shithead.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it puts an end to the current policy of looting people who work hard.  That's what commies like you always mean when you talk about "redistribution" of wealth upward.  All your Marxist blather about "economic royalty" and "serfs" only fools the vast mass of Democrat parasites into voting themselves into slavery.   No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.  You don't help the poor by punishing the rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The pirates have won.  The amount of wealth for  80% of Americans to share is only the chump change.  You can only loot so often you know.  Bush did such a great job for you that it will take several generations for the middle class to recreate  enough wealth to be worth your time stealing.
> 
> Go enjoy Versailles while we rebuild.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "pirates" are turds like you who whine constantly about the "20%" or the "1%."  To be a pirate you have to take things from the people who own them by force.  That's what the welfare state does, not what wealthy people do.
Click to expand...


Well,  you got it all.  Not by force,  by cunning.  Not by earning it,  that's for sure. All that, what you call the welfare state, does is to help prevent revolutions.  Lots of them going on around the world but,  so far,  not here,  thanks to government. 

Liberals have at least 10 more years to restore what conservatism has broken.  Maybe forever,  I don't know.  That depends on the restoration of business leadership which will be through what we all hope will be peaceful consumer revolution. 

Workers are consumers.  Thats how the electorate controls business instead of the direct control that democracy gives them over government. 

Workers/consumers/electorate are fed up getting screwed by pirates. They have control,  a lesson that Republican propaganda fails to teach.  

It will,  however,  be taught.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand.  The pirates have won.  The amount of wealth for  80% of Americans to share is only the chump change.  You can only loot so often you know.  Bush did such a great job for you that it will take several generations for the middle class to recreate  enough wealth to be worth your time stealing.
> 
> Go enjoy Versailles while we rebuild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "pirates" are turds like you who whine constantly about the "20%" or the "1%."  To be a pirate you have to take things from the people who own them by force.  That's what the welfare state does, not what wealthy people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well,  you got it all.  Not by force,  by cunning.  Not by earning it,  that's for sure. All that, what you call the welfare state, does is to help prevent revolutions.  Lots of them going on around the world but,  so far,  not here,  thanks to government.
> 
> Liberals have at least 10 more years to restore what conservatism has broken.  Maybe forever,  I don't know.  That depends on the restoration of business leadership which will be through what we all hope will be peaceful consumer revolution.
> 
> Workers are consumers.  That&#8217;s how the electorate controls business instead of the direct control that democracy gives them over government.
> 
> Workers/consumers/electorate are fed up getting screwed by pirates. They have control,  a lesson that Republican propaganda fails to teach.
> 
> It will,  however,  be taught.
Click to expand...


 What a freaking retard you are.  WTF is this pirate shit you keep crying like a little girl about?


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Having problems with police alot, eh!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never had the police try and collect taxes from me - have you?
> 
> Most armed robbers have coats that read "IRS" on them.
Click to expand...


So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?

That would make you what?  Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "pirates" are turds like you who whine constantly about the "20%" or the "1%."  To be a pirate you have to take things from the people who own them by force.  That's what the welfare state does, not what wealthy people do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well,  you got it all.  Not by force,  by cunning.  Not by earning it,  that's for sure. All that, what you call the welfare state, does is to help prevent revolutions.  Lots of them going on around the world but,  so far,  not here,  thanks to government.
> 
> Liberals have at least 10 more years to restore what conservatism has broken.  Maybe forever,  I don't know.  That depends on the restoration of business leadership which will be through what we all hope will be peaceful consumer revolution.
> 
> Workers are consumers.  Thats how the electorate controls business instead of the direct control that democracy gives them over government.
> 
> Workers/consumers/electorate are fed up getting screwed by pirates. They have control,  a lesson that Republican propaganda fails to teach.
> 
> It will,  however,  be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a freaking retard you are.  WTF is this pirate shit you keep crying like a little girl about?
Click to expand...


You act like there's some reason for anyone here to care about what you're thinking about anything.  That's your out of control ego talking. 

You are free to think,  in fact I encourage you to keep thinking, that you are master of the universe and thereby entitled to whatever you want. 

My point is that as the 80% of the US struggling to survive on 15% of the wealth wake up,  they will realize that there's no way for that to happen on a level playing field. And the people who hate America and Americans (well at least if they  are workers, government employees,  union members,  other races, other creeds,  educators,  women,  intelligent,  poor,  foreigners,  environmentalists,  outside of the Fox or NRA cults,  Democrats,  liberals,  centrists,  sustainable energy realists,  students or the retired,  or of other than Caucasian ethnicity) are stealing and revamping the country. 

I that will be a rude awakening for everyone.


----------



## Uncensored2008

kaz said:


> You're a loser.  Anyone can achieve anything they are capable of and willing to work for in this country.  If you're an intellectual coward who wants to blame your problems on someone else, fine.  But don't believe that is anyone's fault but your own.
> 
> You are actually TM aren't you?



There has been no question of that, for a long, long time..

PMZ is a Lair


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?



Have you stopped beating your boyfriend yet?



> That would make you what?  Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...



What's sad is that you probably think that you're clever.

Communists always think that blatant dishonesty is clever....


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped beating your boyfriend yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would make you what?  Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's sad is that you probably think that you're clever.
> 
> Communists always think that blatant dishonesty is clever....
Click to expand...


The reality is that every country has a body of laws.  Because there are individuals that are either unable or unwilling to follow the common laws, law enforcement is necessary.

Learning and behavior consists of four types that is broken down into positive and negative, punishment and reward.  "positive" learning is the creation of new behaviors.  "negative" learning is the extinction of behaviors.  "punishment" and "reward" are the types of feedback that modifies the behavior.

Most people are simply unconcerned with the fact that law enforcement is required and that that law enforcement must be armed.  Positive reward is sufficient for them to learn. Some people are incapable of learning through positive and negative reward and only learn by negative punishment.  The threat of punishment is often enough to deter inappropriate behaviors.

Most of us have met individuals that are fixated on the fact that law enforcement has to use punishment as a tool to deter their behavior.  What becomes quickly obvious is that they have an above average experience with law enforcement.

On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.

None of this, the reality of learning and behavior, has anything to do with communism.  It is just basic behavior and learning.  Individuals that are fixated on the punishment aspect of learning and behavior tend to be the very same individuals that can't manage to work and live in a group setting. And, in fact, this inability to function in normal society is typical of individuals with emotional and behavioral problems.

The obvious question when faced with an individual that talks about the punishment aspect of society is that they have emotional issues and have repeatedly brought that punishment on themselves.  Most people manage to get along in the world with, perhaps, the occasional traffic ticket.


----------



## itfitzme

On a similar note, it is pretty apparent to most people that those with emotional problems also have trouble working.  It is this attitude of "you can't tell me what to do" that has them repeatedly attracting law enforcement and refusing to learn basic skills that make for being functional in the work place.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> The reality is that every country has a body of laws.  Because there are individuals that are either unable or unwilling to follow the common laws, law enforcement is necessary.



Well that clears up the whole "Khmer Rouge was a criminal regime" thingy, thanks! 



> Learning and behavior consists of four types that is broken down into positive and negative, punishment and reward.  "positive" learning is the creation of new behaviors.  "negative" learning is the extinction of behaviors.  "punishment" and "reward" are the types of feedback that modifies the behavior.



I see, so our masters in government should be punishing us to mold our behavior to please our rulers?

A little "carrot and stick" for the enslaved masses, eh Comrade?



> Most people are simply unconcerned with the fact that law enforcement is required and that that law enforcement must be armed.  Positive reward is sufficient for them to learn. Some people are incapable of learning through positive and negative reward and only learn by negative punishment.  The threat of punishment is often enough to deter inappropriate behaviors.



Really? Most people don't know that law enforcement is needed? 

The amazing insights you leftists offer....



> Most of us have met individuals that are fixated on the fact that law enforcement has to use punishment as a tool to deter their behavior.  What becomes quickly obvious is that they have an above average experience with law enforcement.



While I realize that we must NEVER question our rulers, that we must obey without question; did it every cross your mind that these individuals were actually questioning whether the laws being enforces were valid, and whether the enforcers were valid, or were instead just criminal acting on behalf of the state?



> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> None of this, the reality of learning and behavior, has anything to do with communism.  It is just basic behavior and learning.  Individuals that are fixated on the punishment aspect of learning and behavior tend to be the very same individuals that can't manage to work and live in a group setting. And, in fact, this inability to function in normal society is typical of individuals with emotional and behavioral problems.
> 
> The obvious question when faced with an individual that talks about the punishment aspect of society is that they have emotional issues and have repeatedly brought that punishment on themselves.  Most people manage to get along in the world with, perhaps, the occasional traffic ticket.



I assume that you view the only issue with the way Pol Pot ran his regime was that he was too lax with people?

Amirite? You know I am!


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.



And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.
Click to expand...


Let's see.  Firearms for dedicated,  well trained,  supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them. 

A tough choice for conservatives.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.
Click to expand...


Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.

Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> On a similar note, it is pretty apparent to most people that those with emotional problems also have trouble working.  It is this attitude of "you can't tell me what to do" that has them repeatedly attracting law enforcement and refusing to learn basic skills that make for being functional in the work place.



'Censored' is the kind of person that responsible people relocate to avoid.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Firearms for dedicated,  well trained,  supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.
> 
> A tough choice for conservatives.
Click to expand...


What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"

And what's your solution exactly?  Here's a place to solve the problem for us.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that every country has a body of laws.  Because there are individuals that are either unable or unwilling to follow the common laws, law enforcement is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that clears up the whole "Khmer Rouge was a criminal regime" thingy, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning and behavior consists of four types that is broken down into positive and negative, punishment and reward.  "positive" learning is the creation of new behaviors.  "negative" learning is the extinction of behaviors.  "punishment" and "reward" are the types of feedback that modifies the behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so our masters in government should be punishing us to mold our behavior to please our rulers?
> 
> A little "carrot and stick" for the enslaved masses, eh Comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Most people don't know that law enforcement is needed?
> 
> The amazing insights you leftists offer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have met individuals that are fixated on the fact that law enforcement has to use punishment as a tool to deter their behavior.  What becomes quickly obvious is that they have an above average experience with law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I realize that we must NEVER question our rulers, that we must obey without question; did it every cross your mind that these individuals were actually questioning whether the laws being enforces were valid, and whether the enforcers were valid, or were instead just criminal acting on behalf of the state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> None of this, the reality of learning and behavior, has anything to do with communism.  It is just basic behavior and learning.  Individuals that are fixated on the punishment aspect of learning and behavior tend to be the very same individuals that can't manage to work and live in a group setting. And, in fact, this inability to function in normal society is typical of individuals with emotional and behavioral problems.
> 
> The obvious question when faced with an individual that talks about the punishment aspect of society is that they have emotional issues and have repeatedly brought that punishment on themselves.  Most people manage to get along in the world with, perhaps, the occasional traffic ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that you view the only issue with the way Pol Pot ran his regime was that he was too lax with people?
> 
> Amirite? You know I am!
Click to expand...


Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.

I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues.  Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.

Seriously.  You need to stay on your medication.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, most of you are not violent though and are more a threat to yourself.  But yeah, one never knows.  And this is deflection, completely irrelevant to the point.



itfitzme said:


> Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?



I'm white bread.  Blond hair, blue eyes, short hair, dress like an all American boy.  Cops overwhelmingly react positively to me on sight.  But if you haven't met any cops who are arrogant dicks who have abused the power of their badge then you're eight, live in a cave or a liar.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately, most of you are not violent though and are more a threat to yourself.  But yeah, one never knows.  And this is deflection, completely irrelevant to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm white bread.  Blond hair, blue eyes, short hair, dress like an all American boy.  Cops overwhelmingly react positively to me on sight.  But if you haven't met any cops who are arrogant dicks who have abused the power of their badge then you're eight, live in a cave or a liar.
Click to expand...


So you do have problems with law enforcement.  Go figure.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> On a similar note, it is pretty apparent to most people that those with emotional problems also have trouble working.  It is this attitude of "you can't tell me what to do" that has them repeatedly attracting law enforcement and refusing to learn basic skills that make for being functional in the work place.



I can hear your heals clicking whenever you post.  You're a goosestepping fascist asshole.  That's all you have proven.  Joseph Goebbels could have authored your post.

Heil Obama!


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that every country has a body of laws.  Because there are individuals that are either unable or unwilling to follow the common laws, law enforcement is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that clears up the whole "Khmer Rouge was a criminal regime" thingy, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so our masters in government should be punishing us to mold our behavior to please our rulers?
> 
> A little "carrot and stick" for the enslaved masses, eh Comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Most people don't know that law enforcement is needed?
> 
> The amazing insights you leftists offer....
> 
> 
> 
> While I realize that we must NEVER question our rulers, that we must obey without question; did it every cross your mind that these individuals were actually questioning whether the laws being enforces were valid, and whether the enforcers were valid, or were instead just criminal acting on behalf of the state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this forum, it becomes perfectly clear who is fixated with the fact that law enforcement necessitates carrying a firearm.
> 
> None of this, the reality of learning and behavior, has anything to do with communism.  It is just basic behavior and learning.  Individuals that are fixated on the punishment aspect of learning and behavior tend to be the very same individuals that can't manage to work and live in a group setting. And, in fact, this inability to function in normal society is typical of individuals with emotional and behavioral problems.
> 
> The obvious question when faced with an individual that talks about the punishment aspect of society is that they have emotional issues and have repeatedly brought that punishment on themselves.  Most people manage to get along in the world with, perhaps, the occasional traffic ticket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume that you view the only issue with the way Pol Pot ran his regime was that he was too lax with people?
> 
> Amirite? You know I am!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.
> 
> I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues.  Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.
> 
> Seriously.  You need to stay on your medication.
Click to expand...



What a dick!


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they carry them to protect themselves from people with serious emotional and behavioral problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, most of you are not violent though and are more a threat to yourself.  But yeah, one never knows.  And this is deflection, completely irrelevant to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you often find yourself in this kind of situation with law enforcement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm white bread.  Blond hair, blue eyes, short hair, dress like an all American boy.  Cops overwhelmingly react positively to me on sight.  But if you haven't met any cops who are arrogant dicks who have abused the power of their badge then you're eight, live in a cave or a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do have problems with law enforcement.  Go figure.
Click to expand...


OK, but you shouldn't because you're going to hurt yourself if you try


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And law enforcement firearms are used only on very rare occasions to defend you.  They are almost exclusively used to defend the law enforcement officer and to compel you to obey their instructions when you do things like not paying tribute to the government Gods and they come to remove your liberty for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Firearms for dedicated,  well trained,  supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.
> 
> A tough choice for conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"
> 
> And what's your solution exactly?  Here's a place to solve the problem for us.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html
Click to expand...


His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.


----------



## johnwk

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



Perhaps you didn't know it but our Constitution tells us what our fair share is when Congress taxes the people directly.


JWK


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see.  Firearms for dedicated,  well trained,  supervised, public servants vs yahoo rednecks with a long and colorful history of imposing what they want on everybody around them.
> 
> A tough choice for conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"
> 
> And what's your solution exactly?  Here's a place to solve the problem for us.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.
Click to expand...


BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"
> 
> And what's your solution exactly?  Here's a place to solve the problem for us.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
Click to expand...


Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of murders are committed by those "rednecks?"
> 
> And what's your solution exactly?  Here's a place to solve the problem for us.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...rom-criminals-liberals-what-is-your-plan.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
Click to expand...


The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster.  It's a fact.  Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster.  It's a fact.  Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.
Click to expand...


Show me the evidence that I'm a dictator worshiping ring wing extremist.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His solution is to send them all to relocation camps and to create an elite cadre of law enforcement officers with black uniforms, knee high boots and an insignia of their elite status on their hats and lapels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
Click to expand...


I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.  

Nutballs with guns is a different story. 

There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans. 

I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
Click to expand...


Actually, there are not &#8216;many&#8217; success stories around the world with forearms controls.  The reality is that there are very few examples of such success stories.  Almost all gun control laws are outright failures in curving the homicide rate down (which is the entire point of gun control: fewer people unjustly killed).


FA_Q2 said:


> So, here we go again.
> 
> Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.  For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it.  For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands.  I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.
> 
> All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts.  I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand.  Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.
> 
> First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides.  Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything.  That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic.  I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant.  If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress.  Rather, we regressed and are worse off.  The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes.  That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.
> 
> 
> Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries.   Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless.  Why, you ask.  Well, that's simple.  Scientific data requires that we control for other variables.  Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference.  Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for.  That is utterly impossible.  Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this.  How do we overcome this?  Also, simple.  You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed.  We can do that here and in Brittan.
> Gun Control - Just Facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the homicide rate remain flat for almost a decade after such laws are passed with a spike up after.  Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban.  Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here.  As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased.  Form the caption:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton.  Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered.  Seems we are developing a pattern here.  At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.
> 
> 
> Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws.  If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up).  Does that happen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess not.  The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average.  In Texas we get a similar result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:
> 
> 
> 
> * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
> 
> * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
> 
> * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
> 
> * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
> 
> &#8226; 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
> &#8226; 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
> &#8226; 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false.  Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric.  If you have information that states otherwise then please post it.  I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths.  I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information.  Try reading it, it will enlighten you.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts.  I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact.  So far, I have received nothing.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there are not many success stories around the world with forearms controls.  The reality is that there are very few examples of such success stories.  Almost all gun control laws are outright failures in curving the homicide rate down (which is the entire point of gun control: fewer people unjustly killed).
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, here we go again.
> 
> Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.  For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it.  For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands.  I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.
> 
> All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts.  I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand.  Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.
> 
> First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides.  Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything.  That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic.  I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant.  If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress.  Rather, we regressed and are worse off.  The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes.  That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.
> 
> 
> Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries.   Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless.  Why, you ask.  Well, that's simple.  Scientific data requires that we control for other variables.  Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference.  Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for.  That is utterly impossible.  Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this.  How do we overcome this?  Also, simple.  You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed.  We can do that here and in Brittan.
> Gun Control - Just Facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the homicide rate remain flat for almost a decade after such laws are passed with a spike up after.  Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban.  Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here.  As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased.  Form the caption:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton.  Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered.  Seems we are developing a pattern here.  At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.
> 
> 
> Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws.  If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up).  Does that happen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess not.  The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average.  In Texas we get a similar result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:
> 
> 
> 
> * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
> 
> * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
> 
> * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
> 
> * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
> 
>  34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
>  40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
>  69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false.  Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric.  If you have information that states otherwise then please post it.  I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths.  I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information.  Try reading it, it will enlighten you.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts.  I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact.  So far, I have received nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Actually,  all of those accidently killed by firearms are also unjustly killed.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster.  It's a fact.  Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the evidence that I'm a dictator worshiping ring wing extremist.
Click to expand...


I've already posted a list of your views that are perfectly compatible with being a Nazi.  They were left-wingers, BTW, not right-wingers.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you're a Nazi isn't a closet monster.  It's a fact.  Your "solutions" work just like Obama's "solution" for high health insurance costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the evidence that I'm a dictator worshiping ring wing extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already posted a list of your views that are perfectly compatible with being a Nazi.  They were left-wingers, BTW, not right-wingers.
Click to expand...


They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists. 

That's why I'm a centrist.  I think that both Nazis and Communists are dysfunctional.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
Click to expand...


If NO ONE can have them legally then criminals will still have them.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the evidence that I'm a dictator worshiping ring wing extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted a list of your views that are perfectly compatible with being a Nazi.  They were left-wingers, BTW, not right-wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> That's why I'm a centrist.  I think that both Nazis and Communists are dysfunctional.
Click to expand...


You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?

Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If NO ONE can have them legally then criminals will still have them.
Click to expand...


But there'd be a whole lot fewer accidental killings.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already posted a list of your views that are perfectly compatible with being a Nazi.  They were left-wingers, BTW, not right-wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> That's why I'm a centrist.  I think that both Nazis and Communists are dysfunctional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?
> 
> Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.
Click to expand...


Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> That's why I'm a centrist.  I think that both Nazis and Communists are dysfunctional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?
> 
> Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
Click to expand...


So, our demands that you do not impose on us is a "delusion". You have a right to enslave us?

Just so you know violence begets violence.

.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.





PMZ said:


> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.



There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat. 

Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?
> 
> Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, our demands that you do not impose on us is a "delusion". You have a right to enslave us?
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility.  We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government. 

You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> 
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
Click to expand...


BriPat is scared to death by the monsters in the closet tales told around Republican campfires by professional propagandists. He can't sleep at night,  he's almost completely lost his grip on reality,  paranoia reigns. 

But he can't stop listening.


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> 
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
Click to expand...


Yeah well PMZ is a 74year old German Hitler youth / authoritarian socialist.  So it sort of fits.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> 
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well PMZ is a 74year old German Hitler youth / authoritarian socialist.  So it sort of fits.
Click to expand...


Typical of the mythology that the cult of conservatism insists their victims accept unquestioningly.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, our demands that you do not impose on us is a "delusion". You have a right to enslave us?
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility. * We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government.
> 
> You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.
Click to expand...


And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "irresponsibility.". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are being "irresponsible".

Just so you know violence begets violence.

.


----------



## BobPlumb

How did Goodwin have the authority to make a law?  Is/was he king?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, our demands that you do not impose on us is a "delusion". You have a right to enslave us?
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility. * We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government.
> 
> You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "irresponsibility.". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are being "irresponsible".
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


We define responsibility as not imposing what's best for you, on others.  The purpose of the rule of law. 

Most of us live inherently responsible lives.  We are not affected by the rule of law. Those that don't,  criminals that break our laws,  get an "extra"  lesson in the meaning of responsibility.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> 
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well PMZ is a 74year old German Hitler youth / authoritarian socialist.  So it sort of fits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical of the mythology that the cult of conservatism insists their victims accept unquestioningly.
Click to expand...


You still keep your copy of mein kampf on your beside table?  I was amazed you admitted it when you were drunk the other day.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah well PMZ is a 74year old German Hitler youth / authoritarian socialist.  So it sort of fits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical of the mythology that the cult of conservatism insists their victims accept unquestioningly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still keep your copy of mein kampf on your beside table?  I was amazed you admitted it when you were drunk the other day.
Click to expand...


Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily. 

You're much closer to a SS thug.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical of the mythology that the cult of conservatism insists their victims accept unquestioningly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still keep your copy of mein kampf on your beside table?  I was amazed you admitted it when you were drunk the other day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a SS thug.
Click to expand...


Yeah?  What were the German SS like?  I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it.  Were they like Obama's SS?


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility. * We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government.
> 
> You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "irresponsibility.". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are being "irresponsible".
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> We define responsibility as not imposing what's best for you, on others.*  The purpose of the rule of law.
> 
> Most of us live inherently responsible lives.  We are not affected by the rule of law. Those that don't,  criminals that break our laws,  get an "extra"  lesson in the meaning of responsibility.
Click to expand...


And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "what's best for you". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are not doing what is best for you.

Just so you know violence begets violence.

.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> That's why I'm a centrist.  I think that both Nazis and Communists are dysfunctional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?
> 
> Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
Click to expand...


What "delusions" am I trying to impose on you?  You and your ilk are the ones who want to impose your delusions on everyone else.  I'm not lobbying for any laws to impose anything on anyone.  Precisely the opposite is the case.  I'm trying to get rid of all your laws and regulations.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
Click to expand...


Goodwin was a Nazi.  His theory wasn't a law.  It was just Nazi propaganda designed to protect modern Nazis (liberals) from the criticism they deserve.



PMZ said:


> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.



That's all liberal propaganda, of course.  Big business funds the Democrat Party.  I guess that means they're a bunch of Nazis.


----------



## Contumacious

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something calle*d Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument.* Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 Godwins law has been abolished by Contumacious' corollary

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",

.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still keep your copy of mein kampf on your beside table?  I was amazed you admitted it when you were drunk the other day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a SS thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What were the German SS like?  I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it.  Were they like Obama's SS?
Click to expand...


Before my time.  

I assume by SS you mean Social Security,  another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America. 

But,  it's not Obama's.  It's ours.  We,  the people, whose remaining wealth,  15% of the total,  some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.  

Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?
> 
> Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "delusions" am I trying to impose on you?  You and your ilk are the ones who want to impose your delusions on everyone else.  I'm not lobbying for any laws to impose anything on anyone.  Precisely the opposite is the case.  I'm trying to get rid of all your laws and regulations.
Click to expand...


The delusion that small,  weak government will make us free. 

We are free.  You,  not so much.  You're not even free to think for yourself.


----------



## bripat9643

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, our demands that you do not impose on us is a "delusion". You have a right to enslave us?
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility. * We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government.
> 
> You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "irresponsibility.". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are being "irresponsible".
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Business is "irresponsible" if it doesn't stick its neck on the chopping block and expand when economic conditions don't warrant expansion.  We all exist solely to serve government purposes, not our own.  That's how PMS thinks, and nothing could be more Nazi than that.


----------



## bripat9643

BobPlumb said:


> How did Goodwin have the authority to make a law?  Is/was he king?



Goodwin made the law because people were constantly accusing him of being a Nazi.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical of the mythology that the cult of conservatism insists their victims accept unquestioningly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still keep your copy of mein kampf on your beside table?  I was amazed you admitted it when you were drunk the other day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a SS thug.
Click to expand...


You're the only one in this discussion advocating the use of force on innocent people.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "irresponsibility.". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are being "irresponsible".
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We define responsibility as not imposing what's best for you, on others.*  The purpose of the rule of law.
> 
> Most of us live inherently responsible lives.  We are not affected by the rule of law. Those that don't,  criminals that break our laws,  get an "extra"  lesson in the meaning of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "what's best for you". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are not doing what is best for you.
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


We don't need your help.  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave. 

You seem like one of those weak minded victims of,  the only thing that separates the poor from the wealthy is hard work.  

I know plenty of both.  Believe me,  the wealthy are complete slaves to comfort. They wouldn't last 5 min in the land of the poor.  

What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles. 

Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "delusions" am I trying to impose on you?  You and your ilk are the ones who want to impose your delusions on everyone else.  I'm not lobbying for any laws to impose anything on anyone.  Precisely the opposite is the case.  I'm trying to get rid of all your laws and regulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The delusion that small,  weak government will make us free.
> 
> We are free.  You,  not so much.  You're not even free to think for yourself.
Click to expand...


Am I free to choose the health insurance I want to buy?  Am I free to choose how to fund my retirement?  Am I free but whatever products I want to buy?  If I have a business, am I free to pay my employees what I want to pay them?  

We're all about as free as inmates in a penitentiary.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "delusions" am I trying to impose on you?  You and your ilk are the ones who want to impose your delusions on everyone else.  I'm not lobbying for any laws to impose anything on anyone.  Precisely the opposite is the case.  I'm trying to get rid of all your laws and regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The delusion that small,  weak government will make us free.
> 
> We are free.  You,  not so much.  You're not even free to think for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I free to choose the health insurance I want to buy?  Am I free to choose how to fund my retirement?  Am I free but whatever products I want to buy?  If I have a business, am I free to pay my employees what I want to pay them?
> 
> We're all about as free as inmates in a penitentiary.
Click to expand...


You are not free to pass the cost of maintaining your sorry,  lazy ass on to others.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We define responsibility as not imposing what's best for you, on others.*  The purpose of the rule of law.
> 
> Most of us live inherently responsible lives.  We are not affected by the rule of law. Those that don't,  criminals that break our laws,  get an "extra"  lesson in the meaning of responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "what's best for you". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are not doing what is best for you.
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We don't need your help.*  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.
> 
> You seem like one of those weak minded victims of,  the only thing that separates the poor from the wealthy is hard work.
> 
> I know plenty of both.  Believe me,  the wealthy are complete slaves to comfort. They wouldn't last 5 min in the land of the poor.
> 
> What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.
> 
> Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.
Click to expand...



Really?

*Health and Human Services Budget

967,000,000,000.00*

Where is all that dough coming from?!?!?!?

.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still keep your copy of mein kampf on your beside table?  I was amazed you admitted it when you were drunk the other day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a SS thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the only one in this discussion advocating the use of force on innocent people.
Click to expand...


Boy,  here's a world class delusion.  The rule of law imposes on innocent people. 

That's what criminals who operate outside the rule of law do.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Goodwin have the authority to make a law?  Is/was he king?
> 
> 
> 
> Goodwin made the law because people were constantly accusing him of being a Nazi.
Click to expand...

Its more like a law in the sense of a theory. and Godwin not Goodwin. Means just playing the Hitler card....and generally shows desperation on the part of the user. 

I dont think many but Bripat have accused Godwin of being a Nazi


----------



## dcraelin

Contumacious said:


> Godwins law has been abolished by Contumacious' corollary
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
> .



The thing we can learn from history is that organizations sometimes arise to deceive most of their own members. I think the recent betrayal of Buono in NewJersey by the Democratic party is a case in point, of that kind of behavior creeping into the mainstream partys.  As is the betrayal in Virginia of Ken Cuccineli by the Republican party.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> We define responsibility as not imposing what's best for you, on others.*  The purpose of the rule of law.
> 
> Most of us live inherently responsible lives.  We are not affected by the rule of law. Those that don't,  criminals that break our laws,  get an "extra"  lesson in the meaning of responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "what's best for you". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are not doing what is best for you.
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need your help.  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.
Click to expand...


In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.



PMZ said:


> You seem like one of those weak minded victims of,  the only thing that separates the poor from the wealthy is hard work.



No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.



PMZ said:


> I know plenty of both.  Believe me,  the wealthy are complete slaves to comfort. They wouldn't last 5 min in the land of the poor.



Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.



PMZ said:


> What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.
> 
> Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.



You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "what's best for you". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are not doing what is best for you.
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need your help.  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of both.  Believe me,  the wealthy are complete slaves to comfort. They wouldn't last 5 min in the land of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.
> 
> Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.
Click to expand...


I have no trouble with people who earned wealth.  It's the other half that we can't afford to support any longer.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Godwins law has been abolished by Contumacious' corollary
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing we can learn from history is that organizations sometimes arise to deceive most of their own members. I think the recent betrayal of Buono in NewJersey by the Democratic party is a case in point, of that kind of behavior creeping into the mainstream partys.  As is the betrayal in Virginia of Ken Cuccineli by the Republican party.
Click to expand...


How do define betrayal?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "what's best for you". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are not doing what is best for you.
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need your help.  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of both.  Believe me,  the wealthy are complete slaves to comfort. They wouldn't last 5 min in the land of the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.
> 
> Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.
Click to expand...


Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a SS thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only one in this discussion advocating the use of force on innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy,  here's a world class delusion.  The rule of law imposes on innocent people.
> 
> That's what criminals who operate outside the rule of law do.
Click to expand...


What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws?  "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process.  Kings make all kinds of law.  Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?"  Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need your help.  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.
> 
> Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  And now we endorse deporting anyone who disputes his authority to impose his prejudices on us. 

Do you still maintain you're not a Nazi?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  And now we endorse deporting anyone who disputes his authority to impose his prejudices on us.
> 
> Do you still maintain you're not a Nazi?
Click to expand...


How tolerant should we be of residents hostile to our Constitution?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only one in this discussion advocating the use of force on innocent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy,  here's a world class delusion.  The rule of law imposes on innocent people.
> 
> That's what criminals who operate outside the rule of law do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws?  "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process.  Kings make all kinds of law.  Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?"  Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.
Click to expand...


" "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"

Anyone can choose criminal behavior.  There's nothing that can be done about free will.  

The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior.  We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  And now we endorse deporting anyone who disputes his authority to impose his prejudices on us.
> 
> Do you still maintain you're not a Nazi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How tolerant should we be of residents hostile to our Constitution?
Click to expand...


If we deported them the Democrat party would disappear.


----------



## Contumacious

dcraelin said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Godwins law has been abolished by Contumacious' corollary
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing we can learn from history is that organizations sometimes arise to deceive most of their own members. I think the recent betrayal of Buono in NewJersey by the Democratic party is a case in point, of that kind of behavior creeping into the mainstream partys.  As is the betrayal in Virginia of Ken Cuccineli by the Republican party.
Click to expand...


Nope.

Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.

.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy,  here's a world class delusion.  The rule of law imposes on innocent people.
> 
> That's what criminals who operate outside the rule of law do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws?  "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process.  Kings make all kinds of law.  Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?"  Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"
> 
> Anyone can choose criminal behavior.  There's nothing that can be done about free will.
> 
> The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior.  We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.
Click to expand...


You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligated to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.

Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a SS thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What were the German SS like?  I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it.  Were they like Obama's SS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before my time.
> 
> I assume by SS you mean Social Security,  another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America.
> 
> But,  it's not Obama's.  It's ours.  We,  the people, whose remaining wealth,  15% of the total,  some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.
> 
> Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?
Click to expand...


You said you are 74.  That means you were born around the start of the war.  That means you were old enough to remember.  Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that I'm doing besides abolishing your ill conceived laws?  "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created, not matter how arbitrary or ill-conceived the process.  Kings make all kinds of law.  Does that mean enforcing those laws complies with "the rule of law?"  Nope, and neither do the laws made by a mob in an democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"
> 
> Anyone can choose criminal behavior.  There's nothing that can be done about free will.
> 
> The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior.  We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.
> 
> Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"
Click to expand...


I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law". 

Either you have that,  or anarchy. 

How laws are created is a separate issue.  Our Constitution,  as amended,  is our rule of law about law creation,  adjudication,  and enforcement. It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation.  The rule of law for residents. 

No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your carefully polished sheen, as a deserving aristocrat, becomes more tarnished by your mouth,  daily.
> 
> You're much closer to a* SS thug*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What were the German SS like?  I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it.  Were they like Obama's SS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before my time.
> 
> I assume by SS you mean Social Security,  ?
Click to expand...


Quit joshing.

Somewhere in your closet you have an uniform that looks something like this:






.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " "the rule of law" doesn't not mean that we are required to obey whatever laws are created,"
> 
> Anyone can choose criminal behavior.  There's nothing that can be done about free will.
> 
> The rule of law imposes penalties for that behavior.  We pay law enforcement and our judicial to enforce those consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.
> 
> Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".
Click to expand...


Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?



PMZ said:


> Either you have that,  or anarchy.



No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.



PMZ said:


> How laws are created is a separate issue.



ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"



PMZ said:


> Our Constitution,  as amended,  is our rule of law about law creation,  adjudication,  and enforcement.



Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.



PMZ said:


> It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation.  The rule of law for residents.



So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?



PMZ said:


> No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.



You're clearly very confused.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  What were the German SS like?  I'd like to hear from someone who lived through it.  Were they like Obama's SS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before my time.
> 
> I assume by SS you mean Social Security,  another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America.
> 
> But,  it's not Obama's.  It's ours.  We,  the people, whose remaining wealth,  15% of the total,  some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.
> 
> Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you are 74.  That means you were born around the start of the war.  That means you were old enough to remember.  Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.
Click to expand...


I never said that I was 74.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.
> 
> Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation.  The rule of law for residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're clearly very confused.
Click to expand...


We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians. 

Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.  

Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously believe that "the rule of law" means that we are obligate to follow all laws no matter how they were created - even if they are simply the arbitrary proclamations of some king or a majority.
> 
> Do you belief that laws that existed in France in 1790 were good examples of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It very clearly specifies that a representative democratic process will be used for the creation of legislation.  The rule of law for residents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're clearly very confused.
Click to expand...


The purpose of funtional government is to establish and maintain rule of law.  If they fail, the result is anarchy or tyranny.


----------



## PMZ

pmz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "rule of law".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Rofl!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in nazi german were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> even if that were true, obama and the dims don't follow the constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> So how did the constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> no confusion. No regrets. No indecision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're clearly very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the purpose of funtional government is to establish and maintain rule of law.  If they fail, the result is anarchy or tyranny.
Click to expand...


i


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have much trouble interpreting three short words. "Rule of law".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No confusion. No regrets. No indecision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're clearly very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
Click to expand...


You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.

Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly very confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
Click to expand...


Democracy is not perfect,  but much better than any alternative. 

The alternative to rule by majority is tyranny of a minority.  

Which minority would you want imposing what's best for them on you?


----------



## Contumacious

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly very confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You failed do define what "the rule of law means."*  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
Click to expand...


He is referring to the *Welfare State Constitution of 1935 *which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.

.

.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then please interpret them for us.  What, in your opinion, does "the rule of law" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> No, "Anarchy" means no government.  It doesn't mean no laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Is it?  So the laws imposed in Nazi German were an example of "the rule of law?"
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, Obama and the Dims don't follow the Constitution, so it's a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> So how did the Constitution acquire the authority to determine which laws are legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly very confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
Click to expand...


Freedom to,  is anarchy. 

Freedom from, is democracy and the rule of law.  

You're looking for,  freedom to,  for you,  no freedom from, for others.  That's extreme tyranny presently only enjoyed by Kim Jong Un.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> That&#8217;s the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democracy is not perfect,  but much better than any alternative.
> 
> The alternative to rule by majority is tyranny of a minority.
> 
> Which minority would you want imposing what's best for them on you?
Click to expand...


You still haven't defined "the rule of law."  I thought it was so easy for you.

Gasoline is great for running your car.  However, it's not so good for drinking.  Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under.  Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.

That isn't "the rule of law."  It's tyranny.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freedom to,  is anarchy.
> 
> Freedom from, is democracy and the rule of law.
> 
> You're looking for,  freedom to,  for you,  no freedom from for others.  That's extreme tyranny presently only enjoyed by Kim Jong Un.
Click to expand...


Pure gibberish.  You must believe you have communicated some kind of coherent idea.

I have no idea what "freedom to" and "freedom from" are supposed to mean.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't defined "the rule of law."  I thought it was so easy for you.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy is not perfect,  but much better than any alternative.
> 
> The alternative to rule by majority is tyranny of a minority.
> 
> Which minority would you want imposing what's best for them on you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gasoline is great for running your car.  However, it's not so good for drinking.  Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under.  Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.
> 
> That isn't "the rule of law."  It's tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which word in  "rule by law"  is confusing you?
> 
> To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate,  then signed by the President,  all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.
> 
> What if that whole process goes haywire?
> 
> Could happen,  I suppose.
> 
> What would reduce the odds?
> 
> Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed do define what "the rule of law means."  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom to,  is anarchy.
> 
> Freedom from, is democracy and the rule of law.
> 
> You're looking for,  freedom to,  for you,  no freedom from for others.  That's extreme tyranny presently only enjoyed by Kim Jong Un.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure gibberish.  You must believe you have communicated some kind of coherent idea.
> 
> I have no idea what "freedom to" and "freedom from" are supposed to mean.
Click to expand...


Even short words confuse you. 

"Freedom to" is the absence of rule of law restricting your actions. 

"Freedom from" is the presence of rule of law resticting you from imposing what's best for you on others. 

Extreme "freedom to" is anarchy.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't defined "the rule of law."  I thought it was so easy for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Gasoline is great for running your car.  However, it's not so good for drinking.  Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under.  Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.
> 
> That isn't "the rule of law."  It's tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which word in  "rule by law"  is confusing you?
> 
> To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate,  then signed by the President,  all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.
> 
> What if that whole process goes haywire?
> 
> Could happen,  I suppose.
> 
> What would reduce the odds?
> 
> Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


So majority rule is the rule of law?  How about a lynch mob?  Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?"  slavery?  How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?

You still haven't defined "the rule of law." All you've done is discuss the mechanics of mob rule.  I suppose we are supposed to assume that is the equivalent.


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only have one control over the quality of legislation.  Hiring and firing politicians.
> 
> Thats the ultimate in freedom. It can get no 'freer' than that.
> 
> Every other alternative would result in the majority subject to a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You failed do define what "the rule of law means."*  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is referring to the *Welfare State Constitution of 1935 *which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Another big fan of anarchy.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need your help.  Your help typically costs us a fortune.  Your help is unaffordable. Take your help and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's happened to them is best exemplified by Versailles.
> 
> Just so you know, ignorance begets ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.*
Click to expand...



I agree.

But they should make an exception in your case an use you for target practice.

.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't defined "the rule of law."  I thought it was so easy for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Gasoline is great for running your car.  However, it's not so good for drinking.  Just because a majority vote may be the only means we have of making some decisions, it doesn't follow that we should put everything to a majority vote, but that is currently the premise our government operates under.  Goose steppers like Nazi Pelosi have stated in public that there is no sphere of society that isn't subject to legislation by Congress.
> 
> That isn't "the rule of law."  It's tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which word in  "rule by law"  is confusing you?
> 
> To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate,  then signed by the President,  all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.
> 
> What if that whole process goes haywire?
> 
> Could happen,  I suppose.
> 
> What would reduce the odds?
> 
> Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So majority rule is the rule of law?  How about a lynch mob?  Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?"  slavery?  How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?
Click to expand...


"Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate.  If the duly constituted government is a democracy,  freedom is maximized.  

Your examples are of anarchy or crime. 

I,  frankly,  don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy),  or due process (death penalty under rule of law).


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, do what we tell you to do or leave.  That's what your definition of "help" is.  Again, you sound just like a Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it also takes a lot brains, foresight, ingenuity and perseverance.  However, anyone who works hard in this country will not be poor, even a dumbshit like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, almost all of them would quickly become wealthy again if they ever lost their fortunes.
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing royalty with people who earned their fortunes.  That's a classic Marxist propaganda technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Deportation of people hostile to a country is pretty standard fare.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But they should make an exception in your case an use you for target practice.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How clever are you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You failed do define what "the rule of law means."*  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is referring to the *Welfare State Constitution of 1935 *which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another big fan of anarchy.
Click to expand...


So, opposing the welfare state makes you an anarchist?

Do you see why we're all laughing at you?

You're totalitarian tendencies are plain for all to see.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which word in  "rule by law"  is confusing you?
> 
> To pass legislation a proposal has to be accepted by a majority of the House and another majority in the Senate,  then signed by the President,  all of whom are elected by a majority of citizens.
> 
> What if that whole process goes haywire?
> 
> Could happen,  I suppose.
> 
> What would reduce the odds?
> 
> Certainly not rule by minority. Certainly not rule without law. Certainly not a benevolent dictatorship or monarch.
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So majority rule is the rule of law?  How about a lynch mob?  Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?"  slavery?  How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate.  If the duly constituted government is a democracy,  freedom is maximized.
Click to expand...


What makes a government "duly constituted?"  Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy.   You don't even know what freedom is.



PMZ said:


> Your examples are of anarchy or crime.



Nope.  Jim Crow was quite legal.  The majority approved it.  The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.



PMZ said:


> I,  frankly,  don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy),  or due process (death penalty under rule of law).



He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before my time.
> 
> I assume by SS you mean Social Security,  another huge Democrat solution that has made a real difference to the real people of America.
> 
> But,  it's not Obama's.  It's ours.  We,  the people, whose remaining wealth,  15% of the total,  some in our SS savings, you are so jealous of.
> 
> Are you going after that next as Big Brother Bush wanted to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you are 74.  That means you were born around the start of the war.  That means you were old enough to remember.  Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that I was 74.
Click to expand...


Yes you did.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You failed do define what "the rule of law means."*  Obviously, the minute you thought about it, you realized the problem is more difficult than it seems.
> 
> Democracy is not freedom.  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  It's often capricious, cruel and arbitrary.  Slavery and Jim crow were perfectly compatible with democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is referring to the *Welfare State Constitution of 1935 *which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another big fan of anarchy.
Click to expand...


So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So majority rule is the rule of law?  How about a lynch mob?  Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?"  slavery?  How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate.  If the duly constituted government is a democracy,  freedom is maximized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes a government "duly constituted?"  Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy.   You don't even know what freedom is.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples are of anarchy or crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Jim Crow was quite legal.  The majority approved it.  The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I,  frankly,  don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy),  or due process (death penalty under rule of law).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.
Click to expand...


" Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy. "

I know that your definition of freedom is unrestricted ability to impose what's best for you on me.  

In two words,  fuck you. 

Thats the power of democracy.  

You've been silent about what other form of government offers more freedom than democracy. 

When can we expect that silence to be broken?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is referring to the *Welfare State Constitution of 1935 *which REQUIRES taxpayers to obediently feed and insure the parasites and specifically forbids them from giving lip.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another big fan of anarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.
Click to expand...


More cleverness.  

Who am I enslaving?  If it's you, it's due to your choice to live here. But apparently you don't have the balls to be free and you're looking for the scapegoat that Fox offered you. 

Keep looking.  I  think that he's in the Fox monster  closet.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said you are 74.  That means you were born around the start of the war.  That means you were old enough to remember.  Well I remember when I was 3 so I would have thought you'd remember when you were 4-6years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that I was 74.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you did.
Click to expand...


Why would I lie about my age?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So majority rule is the rule of law?  How about a lynch mob?  Was Jim Crow "the rule of law?"  slavery?  How about when a majority in Athens forced Socrates to drink Hemlock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate.  If the duly constituted government is a democracy,  freedom is maximized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes a government "duly constituted?"  Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy.   You don't even know what freedom is.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples are of anarchy or crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Jim Crow was quite legal.  The majority approved it.  The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I,  frankly,  don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy),  or due process (death penalty under rule of law).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.
Click to expand...


So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.


----------



## PMZ

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars[who?] interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.

Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[15] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[16] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.

According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athensstatesmen, poets, and artisansin order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[17] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[18] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[19][20][21][22]


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that I was 74.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I lie about my age?
Click to expand...


Probably because you are a dirt bag lying POS troll.  We were talking about "jobs" you said you did industrial process improvement and are collecting SS and you were bragging about not working any more.


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another big fan of anarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cleverness.
> 
> Who am I enslaving?  If it's you, it's due to your choice to live here. But apparently you don't have the balls to be free and you're looking for the scapegoat that Fox offered you.
> 
> Keep looking.  I  think that he's in the Fox monster  closet.
Click to expand...


Violence begets violence.

.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Rule of law" by a duly constituted government is legitimate.  If the duly constituted government is a democracy,  freedom is maximized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a government "duly constituted?"  Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy.   You don't even know what freedom is.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Jim Crow was quite legal.  The majority approved it.  The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I,  frankly,  don't remember if Socrates' death was murder (a crime), revolution (anarchy),  or due process (death penalty under rule of law).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.
Click to expand...


His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community.  Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government."  A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I lie about my age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because you are a dirt bag lying POS troll.  We were talking about "jobs" you said you did industrial process improvement and are collecting SS and you were bragging about not working any more.
Click to expand...


There are lots of people who are described by your post who are not 74.

Which makes you the dirt bag lying POS troll.

Anybody surprised?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes a government "duly constituted?"  Freedom is definitely not maximized under democracy.   You don't even know what freedom is.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Jim Crow was quite legal.  The majority approved it.  The Supreme Court even ruled it as constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> He was executed for impiety by a majority vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community.  Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.  A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.
Click to expand...


How far can you run from your indefensible positions?  You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong.  What's next?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Says a big fan of tyranny and enslavement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cleverness.
> 
> Who am I enslaving?  If it's you, it's due to your choice to live here. But apparently you don't have the balls to be free and you're looking for the scapegoat that Fox offered you.
> 
> Keep looking.  I  think that he's in the Fox monster  closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violence begets violence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ignorance begets ignorance.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing we can learn from history is that organizations sometimes arise to deceive most of their own members. I think the recent betrayal of Buono in NewJersey by the Democratic party is a case in point, of that kind of behavior creeping into the mainstream partys.  As is the betrayal in Virginia of Ken Cuccineli by the Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> How do define betrayal?
Click to expand...

why?, Buono felt betrayed, isn't that good enough for you? I dont know the specifics but the Democratic party claims to represent a certain set of issues. If prominent leaders of that party endorse a Republican that is betrayal. This is especially bad in that Christy is widely talked about as a Republican presidential candidate, the national party should have poured resources into that race to defeat him. Their talking heads spent more time praising him. 


Contumacious said:


> Nope.
> Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.
> .


Hitler never had a legitimate majority. The Wiemar Republic had anti-democratic/republican "emergency rule"provisions that Hitler took advantage of, with the help of the party of Hindenburg (?) who appointed Hitler to a position (chanceler?)


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> The Republican dream for America.
> 
> 50% of Americans enslaved by non-living wages. Not even tax payers.
> 
> 40% workers.  The old American middle class. The builders of everyone's wealth.
> 
> 10% aristocracy.  The royalty that we thought we rid ourselves of in the Revolution.
> 
> Remember when America was one country?



The Democrat dream for America:

75% of Americans sitting on their butts, enslaving 24% of Americans to support them, while the other 1% sit in the government, patting themselves on the back for how "compassionate" they are.

Remember when Americans weren't lazy whiners?  No, I guess YOU wouldn't, would you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a great thing, the IRS.
> They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
> They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
> You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
> Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
> After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
> Total defense of your case was $43,000.
> Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a solution in here someplace?
> 
> Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.
Click to expand...


Democrat definition of "solution" - I SAY it will solve things, and my good intentions will be enough.

Of course, the Democrat definition of "smart person" is PMS here, so I guess it's not hard to understand.


----------



## Cecilie1200

itfitzme said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Having problems with police alot, eh!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never had the police try and collect taxes from me - have you?
> 
> Most armed robbers have coats that read "IRS" on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?
> 
> That would make you what?  Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...
Click to expand...


Duh, ass clown.  Are you really so piss-stupid that you can't make the connection between your "you must be a criminal who was arrested by armed people for tax crimes" to "taxes are collected by force", or is it just that you think everyone ELSE is piss-stupid enough to fall for this disingenuous horseshit?

People don't pay their taxes out of an altruistic desire for "the greater good", particularly when that "greater good" is defined for them by politicians and the drooling neckbeards like you to whom they pander.  They pay them because to NOT do so would make them subject to arrest and criminal prosecution - in other words, to dumb it down to your level, the government collects taxes at the point of the guns that will be used to arrest you otherwise.

Adjust your dunce cap a little, Junior.  The point's crooked.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars[who?] interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.
> 
> Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[15] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[16] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.
> 
> According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athensstatesmen, poets, and artisansin order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[17] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[18] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[19][20][21][22]



Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler never had a legitimate majority.
Click to expand...


Clinton also never had a majority.  Apparently, according to you, that means he wasn't elected democratically.



dcraelin said:


> The Wiemar Republic had anti-democratic/republican "emergency rule"provisions that Hitler took advantage of, with the help of the party of Hindenburg (?) who appointed Hitler to a position (chanceler?)



How could they be "anti-democratic" when they were approved by a majority vote?  We also have similar provisions in our Federal code, in case you weren't aware of it.   As far as being appointed goes, Many government posts are by appointment, like the Supreme Court.  Does that mean they gain office democratically?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it was the death penalty under rule of law enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community.  Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.  A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far can you run from your indefensible positions?  You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong.  What's next?
Click to expand...


What "indefensible position?"  Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed?  Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican dream for America.
> 
> 50% of Americans enslaved by non-living wages. Not even tax payers.
> 
> 40% workers.  The old American middle class. The builders of everyone's wealth.
> 
> 10% aristocracy.  The royalty that we thought we rid ourselves of in the Revolution.
> 
> Remember when America was one country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat dream for America:
> 
> 75% of Americans sitting on their butts, enslaving 24% of Americans to support them, while the other 1% sit in the government, patting themselves on the back for how "compassionate" they are.
> 
> Remember when Americans weren't lazy whiners?  No, I guess YOU wouldn't, would you?
Click to expand...


Why do you live here? 

The people that I hear whine are you and your friends.  You have 85% of the wealth but whine incessantly about the 15% that you don't have. 

You don't want to pay a living wage for full time work but you expect those that you put in that position to die uncomplainingly in the streets. You want the choice of not being responsible for the cost of your own health care. You want to live in lavish comfort and pay others to do your work. You want to impose what's best for your minority on the majority.  You deny democracy.  The policies that you put into effect when you lied and obtained power rejected a debt free America and ran up $17T in debt.  You poisoned a large part of the world with hate and holy wars.  

We have learned who you are and how inept you are at governance.  Never again.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> Read world history and find out why the Germans ELECTED Adolf to power and why it was so easy to become a dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler never had a legitimate majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton also never had a majority.  Apparently, according to you, that means he wasn't elected democratically.
Click to expand...

That was a different situation. Hitler was appointed, then I believe he also assumed other offices unconsitutionaly.  Clinton got a majority of the electoral college. (I would like to see IRV in states for presidential elections. ) Contumacious's reply didnt go to my point that some partys are principally designed to mislead their followers. 


bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Wiemar Republic had anti-democratic/republican "emergency rule"provisions that Hitler took advantage of, with the help of the party of Hindenburg (?) who appointed Hitler to a position (chanceler?)
> 
> 
> 
> How could they be "anti-democratic" when they were approved by a majority vote?  We also have similar provisions in our Federal code, in case you weren't aware of it.   As far as being appointed goes, Many government posts are by appointment, like the Supreme Court.  Does that mean they gain office democratically?
Click to expand...

who says they were approved with a majority vote?  If so they strayed from logic and trust in a democratic/republican system. I do not believe we have similar provisions in our Federal code.    I would say appointment of Supreme Court justices does violate a strict idea of pure republicanism and I have said elsewhere on this board I like the Articles of Confederation method better, but I would say a Democracy/Republic can encompass such appointments in a broad sense if legislative sovereignty remains with the people.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a great thing, the IRS.
> They can fuck up your return and claim you owe a certain amount of back taxes of $117,000.
> They come and change the locks on the doors of your business, they freeze all your bank accounts and the checks you wrote your vendors and employees all bounce. Your employees lose their jobs.
> You have to hire a legal team of CPA's to first audit your books AGAIN and prove your innocence as Tax Court in America is IRS does not have to prove your guilt, you have to prove your books are right.
> Your lawyer and accountant cost $22,000 preparing your defense and 9 months after your business has gone bankrupt you get your day in "court".
> After 3 days it is determined the IRS was in error and you owe $122.
> Total defense of your case was $43,000.
> Normal day in tax court and this happens thousands of times a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a solution in here someplace?
> 
> Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrat definition of "solution" - I SAY it will solve things, and my good intentions will be enough.
> 
> Of course, the Democrat definition of "smart person" is PMS here, so I guess it's not hard to understand.
Click to expand...


The Republican definition of smart people are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here is a list of their accomplishments.  








The Democratic definition of solutions is the country now vs 2009.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never had the police try and collect taxes from me - have you?
> 
> Most armed robbers have coats that read "IRS" on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've been guilty of some complex financial crime, such as tax evasion, money laundering, narcotics, public corruption, or other such crime that had armed IRS agents arresting you at gun point?
> 
> That would make you what?  Oh, a criminal..... So you are saying that your a criminal, eh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, ass clown.  Are you really so piss-stupid that you can't make the connection between your "you must be a criminal who was arrested by armed people for tax crimes" to "taxes are collected by force", or is it just that you think everyone ELSE is piss-stupid enough to fall for this disingenuous horseshit?
> 
> People don't pay their taxes out of an altruistic desire for "the greater good", particularly when that "greater good" is defined for them by politicians and the drooling neckbeards like you to whom they pander.  They pay them because to NOT do so would make them subject to arrest and criminal prosecution - in other words, to dumb it down to your level, the government collects taxes at the point of the guns that will be used to arrest you otherwise.
> 
> Adjust your dunce cap a little, Junior.  The point's crooked.
Click to expand...


If you don't want to pay the cost of living in America why are you living in America?  Go pay the taxes in a better run country. You are not doing America any favors with your whiney presence.  Just manage your life and solve your problem.  Your problem is not ours. 

Grow a pair you sniveling coward.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy, and some scholars[who?] interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.
> 
> Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[15] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[16] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.
> 
> According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athensstatesmen, poets, and artisansin order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[17] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[18] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[19][20][21][22]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?
Click to expand...


Unlike you,  I let people arrive at their own conclusions.  Not surprisingly,  you are unable to deal with that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His only real "crime" was irritating powerful members of the community.  Apparently you also agree that Jim Crow is the rule of law "enforced by a duly constituted democratically elected government.  A lynch mob is just as legitimate as the execution of Socrates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you run from your indefensible positions?  You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong.  What's next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "indefensible position?"  Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed?  Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.
Click to expand...


The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy.  Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you,  I let people arrive at their own conclusions.  Not surprisingly,  you are unable to deal with that.
Click to expand...


I'll take that as a "yes," you do believe Socrates deserved to be executed.

You are fascist to the bone.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far can you run from your indefensible positions?  You've gone from wrong to desperately wrong.  What's next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "indefensible position?"  Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed?  Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy.  Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.
Click to expand...


"Anarchy" means non rule.  It's the very definition of freedom.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a solution in here someplace?
> 
> Oh,  that's right.  You're a Republican.  You don't do solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat definition of "solution" - I SAY it will solve things, and my good intentions will be enough.
> 
> Of course, the Democrat definition of "smart person" is PMS here, so I guess it's not hard to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican definition of smart people are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Here is a list of their accomplishments.
Click to expand...


They have both achieved quite a lot, you lying piece of shit.  They have certainly achieved far more than your pathetic career.



PMZ said:


> The Democratic definition of solutions is the country now vs 2009.



After 80 years of Democrat "solutions" the country is on the verge of collapse.  Please spare us any more of your problem solving.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually trying to prove that Socrates deserved to be executed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you,  I let people arrive at their own conclusions.  Not surprisingly,  you are unable to deal with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a "yes," you do believe Socrates deserved to be executed.
> 
> You are fascist to the bone.
Click to expand...


How you take says something about you,  nothing about me.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "indefensible position?"  Are you saying Socrates deserved to be executed?  Perhaps you also believe all those Nigras in the South deserve to be lynched.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy.  Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Anarchy" means non rule.  It's the very definition of freedom.
Click to expand...


It means rule by the guy with the biggest club.  It's how wildlife lives.  If that floats your boat,  have at it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indefensible position of minority rule creating more freedom than democracy.  Even more bizarre the indefensible position that anarchy enhances freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Anarchy" means non rule.  It's the very definition of freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means rule by the guy with the biggest club.  It's how wildlife lives.  If that floats your boat,  have at it.
Click to expand...


No, that's what we have now, rule by the guy or group with the biggest club.  Anarchy is non rule.  It means people minding their own business.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you,  I let people arrive at their own conclusions.  Not surprisingly,  you are unable to deal with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a "yes," you do believe Socrates deserved to be executed.
> 
> You are fascist to the bone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How you take says something about you,  nothing about me.
Click to expand...


Everything else you have posted indicates all I need to know about you, and believing Socrates deserved to be executed is perfectly in line with your character.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Anarchy" means non rule.  It's the very definition of freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means rule by the guy with the biggest club.  It's how wildlife lives.  If that floats your boat,  have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's what we have now, rule by the guy or group with the biggest club.  Anarchy is non rule.  It means people minding their own business.
Click to expand...


Why,  exactly should Fred mind his own business when he can smash in your head with his biggest club and steal your daughter?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means rule by the guy with the biggest club.  It's how wildlife lives.  If that floats your boat,  have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what we have now, rule by the guy or group with the biggest club.  Anarchy is non rule.  It means people minding their own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why,  exactly should Fred mind his own business when he can smash in your head with his biggest club and steal your daughter?
Click to expand...


So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists.  That explains your fascist attitude about government.  Fred is going to mind his own business because he knows that most people have families who are going to hound him to his grave if he murders one of their offspring or siblings.  That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what we have now, rule by the guy or group with the biggest club.  Anarchy is non rule.  It means people minding their own business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why,  exactly should Fred mind his own business when he can smash in your head with his biggest club and steal your daughter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists.  That explains your fascist attitude about government.  Fred is going to mind his own business because he knows that most people have families who are going to hound him to his grave if he murders one of their offspring or siblings.  That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives.
Click to expand...


"So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists."

There's no doubt about it. 

"That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives."

What planet are you from?


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why,  exactly should Fred mind his own business when he can smash in your head with his biggest club and steal your daughter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists.  That explains your fascist attitude about government.  Fred is going to mind his own business because he knows that most people have families who are going to hound him to his grave if he murders one of their offspring or siblings.  That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists."
> 
> *There's no doubt about it.*
> 
> "That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives."
> 
> What planet are you from?
Click to expand...


Wow, just wow.

I would have taken what bripat said as a mischaracterization by using obviously super extreme examples to paint with a broad stroke but here you are admitting that you actually believe something so absolutely asinine.

If people were inherently bad then we would have never made it this far.  The fact is that people are inherently social animals and are mostly good when left to their own devices.  It is outright scary that we actually have people that hold a view like what you just admitted to having.  What is it like living in continuous fear of your neighbor to the point that you need nanny state government to keep you safe at night?


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists.  That explains your fascist attitude about government.  Fred is going to mind his own business because he knows that most people have families who are going to hound him to his grave if he murders one of their offspring or siblings.  That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists."
> 
> *There's no doubt about it.*
> 
> "That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives."
> 
> What planet are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> I would have taken what bripat said as a mischaracterization by using obviously super extreme examples to paint with a broad stroke but here you are admitting that you actually believe something so absolutely asinine.
> 
> If people were inherently bad then we would have never made it this far.  The fact is that people are inherently social animals and are mostly good when left to their own devices.  It is outright scary that we actually have people that hold a view like what you just admitted to having.  What is it like living in continuous fear of your neighbor to the point that you need nanny state government to keep you safe at night?
Click to expand...


We spend a huge amounts of money on laws specifying responsible behavior and law enforcement and adjudication.  Yet we still have significant crime.  

Yet you say with no laws and no law enforcement and adjudication, people we now define as criminals would become honest,  upstanding citizens. 

I,  honestly,  had no idea delusion ran this deep.  

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.


----------



## PMZ

Next we'll hear that the Taliban are just misunderstood.  If we just helped them feel better about themselves their insecurity would go away and with a nice hug we could convert them to loving us. 

This from conservatives who recommend a new war every week. 

The word 'delusional'  is way too weak.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So you think your neighbors are homicidal maniacs and rapists."
> 
> *There's no doubt about it.*
> 
> "That's why people didn't kill each other before the state took over running our lives."
> 
> What planet are you from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> I would have taken what bripat said as a mischaracterization by using obviously super extreme examples to paint with a broad stroke but here you are admitting that you actually believe something so absolutely asinine.
> 
> If people were inherently bad then we would have never made it this far.  The fact is that people are inherently social animals and are mostly good when left to their own devices.  It is outright scary that we actually have people that hold a view like what you just admitted to having.  What is it like living in continuous fear of your neighbor to the point that you need nanny state government to keep you safe at night?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We spend a huge amounts of money on laws specifying responsible behavior and law enforcement and adjudication.  Yet we still have significant crime.
> 
> Yet you say with no laws and no law enforcement and adjudication, people we now define as criminals would become honest,  upstanding citizens.
> 
> I,  honestly,  had no idea delusion ran this deep.
> 
> Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
Click to expand...

No, I didnt say that at all now did I.  The delusion is all on your side of the isle my friend.  I can easily construct a bomb tomorrow and kill a hundred people without much effort on my part.  I have easy access to the materials needed and they are readily available to many other people.  They are not monitored or controlled.  I even think that I would not get caught.  It is not the jail time that stops me from doing so.  The real barrier is that the very concept is horrific.

You stated it yourself as well, we STILL have crime.  That is a fact.  Obviously those so called laws are not doing much in the way of stopping the criminals either.  Incarceration is really what makes the difference  the criminals are removed.  The real number that you are missing though is the simple fact that you point out significant crime when, in fact, crime is EXTREMELY low.  There are 308,745,538 people in this nation.  Thats 308 MILLION!  
2010 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only 2,418,352 are in prison (2008):
Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many of those did not even commit a crime in all honesty as they are there on drug charges that do not have a victim.  Even at worst case, you are looking at around 2 percent of people are criminals.  That number is a LOT lower when you are considering just rape and murder but I will take your comment as symbolic of almost all crimes for the moment.  To call your neighbors rapists and murderers is not only a leap in logic  it is completely schizophrenic.


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow.
> 
> I would have taken what bripat said as a mischaracterization by using obviously super extreme examples to paint with a broad stroke but here you are admitting that you actually believe something so absolutely asinine.
> 
> If people were inherently bad then we would have never made it this far.  The fact is that people are inherently social animals and are mostly good when left to their own devices.  It is outright scary that we actually have people that hold a view like what you just admitted to having.  What is it like living in continuous fear of your neighbor to the point that you need nanny state government to keep you safe at night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We spend a huge amounts of money on laws specifying responsible behavior and law enforcement and adjudication.  Yet we still have significant crime.
> 
> Yet you say with no laws and no law enforcement and adjudication, people we now define as criminals would become honest,  upstanding citizens.
> 
> I,  honestly,  had no idea delusion ran this deep.
> 
> Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I didnt say that at all now did I.  The delusion is all on your side of the isle my friend.  I can easily construct a bomb tomorrow and kill a hundred people without much effort on my part.  I have easy access to the materials needed and they are readily available to many other people.  They are not monitored or controlled.  I even think that I would not get caught.  It is not the jail time that stops me from doing so.  The real barrier is that the very concept is horrific.
> 
> You stated it yourself as well, we STILL have crime.  That is a fact.  Obviously those so called laws are not doing much in the way of stopping the criminals either.  Incarceration is really what makes the difference  the criminals are removed.  The real number that you are missing though is the simple fact that you point out significant crime when, in fact, crime is EXTREMELY low.  There are 308,745,538 people in this nation.  Thats 308 MILLION!
> 2010 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Only 2,418,352 are in prison (2008):
> Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Many of those did not even commit a crime in all honesty as they are there on drug charges that do not have a victim.  Even at worst case, you are looking at around 2 percent of people are criminals.  That number is a LOT lower when you are considering just rape and murder but I will take your comment as symbolic of almost all crimes for the moment.  To call your neighbors rapists and murderers is not only a leap in logic  it is completely schizophrenic.
Click to expand...


Did you forget that Rotweiner was campaigning for anarchy?  No government.  No laws.  No law enforcement.  The law of the jungle only.  Only the strongest survive. The place that mankind chose to leave thousands of years ago. 

The life of gorillas and monkeys.  

That's what he thinks of the human race.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend a huge amounts of money on laws specifying responsible behavior and law enforcement and adjudication.  Yet we still have significant crime.
> 
> Yet you say with no laws and no law enforcement and adjudication, people we now define as criminals would become honest,  upstanding citizens.
> 
> I,  honestly,  had no idea delusion ran this deep.
> 
> Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didnt say that at all now did I.  The delusion is all on your side of the isle my friend.  I can easily construct a bomb tomorrow and kill a hundred people without much effort on my part.  I have easy access to the materials needed and they are readily available to many other people.  They are not monitored or controlled.  I even think that I would not get caught.  It is not the jail time that stops me from doing so.  The real barrier is that the very concept is horrific.
> 
> You stated it yourself as well, we STILL have crime.  That is a fact.  Obviously those so called laws are not doing much in the way of stopping the criminals either.  Incarceration is really what makes the difference  the criminals are removed.  The real number that you are missing though is the simple fact that you point out significant crime when, in fact, crime is EXTREMELY low.  There are 308,745,538 people in this nation.  Thats 308 MILLION!
> 2010 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Only 2,418,352 are in prison (2008):
> Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Many of those did not even commit a crime in all honesty as they are there on drug charges that do not have a victim.  Even at worst case, you are looking at around 2 percent of people are criminals.  That number is a LOT lower when you are considering just rape and murder but I will take your comment as symbolic of almost all crimes for the moment.  To call your neighbors rapists and murderers is not only a leap in logic  it is completely schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget that Rotweiner was campaigning for anarchy?  No government.  No laws.  No law enforcement.  The law of the jungle only.  Only the strongest survive. The place that mankind chose to leave thousands of years ago.
> 
> The life of gorillas and monkeys.
> 
> That's what he thinks of the human race.
Click to expand...


You are nothing but a little cry baby lying POS authoritarian socialist.  You are incapable of telling the truth on any subject.  Burn in hell.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didnt say that at all now did I.  The delusion is all on your side of the isle my friend.  I can easily construct a bomb tomorrow and kill a hundred people without much effort on my part.  I have easy access to the materials needed and they are readily available to many other people.  They are not monitored or controlled.  I even think that I would not get caught.  It is not the jail time that stops me from doing so.  The real barrier is that the very concept is horrific.
> 
> You stated it yourself as well, we STILL have crime.  That is a fact.  Obviously those so called laws are not doing much in the way of stopping the criminals either.  Incarceration is really what makes the difference  the criminals are removed.  The real number that you are missing though is the simple fact that you point out significant crime when, in fact, crime is EXTREMELY low.  There are 308,745,538 people in this nation.  Thats 308 MILLION!
> 2010 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Only 2,418,352 are in prison (2008):
> Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Many of those did not even commit a crime in all honesty as they are there on drug charges that do not have a victim.  Even at worst case, you are looking at around 2 percent of people are criminals.  That number is a LOT lower when you are considering just rape and murder but I will take your comment as symbolic of almost all crimes for the moment.  To call your neighbors rapists and murderers is not only a leap in logic  it is completely schizophrenic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget that Rotweiner was campaigning for anarchy?  No government.  No laws.  No law enforcement.  The law of the jungle only.  Only the strongest survive. The place that mankind chose to leave thousands of years ago.
> 
> The life of gorillas and monkeys.
> 
> That's what he thinks of the human race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are nothing but a little cry baby lying POS authoritarian socialist.  You are incapable of telling the truth on any subject.  Burn in hell.
Click to expand...


I saw the movie tonight '12 Years As a Slave'.  It showed very well your dixiecrat ancestors.  You must be so proud.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Next we'll hear that the Taliban are just misunderstood.  If we just helped them feel better about themselves their insecurity would go away and with a nice hug we could convert them to loving us.
> 
> This from conservatives who recommend a new war every week.
> 
> The word 'delusional'  is way too weak.



LOL, we started negotiating with the Taliban the minute we toppled them from power. Same with the current Afghan government and the Pakistanis.
You seek to make peace with your enemies as you do not have to with your friends.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next we'll hear that the Taliban are just misunderstood.  If we just helped them feel better about themselves their insecurity would go away and with a nice hug we could convert them to loving us.
> 
> This from conservatives who recommend a new war every week.
> 
> The word 'delusional'  is way too weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, we started negotiating with the Taliban the minute we toppled them from power. Same with the current Afghan government and the Pakistanis.
> You seek to make peace with your enemies as you do not have to with your friends.
Click to expand...


The advantage of having more than half of the military in the world is that it's seen as the biggest club during negotiations.


----------



## PMZ

One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us. 

Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?


----------



## Contumacious

PMZ said:


> One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.



We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us. 

Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?

.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?



By definition, an anarchist doesn't want to impose anything on anyone.  He simply wants to be left alone.  You view not being able to impose your massive taxes and government regulations on others as an imposition on your freedom.  Your attitude is purely fascist.

As someone else already posted, why would anyone want a commie like you in the government?


----------



## PMZ

Contumacious said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists. 

Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country. 

Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it. 

Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males. 

Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less 

Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more. 

Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas. 

Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
Click to expand...


How many threads are you gonna post that tripe in?


----------



## PMZ

As many as I want to.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many threads are you gonna post that tripe in?
Click to expand...


Being called a Nazi by everyone in the forum is making him touchy.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many threads are you gonna post that tripe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being called a Nazi by everyone in the forum is making him touchy.
Click to expand...


Call me whatever you want.  What you say reflects you,  not me.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many threads are you gonna post that tripe in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being called a Nazi by everyone in the forum is making him touchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me whatever you want.  What you say reflects you,  not me.
Click to expand...


Yeah he's smart and you are dumb?


----------



## healthmyths

BallsBrunswick said:


> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.



"Tax Loopholes"  Here they are.  You ready to abolish them???

The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider 


$171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!!

$138 billion for employees  pensions!

$87 billion employees mortgage interest deductions

$24 billion for child care credit

$33 billion charitable contributions

$27 billion deductions of health care items

$66 billion capital gains (Obama took $122,000 off his taxes from this!)

NOTICE that 1, 2, 3,4,5 items are for individuals... i.e. employee insurance ..deduction... employee pensions.. etc...


----------



## PMZ

healthmyths said:


> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Tax Loopholes"  Here they are.  You ready to abolish them???
> 
> The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider
> 
> 
> $171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!!
> 
> $138 billion for employees  pensions!
> 
> $87 billion employees mortgage interest deductions
> 
> $24 billion for child care credit
> 
> $33 billion charitable contributions
> 
> $27 billion deductions of health care items
> 
> $66 billion capital gains (Obama took $122,000 off his taxes from this!)
> 
> NOTICE that 1, 2, 3,4,5 items are for individuals... i.e. employee insurance ..deduction... employee pensions.. etc...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BallsBrunswick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Tax Loopholes"  Here they are.  You ready to abolish them???
> 
> The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider
> 
> 
> $171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!!
> 
> $138 billion for employees  pensions!
> 
> $87 billion employees mortgage interest deductions
> 
> $24 billion for child care credit
> 
> $33 billion charitable contributions
> 
> $27 billion deductions of health care items
> 
> $66 billion capital gains (Obama took $122,000 off his taxes from this!)
> 
> NOTICE that 1, 2, 3,4,5 items are for individuals... i.e. employee insurance ..deduction... employee pensions.. etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
Click to expand...


Blind squirrel could find it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Tax Loopholes"  Here they are.  You ready to abolish them???
> 
> The Top 20 Tax Expenditures - Business Insider
> 
> 
> $171 billion in 2012 was deducted from taxes for... health insurance for EMPLOYEES!!
> 
> $138 billion for employees  pensions!
> 
> $87 billion employees mortgage interest deductions
> 
> $24 billion for child care credit
> 
> $33 billion charitable contributions
> 
> $27 billion deductions of health care items
> 
> $66 billion capital gains (Obama took $122,000 off his taxes from this!)
> 
> NOTICE that 1, 2, 3,4,5 items are for individuals... i.e. employee insurance ..deduction... employee pensions.. etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blind squirrel could find it.
Click to expand...


Maybe.  But apparently you can't explain it.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
Click to expand...


You can not define yourself so you label others.


----------



## kkline99

I just want to be left alone, as long as somebody else supports me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat is in charge of closet monsters.  He has quite a stable full.  He rents them to conservatives who use them to keep the conversation on problems,  their specialty,  and away from solutions, as they offer none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and if no one's allowed to have them . . . criminals will STILL have them.  It's like they don't pay attention to what they're allowed to do, or something.  

I'd love to hear some of these "effective gun control success stories".  Do tell.

You "don't see" a problem with criminals with guns to anyone but other criminals, huh?  Perhaps if you stopped staring at your own belly button, leftist, and took a gander at the real world around you once in a while.  Why don't you tell us how you "know" that only criminals have to worry about armed criminals, hmm?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not define yourself so you label others.
Click to expand...


Want to debate any of those things?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are not many success stories around the world with forearms controls.  The reality is that there are very few examples of such success stories.  Almost all gun control laws are outright failures in curving the homicide rate down (which is the entire point of gun control: fewer people unjustly killed).
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, here we go again.
> 
> Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.  For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it.  For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands.  I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.
> 
> All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts.  I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand.  Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.
> 
> First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides.  Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything.  That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic.  I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant.  If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress.  Rather, we regressed and are worse off.  The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes.  That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.
> 
> 
> Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries.   Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless.  Why, you ask.  Well, that's simple.  Scientific data requires that we control for other variables.  Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference.  Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for.  That is utterly impossible.  Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this.  How do we overcome this?  Also, simple.  You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed.  We can do that here and in Brittan.
> Gun Control - Just Facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the homicide rate remain flat for almost a decade after such laws are passed with a spike up after.  Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban.  Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here.  As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased.  Form the caption:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton.  Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered.  Seems we are developing a pattern here.  At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.
> 
> 
> Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws.  If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up).  Does that happen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess not.  The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average.  In Texas we get a similar result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:
> 
> 
> Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false.  Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric.  If you have information that states otherwise then please post it.  I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths.  I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information.  Try reading it, it will enlighten you.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts.  I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact.  So far, I have received nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually,  all of those accidently killed by firearms are also unjustly killed.
Click to expand...


This post was a fail so epic, it ruptured the fabric of space and time with the sheer force of its fucktardery.  

You are now the hero of epic failure to all aspiring epic fails to come.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I just asked you for your solution and provided a link to the question, and you offered none...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and if no one's allowed to have them . . . criminals will STILL have them.  It's like they don't pay attention to what they're allowed to do, or something.
> 
> I'd love to hear some of these "effective gun control success stories".  Do tell.
> 
> You "don't see" a problem with criminals with guns to anyone but other criminals, huh?  Perhaps if you stopped staring at your own belly button, leftist, and took a gander at the real world around you once in a while.  Why don't you tell us how you "know" that only criminals have to worry about armed criminals, hmm?
Click to expand...


I've lived a long time without being armed with out a single problem.  I have many friends who've had the same experience.  Yet I hear from folks like you that there's apparently a war going on.  

Personally I think my odds of being shot by accident is greater than by crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If NO ONE can have them legally then criminals will still have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there'd be a whole lot fewer accidental killings.
Click to expand...


Traded off for a whole lot more deliberate violence.  How about not?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> That's why I'm a centrist.  I think that both Nazis and Communists are dysfunctional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about as "centrist" as Pol Pot.  Kennedy and Johnson also thought the communists were our biggest enemy.  Being anti-communist doesn't make you a right-winger.  If it did, then that would mean all the left-wingers in this country are pro-communist.  Is that really what you want us to believe?
> 
> Nazis believed in big government, just like you. Nazis believed businesses existed to serve government purposes, just like you.  Nazis believed your net income was a gift from the government, just like you.  Nazis believed in socialized medicine, just like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
Click to expand...


No, actually, that would be YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> 
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me like you went wrong at the point where you mistakenly believed you were thinking.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis believed they were entitled to impose their delusions on the rest of the world,  by any means,  just like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, our demands that you do not impose on us is a "delusion". You have a right to enslave us?
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility.  We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government.
> 
> You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.
Click to expand...


Whatever meds they have you on, they're not strong enough.  Look into that.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there are not many success stories around the world with forearms controls.  The reality is that there are very few examples of such success stories.  Almost all gun control laws are outright failures in curving the homicide rate down (which is the entire point of gun control: fewer people unjustly killed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually,  all of those accidently killed by firearms are also unjustly killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post was a fail so epic, it ruptured the fabric of space and time with the sheer force of its fucktardery.
> 
> You are now the hero of epic failure to all aspiring epic fails to come.
Click to expand...


Actually,  all of those accidently killed by firearms are also unjustly killed.

You are arguing with this statement?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can not define yourself so you label others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to debate any of those things?
Click to expand...


You are admittedly not a conservative so paragraph 1-5 is opinion only
As a conservative this is what *I* believe:
No one has trained me to question science and I do not accept mythology
No one has trained me to believe spending is the only cause of debt but controlling spending lowers the debt.
I do not support unemployment as good under any situation
I work hard and do not care if others do as that is there business. It is none of your business what I make and it is none of business what you make. You need to mind your own business and stay out of what others make. I make no assumptions of what others make. I do not care if you are wealthy or not as that is not any of my business. If you are I do not label you as evil because you have wealth.
No one has trained me to believe your claims on what wealthy people have or do not have
No one has trained me to believe your claims that the decline of America is from anything 
No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their national origin as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype others including their national origin.
No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their religion as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype people of other religions I do not know
No has trained me to stereotype women, gays, whatever.
As a conservative I oppose the power of government to decide who gets an abortion and who does not and leave that health decision to the mother. You support the power of government.
As a conservative I supported open service for gays and lesbians in the military while you and the Democrats supported kicking them out under Don't Ask Don't Tell which was a Democratic policy under Clinton. Who trained you to be a supporter of discrimination?
As a conservative I supported gay marriage when the Democrats and Obama opposed it. Who trained you to discriminate against gays?
As a conservative I opposed preachers named Robertson and Jackson running for President. You supported the Democrats and Jackson won 9 primaries and received millions of votes. Who trained you to oppose separation of church and state?
As a conservative I support the 2nd Amendment. Who trained you to believe that has been amended? 
As a conservative I support women's rights. Who trained you to believe that is was not Republicans that fought for women to vote and Democrats never opposed it?
Stick to what you know and what you support and believe because you are way off base with your silly crystal ball attempting to label others you do not know and have no clue what their beliefs are.
It is obvious you were trained to be an elitist snob. That clearly stands out for you.
I bet top dollar there is a long list of folks that have called you that to your face.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No,  we have a right to be free of your irresponsibility. * We can't afford it, being only one of a long list of reasons.  We are the most free people to ever walk the planet thanks to a strong government.
> 
> You've chosen the wrong market to sell your boogeyman in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let me guess, you and your ilk get to define "irresponsibility.". If we refuse to feed and insure your ass we are being "irresponsible".
> 
> Just so you know violence begets violence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We define responsibility as not imposing what's best for you, on others.  The purpose of the rule of law.
> 
> Most of us live inherently responsible lives.  We are not affected by the rule of law. Those that don't,  criminals that break our laws,  get an "extra"  lesson in the meaning of responsibility.
Click to expand...


No, Chuckles, you define responsibility as "passing laws telling people what's best for them, and then calling them unpatriotic anarchists if they think your ideas are asinine".  The purpose of the rule of law is NOT for you to pervert the law to control every aspect of people's lives.  And don't even try to feed me that bullshit about how it's the right that does that; the right isn't out there, passing laws about how big a fountain drink someone can buy.  The right isn't out there, telling people that the insurance plans they chose for themselves weren't good enough, and because they were too damned stupid to choose something suitable, they're going to "fix" the "problem" for them, and why aren't you thanking us for sharing our wisdom?  The right doesn't tell people how to run the businesses they themselves built and funded.  The right doesn't tell people how to raise and educate their children.  And the right doesn't think that thoughts, beliefs, and opinions should be punishable by law.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can not define yourself so you label others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to debate any of those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are admittedly not a conservative so paragraph 1-5 is opinion only
> As a conservative this is what *I* believe:
> No one has trained me to question science and I do not accept mythology
> No one has trained me to believe spending is the only cause of debt but controlling spending lowers the debt.
> I do not support unemployment as good under any situation
> I work hard and do not care if others do as that is there business. It is none of your business what I make and it is none of business what you make. You need to mind your own business and stay out of what others make. I make no assumptions of what others make. I do not care if you are wealthy or not as that is not any of my business. If you are I do not label you as evil because you have wealth.
> No one has trained me to believe your claims on what wealthy people have or do not have
> No one has trained me to believe your claims that the decline of America is from anything
> No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their national origin as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype others including their national origin.
> No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their religion as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype people of other religions I do not know
> No has trained me to stereotype women, gays, whatever.
> As a conservative I oppose the power of government to decide who gets an abortion and who does not and leave that health decision to the mother. You support the power of government.
> As a conservative I supported open service for gays and lesbians in the military while you and the Democrats supported kicking them out under Don't Ask Don't Tell which was a Democratic policy under Clinton. Who trained you to be a supporter of discrimination?
> As a conservative I supported gay marriage when the Democrats and Obama opposed it. Who trained you to discriminate against gays?
> As a conservative I opposed preachers named Robertson and Jackson running for President. You supported the Democrats and Jackson won 9 primaries and received millions of votes. Who trained you to oppose separation of church and state?
> As a conservative I support the 2nd Amendment. Who trained you to believe that has been amended?
> As a conservative I support women's rights. Who trained you to believe that is was not Republicans that fought for women to vote and Democrats never opposed it?
> Stick to what you know and what you support and believe because you are way off base with your silly crystal ball attempting to label others you do not know and have no clue what their beliefs are.
> It is obvious you were trained to be an elitist snob. That clearly stands out for you.
> I bet top dollar there is a long list of folks that have called you that to your face.
Click to expand...


Good news. You're not a conservative.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The delusion that small,  weak government will make us free.
> 
> We are free.  You,  not so much.  You're not even free to think for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I free to choose the health insurance I want to buy?  Am I free to choose how to fund my retirement?  Am I free but whatever products I want to buy?  If I have a business, am I free to pay my employees what I want to pay them?
> 
> We're all about as free as inmates in a penitentiary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not free to pass the cost of maintaining your sorry,  lazy ass on to others.
Click to expand...


. . . says the staunch advocate for every leftist giveaway "charity" program to come down the pike.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to debate any of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are admittedly not a conservative so paragraph 1-5 is opinion only
> As a conservative this is what *I* believe:
> No one has trained me to question science and I do not accept mythology
> No one has trained me to believe spending is the only cause of debt but controlling spending lowers the debt.
> I do not support unemployment as good under any situation
> I work hard and do not care if others do as that is there business. It is none of your business what I make and it is none of business what you make. You need to mind your own business and stay out of what others make. I make no assumptions of what others make. I do not care if you are wealthy or not as that is not any of my business. If you are I do not label you as evil because you have wealth.
> No one has trained me to believe your claims on what wealthy people have or do not have
> No one has trained me to believe your claims that the decline of America is from anything
> No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their national origin as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype others including their national origin.
> No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their religion as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype people of other religions I do not know
> No has trained me to stereotype women, gays, whatever.
> As a conservative I oppose the power of government to decide who gets an abortion and who does not and leave that health decision to the mother. You support the power of government.
> As a conservative I supported open service for gays and lesbians in the military while you and the Democrats supported kicking them out under Don't Ask Don't Tell which was a Democratic policy under Clinton. Who trained you to be a supporter of discrimination?
> As a conservative I supported gay marriage when the Democrats and Obama opposed it. Who trained you to discriminate against gays?
> As a conservative I opposed preachers named Robertson and Jackson running for President. You supported the Democrats and Jackson won 9 primaries and received millions of votes. Who trained you to oppose separation of church and state?
> As a conservative I support the 2nd Amendment. Who trained you to believe that has been amended?
> As a conservative I support women's rights. Who trained you to believe that is was not Republicans that fought for women to vote and Democrats never opposed it?
> Stick to what you know and what you support and believe because you are way off base with your silly crystal ball attempting to label others you do not know and have no clue what their beliefs are.
> It is obvious you were trained to be an elitist snob. That clearly stands out for you.
> I bet top dollar there is a long list of folks that have called you that to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good news. You're not a conservative.
Click to expand...


LOL, you just do not get it. You ARE an elitist snob.
I am a strong fiscal conservative. 
Those of us in small business for 35 years have to be to survive.
Conservatism is for less government.
You can not define yourself so you label others.
Just like an old women coming and asking someone for their opinion on something and then telling them they are wrong for having that opinion.
You need to get out in the real world where we are risking every penny we have running our businesses in an increasingly anti business climate in this country. Higher taxes, government mandates, rules, regulations and a growing class of citizens that believe they have a right to a job.


----------



## Gadawg73

"you believe this so that makes you that"
The arrogance of some people.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We spend a huge amounts of money on laws specifying responsible behavior and law enforcement and adjudication.  Yet we still have significant crime.
> 
> Yet you say with no laws and no law enforcement and adjudication, people we now define as criminals would become honest,  upstanding citizens.
> 
> I,  honestly,  had no idea delusion ran this deep.
> 
> Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didnt say that at all now did I.  The delusion is all on your side of the isle my friend.  I can easily construct a bomb tomorrow and kill a hundred people without much effort on my part.  I have easy access to the materials needed and they are readily available to many other people.  They are not monitored or controlled.  I even think that I would not get caught.  It is not the jail time that stops me from doing so.  The real barrier is that the very concept is horrific.
> 
> You stated it yourself as well, we STILL have crime.  That is a fact.  Obviously those so called laws are not doing much in the way of stopping the criminals either.  Incarceration is really what makes the difference  the criminals are removed.  The real number that you are missing though is the simple fact that you point out significant crime when, in fact, crime is EXTREMELY low.  There are 308,745,538 people in this nation.  Thats 308 MILLION!
> 2010 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Only 2,418,352 are in prison (2008):
> Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Many of those did not even commit a crime in all honesty as they are there on drug charges that do not have a victim.  Even at worst case, you are looking at around 2 percent of people are criminals.  That number is a LOT lower when you are considering just rape and murder but I will take your comment as symbolic of almost all crimes for the moment.  To call your neighbors rapists and murderers is not only a leap in logic  it is completely schizophrenic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you forget that Rotweiner was campaigning for anarchy?  No government.  No laws.  No law enforcement.  The law of the jungle only.  Only the strongest survive. The place that mankind chose to leave thousands of years ago.
> 
> The life of gorillas and monkeys.
> 
> That's what he thinks of the human race.
Click to expand...


Rotweiner?

That is what YOU think of the human race.  Those that advocate for anarchy actually think VERY highly of the human race (though I disagree that we people are evolved enough for such an idea to work).  It certainly is NOT a lack of faith in the human race that anarchists have.

You have made it quite clear that is what YOU have a problem with.  You have openly admitted that you think that your neighbors are murderers and rapists, failed to address the actual facts of the matter and then continue to scream and kick for governmental intervention/control to remove all our freedoms out of fear. 

What surprises me is the lefts ability to claim that the right is the party of fear when you have articulated that you are actually fearful.  It is really sad.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are admittedly not a conservative so paragraph 1-5 is opinion only
> As a conservative this is what *I* believe:
> No one has trained me to question science and I do not accept mythology
> No one has trained me to believe spending is the only cause of debt but controlling spending lowers the debt.
> I do not support unemployment as good under any situation
> I work hard and do not care if others do as that is there business. It is none of your business what I make and it is none of business what you make. You need to mind your own business and stay out of what others make. I make no assumptions of what others make. I do not care if you are wealthy or not as that is not any of my business. If you are I do not label you as evil because you have wealth.
> No one has trained me to believe your claims on what wealthy people have or do not have
> No one has trained me to believe your claims that the decline of America is from anything
> No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their national origin as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype others including their national origin.
> No one has trained me to stereotype others based on their religion as unlike you, I do not judge and stereotype people of other religions I do not know
> No has trained me to stereotype women, gays, whatever.
> As a conservative I oppose the power of government to decide who gets an abortion and who does not and leave that health decision to the mother. You support the power of government.
> As a conservative I supported open service for gays and lesbians in the military while you and the Democrats supported kicking them out under Don't Ask Don't Tell which was a Democratic policy under Clinton. Who trained you to be a supporter of discrimination?
> As a conservative I supported gay marriage when the Democrats and Obama opposed it. Who trained you to discriminate against gays?
> As a conservative I opposed preachers named Robertson and Jackson running for President. You supported the Democrats and Jackson won 9 primaries and received millions of votes. Who trained you to oppose separation of church and state?
> As a conservative I support the 2nd Amendment. Who trained you to believe that has been amended?
> As a conservative I support women's rights. Who trained you to believe that is was not Republicans that fought for women to vote and Democrats never opposed it?
> Stick to what you know and what you support and believe because you are way off base with your silly crystal ball attempting to label others you do not know and have no clue what their beliefs are.
> It is obvious you were trained to be an elitist snob. That clearly stands out for you.
> I bet top dollar there is a long list of folks that have called you that to your face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good news. You're not a conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you just do not get it. You ARE an elitist snob.
> I am a strong fiscal conservative.
> Those of us in small business for 35 years have to be to survive.
> Conservatism is for less government.
> You can not define yourself so you label others.
> Just like an old women coming and asking someone for their opinion on something and then telling them they are wrong for having that opinion.
> You need to get out in the real world where we are risking every penny we have running our businesses in an increasingly anti business climate in this country. Higher taxes, government mandates, rules, regulations and a growing class of citizens that believe they have a right to a job.
Click to expand...


Conservativism has nearly destroyed American business,  government,  and religion. It is absolutely unaffordable in every application. The truth of that is well documented,  measurable,  and undeniable. Yet the cult denies it. 

Why is it that all conservatives are exactly equally ignorant about simple facts?  

Is there any other explanation than propaganda? Brain washing?


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing yesterday proved is that conservatism contains nests of anarchists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
Click to expand...


You seem to claim to know a lot about a philosophy that you have absolutely no connection with.  Let me help you  not one single thing that you posted is correct.  Not one.  I suggest that you actually educate yourself rather than claiming the other guy holds beliefs that are quite clearly crazy.  I understand that it is VERY easy to justify yourself when you can point to crazy as being worse b8ut you will find the world much more interesting once you realize that those opposing your beliefs are not doing so because they are mentally insane.  It opens you up to all sorts of actual possibilities rather than running in fear (of which you already admitted to doing).


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> "you believe this so that makes you that"
> The arrogance of some people.



What is arrogant about what you believe makes you what you are? 

Common sense to me.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blind squirrel could find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe.  But apparently you can't explain it.
Click to expand...


He still hasn't explained what the "rule of law" is, despite being asked to explain it about 20 times.  You would think that when someone uses a term in every other sentence that they could tell you what it means.


----------



## dcraelin

Cecilie1200 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for showing your true colors, you fucking Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They,  like you,  were right wing extremists as they,  like you,  thought that their biggest enemy were Communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds to me like you went wrong at the point where you mistakenly believed you were thinking.
Click to expand...

Why bother typing if you  cant say something more constructive than a mindless insult?


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have proven  ithat the "Liberals" contains nests of socialists intent on weakening resistance to them imposing what's best for them on all of us.
> 
> Why would we want any,  any,  of those in our government?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to claim to know a lot about a philosophy that you have absolutely no connection with.  Let me help you  not one single thing that you posted is correct.  Not one.  I suggest that you actually educate yourself rather than claiming the other guy holds beliefs that are quite clearly crazy.  I understand that it is VERY easy to justify yourself when you can point to crazy as being worse b8ut you will find the world much more interesting once you realize that those opposing your beliefs are not doing so because they are mentally insane.  It opens you up to all sorts of actual possibilities rather than running in fear (of which you already admitted to doing).
Click to expand...


I wish you were right but the postings of conservatives here are evidence against it.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blind squirrel could find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  But apparently you can't explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He still hasn't explained what the "rule of law" is, despite being asked to explain it about 20 times.  You would think that when someone uses a term in every other sentence that they could tell you what it means.
Click to expand...


Again three short and simple words.  Which one confuses you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe everyone left of them are liberals and socialists.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to fear the second most common economic system used in the world and our country.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to support weak government as strong government is what is in the way of them imposing demonstrably dysfunctional conservatism on the majority.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the tyranny of a minority creates freedom while the democracy of the majority reduces it.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to respect only the unamended Constitution that the founders used to establish an aristocracy of wealthy white males.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to question science and accept mythology.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that spending is the only cause of debt.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that unemployed Americans are good because they are desperate and will therefore work for less
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that hard work is all that's required to be wealthy,  and therefore all poor do not work hard enough.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that what's wrong with 20% of the people having 85% of the wealth,  is that the 20% doesn't have more.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to believe that the cause of the decline of America since the rise of conservatism are Democrats,  liberals,  government,  all workers but especially Union members or government workers,  all races other than Caucasian,  all religions other than Christianity,  all nationalities other than American,  women,  the poor,  illegal workers recruited here by business,  customers,  gays,  all of those who don't own guns,  the educated and intelligent,  young and old people,  mainstream media,  Al Gore,  George Soros,  Nancy Pelosi,  Joe Biden and all of the Obamas.
> 
> Conservatives are trained to goose step with precision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to claim to know a lot about a philosophy that you have absolutely no connection with.  Let me help you  not one single thing that you posted is correct.  Not one.  I suggest that you actually educate yourself rather than claiming the other guy holds beliefs that are quite clearly crazy.  I understand that it is VERY easy to justify yourself when you can point to crazy as being worse b8ut you will find the world much more interesting once you realize that those opposing your beliefs are not doing so because they are mentally insane.  It opens you up to all sorts of actual possibilities rather than running in fear (of which you already admitted to doing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish you were right but the postings of conservatives here are evidence against it.
Click to expand...


Your postings prove that you're a commie, a Nazi, a liar and an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  But apparently you can't explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He still hasn't explained what the "rule of law" is, despite being asked to explain it about 20 times.  You would think that when someone uses a term in every other sentence that they could tell you what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again three short and simple words.  Which one confuses you?
Click to expand...


Again, you decline to explain it.  Obviously you can't.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something called Godwins law I believe that says the first person that brings up the Nazis in a forum has lost the argument. Looks like in this case thats you Bripat.
> Sometimes I think you can tell a party by its funders more than its rhetoric. The Nazis were funded by big business.  Some even think they were partially funded by banks in the US. A  Bush ancestor or his company, Prescott? I believe got in trouble for dealing with the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you went wrong at the point where you mistakenly believed you were thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother typing if you  cant say something more constructive than a mindless insult?
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should ask PMS that question.


----------



## PMZ

For those who question my assessment of conservatives I offer BriPat as compelling evidence.  He's obviously all that I claim and more extreme.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> 'Censored' is the kind of person that responsible people relocate to avoid.



Comrade Retard; your odds of being shot are highest by;

A black gang member
A "redneck"
Law Enforcement

I hope you guess #3, Comrade Retard


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.



Things have changed radically in this nation over the last decade. The police have been largely nationalized. Not outright, but effectively. Departments are addicted to two revenue streams, the federal money pouring in, and the money they get through armed robbery.

The federal money is in the form of grants for anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts. This involves training and equipment to transform police into paramilitary shock troops. Federal programs train these soldiers to view the public as the enemy, to be subdued as needed.

While these paramilitary troops will shoot and kill a civilian with any or no provocation, they are not the most dangerous faction of the jack-booted storm troopers who roam our nation.

Armed robbery is a major part of virtually all police work now. Setting up and executing major armed robberies is the means for most departments to fund cool toys like fancy cars, boats, houses, and electronics. 

A euphemism of "Asset Forfeiture" is employed, since armed robbery does not poll well with the general public. But the act of sticking a gun in someone's face, taking what they own, and killing them if they resist is the same, regardless of the name used.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/end-policing-profit

Law enforcement kills people every day in this nation. 

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues.  Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.
> 
> Seriously.  You need to stay on your medication.



ROFL

You need to take Obama's cock out of your mouth. 

I realize that you are just a leftist thug, seeking to recreate North Korea.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Censored' is the kind of person that responsible people relocate to avoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade Retard; your odds of being shot are highest by;
> 
> A black gang member
> A "redneck"
> Law Enforcement
> 
> I hope you guess #3, Comrade Retard
Click to expand...


Those aren't my odds butthead.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things have changed radically in this nation over the last decade. The police have been largely nationalized. Not outright, but effectively. Departments are addicted to two revenue streams, the federal money pouring in, and the money they get through armed robbery.
> 
> The federal money is in the form of grants for anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts. This involves training and equipment to transform police into paramilitary shock troops. Federal programs train these soldiers to view the public as the enemy, to be subdued as needed.
> 
> While these paramilitary troops will shoot and kill a civilian with any or no provocation, they are not the most dangerous faction of the jack-booted storm troopers who roam our nation.
> 
> Armed robbery is a major part of virtually all police work now. Setting up and executing major armed robberies is the means for most departments to fund cool toys like fancy cars, boats, houses, and electronics.
> 
> A euphemism of "Asset Forfeiture" is employed, since armed robbery does not poll well with the general public. But the act of sticking a gun in someone's face, taking what they own, and killing them if they resist is the same, regardless of the name used.
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/end-policing-profit
> 
> Law enforcement kills people every day in this nation.
> 
> List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues.  Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.
> 
> Seriously.  You need to stay on your medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You need to take Obama's cock out of your mouth.
> 
> I realize that you are just a leftist thug, seeking to recreate North Korea.
Click to expand...


More evidence of what I claimed of conservatives being true.  The problem with Republicans is that they'll take in every stray dog from the street.  They have no standards,  no platform,  no goals,  no mission,  so that they really represent nothing. 

Until they can get their act together and stand for some progress their fortunes will continue down.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Those aren't my odds butthead.



You think you're immune? Stalin was most deadly to his closest confidants. 

You fools always think that the party will only kill your enemies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> More evidence of what I claimed of conservatives being true.  The problem with Republicans is that they'll take in every stray dog from the street.  They have no standards,  no platform,  no goals,  no mission,  so that they really represent nothing.
> 
> Until they can get their act together and stand for some progress their fortunes will continue down.



More evidence that what I say of the American left is true; the difference between you and the Khmer Rouge is nonexistent. The only reason that we don't have mass killing fields is that you lack the power to employ them. You have the desire, the lust, you simply lack the means to execute your desire.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence of what I claimed of conservatives being true.  The problem with Republicans is that they'll take in every stray dog from the street.  They have no standards,  no platform,  no goals,  no mission,  so that they really represent nothing.
> 
> Until they can get their act together and stand for some progress their fortunes will continue down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that what I say of the American left is true; the difference between you and the Khmer Rouge is nonexistent. The only reason that we don't have mass killing fields is that you lack the power to employ them. You have the desire, the lust, you simply lack the means to execute your desire.
Click to expand...


Still more evidence.  

I'm sure that there are some objective dedicated responsible conservatives somewhere and even more such Republicans.  As long as you put up with being represented by bungholes like this you will be unelectable.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things have changed radically in this nation over the last decade. The police have been largely nationalized. Not outright, but effectively. Departments are addicted to two revenue streams, the federal money pouring in, and the money they get through armed robbery.
> 
> The federal money is in the form of grants for anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts. This involves training and equipment to transform police into paramilitary shock troops. Federal programs train these soldiers to view the public as the enemy, to be subdued as needed.
> 
> While these paramilitary troops will shoot and kill a civilian with any or no provocation, they are not the most dangerous faction of the jack-booted storm troopers who roam our nation.
> 
> Armed robbery is a major part of virtually all police work now. Setting up and executing major armed robberies is the means for most departments to fund cool toys like fancy cars, boats, houses, and electronics.
> 
> A euphemism of "Asset Forfeiture" is employed, since armed robbery does not poll well with the general public. But the act of sticking a gun in someone's face, taking what they own, and killing them if they resist is the same, regardless of the name used.
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/end-policing-profit
> 
> Law enforcement kills people every day in this nation.
> 
> List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues.  Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.
> 
> Seriously.  You need to stay on your medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You need to take Obama's cock out of your mouth.
> 
> I realize that you are just a leftist thug, seeking to recreate North Korea.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are a paranoid, delusional abusibe prick with no capacity for realistic, objective thought.  You are exactly what I am talking about.  Your fixation with other mens penises demonstrates it.  The majority of us get through the day, the month, years, without thinking about someones dick.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> Clearly you are a paranoid, delusional abusibe prick with no capacity for realistic, objective thought.  You are exactly what I am talking about.  Your fixation with other mens penises demonstrates it.  The majority of us get through the day, the month, years, without thinking about someones dick.



What's sad is that this really is the best you can do. You are a mindless drone. Ignorant and uneducated. The only answer you have to anything is to bleat what the party bosses tell you to bleat. 

The decline of the nation into a police state is not something that concerns you, in fact you celebrate it. Leftism is totalitarian by nature, so the fact that we are turning into a brutal police state thrill you. 

{Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today.  Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgetsall without so much as charging you with a crime.  Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head.  With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.


Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture chronicles how state and federal laws leave innocent property owners vulnerable to forfeiture abuse and encourage law enforcement to take property to boost their budgets.  The report finds that by giving law enforcement a direct financial stake in forfeiture efforts, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit, not justice.  }

Policing for Profit | The Institute for Justice


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me personally, like most people, I haven't ever been in a situation where law enforcement needed to use a firearm to protect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things have changed radically in this nation over the last decade. The police have been largely nationalized. Not outright, but effectively. Departments are addicted to two revenue streams, the federal money pouring in, and the money they get through armed robbery.
> 
> The federal money is in the form of grants for anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts. This involves training and equipment to transform police into paramilitary shock troops. Federal programs train these soldiers to view the public as the enemy, to be subdued as needed.
> 
> While these paramilitary troops will shoot and kill a civilian with any or no provocation, they are not the most dangerous faction of the jack-booted storm troopers who roam our nation.
> 
> Armed robbery is a major part of virtually all police work now. Setting up and executing major armed robberies is the means for most departments to fund cool toys like fancy cars, boats, houses, and electronics.
> 
> A euphemism of "Asset Forfeiture" is employed, since armed robbery does not poll well with the general public. But the act of sticking a gun in someone's face, taking what they own, and killing them if they resist is the same, regardless of the name used.
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/end-policing-profit
> 
> Law enforcement kills people every day in this nation.
> 
> List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ran into someone just the other day that had real emotional issues.  Similar to you, he soon began talking about the CIA and the black helicopters.
> 
> Seriously.  You need to stay on your medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You need to take Obama's cock out of your mouth.
> 
> I realize that you are just a leftist thug, seeking to recreate North Korea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are a paranoid, delusional abusibe prick with no capacity for realistic, objective thought.  You are exactly what I am talking about.  Your fixation with other mens penises demonstrates it.  The majority of us get through the day, the month, years, without thinking about someones dick.
Click to expand...


What amazes me is that people,  who seem sincere,  don't object to being represented by this trash.  No wonder the Republican party has become such a political failure.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are a paranoid, delusional abusibe prick with no capacity for realistic, objective thought.  You are exactly what I am talking about.  Your fixation with other mens penises demonstrates it.  The majority of us get through the day, the month, years, without thinking about someones dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sad is that this really is the best you can do. You are a mindless drone. Ignorant and uneducated. The only answer you have to anything is to bleat what the party bosses tell you to bleat.
> 
> The decline of the nation into a police state is not something that concerns you, in fact you celebrate it. Leftism is totalitarian by nature, so the fact that we are turning into a brutal police state thrill you.
> 
> {Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today.  Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgetsall without so much as charging you with a crime.  Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property.
> 
> Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head.  With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.
> 
> 
> Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture chronicles how state and federal laws leave innocent property owners vulnerable to forfeiture abuse and encourage law enforcement to take property to boost their budgets.  The report finds that by giving law enforcement a direct financial stake in forfeiture efforts, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit, not justice.  }
> 
> Policing for Profit | The Institute for Justice
Click to expand...


I guess the lesson is that crime doesn't pay.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> What amazes me is that people,  who seem sincere,  don't object to being represented by this trash.  No wonder the Republican party has become such a political failure.



If anyone ever wonders how the killing fields of Cambodia, or the death camps of Dachau came about, they merely need look at you two.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I guess the lesson is that crime doesn't pay.



Armed robbery pays well, ask any police department.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the lesson is that crime doesn't pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed robbery pays well, ask any police department.
Click to expand...


Very expensive when you get caught though,  I'm told.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What amazes me is that people,  who seem sincere,  don't object to being represented by this trash.  No wonder the Republican party has become such a political failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone ever wonders how the killing fields of Cambodia, or the death camps of Dachau came about, they merely need look at you two.
Click to expand...


You're a genuine sick puppy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Very expensive when you get caught though,  I'm told.



The police get caught all the time - even murdering their victims.

Nothing happens.

I started a thread on this issue - since it is so far removed from the question of fair share.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/323828-armed-robbery-by-the-boys-in-blue.html


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very expensive when you get caught though,  I'm told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The police get caught all the time - even murdering their victims.
> 
> Nothing happens.
Click to expand...


Expecting perfect people always disappoints.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very expensive when you get caught though,  I'm told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The police get caught all the time - even murdering their victims.
> 
> Nothing happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Expecting perfect people always disappoints.
Click to expand...


I started a thread to discuss armed robbery by law enforcement.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/323828-armed-robbery-by-the-boys-in-blue.html


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very expensive when you get caught though,  I'm told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The police get caught all the time - even murdering their victims.
> 
> Nothing happens.
> 
> I started a thread on this issue - since it is so far removed from the question of fair share.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/323828-armed-robbery-by-the-boys-in-blue.html
Click to expand...


I'm sure that good law enforcers know that many criminals don't look the part. They can be in Wall St suits,  clerical costume,  dresses,  military and law enforcement uniform, politically correct hair,  or pillar of the community garb. 

Makes one glad for strong laws to define all kinds of criminal behavior and good enforcement and Judicial. 

Your tax dollars at work.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Move to the new thread and I will address your post.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> Move to the new thread and I will address your post.



I didn't post anything debatable.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good news. You're not a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you just do not get it. You ARE an elitist snob.
> I am a strong fiscal conservative.
> Those of us in small business for 35 years have to be to survive.
> Conservatism is for less government.
> You can not define yourself so you label others.
> Just like an old women coming and asking someone for their opinion on something and then telling them they are wrong for having that opinion.
> You need to get out in the real world where we are risking every penny we have running our businesses in an increasingly anti business climate in this country. Higher taxes, government mandates, rules, regulations and a growing class of citizens that believe they have a right to a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservativism has nearly destroyed American business,  government,  and religion. It is absolutely unaffordable in every application. The truth of that is well documented,  measurable,  and undeniable. Yet the cult denies it.
> 
> Why is it that all conservatives are exactly equally ignorant about simple facts?
> 
> Is there any other explanation than propaganda? Brain washing?
Click to expand...


Just because you say it does not make it so.
You are the one that is brainwashed into believing you and only you determines what conservatism is and who is a conservative.
The arrogant and pompous man you are. 
Tell us what YOU believe and we will accept that. 
We will tell what WE believe and quit telling us what you believe we are. 
Conservatism IS what keeps my business alive. 
Only a damn fool would believe that running a business liberally makes a cent.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you just do not get it. You ARE an elitist snob.
> I am a strong fiscal conservative.
> Those of us in small business for 35 years have to be to survive.
> Conservatism is for less government.
> You can not define yourself so you label others.
> Just like an old women coming and asking someone for their opinion on something and then telling them they are wrong for having that opinion.
> You need to get out in the real world where we are risking every penny we have running our businesses in an increasingly anti business climate in this country. Higher taxes, government mandates, rules, regulations and a growing class of citizens that believe they have a right to a job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism has nearly destroyed American business,  government,  and religion. It is absolutely unaffordable in every application. The truth of that is well documented,  measurable,  and undeniable. Yet the cult denies it.
> 
> Why is it that all conservatives are exactly equally ignorant about simple facts?
> 
> Is there any other explanation than propaganda? Brain washing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you say it does not make it so.
> You are the one that is brainwashed into believing you and only you determines what conservatism is and who is a conservative.
> The arrogant and pompous man you are.
> Tell us what YOU believe and we will accept that.
> We will tell what WE believe and quit telling us what you believe we are.
> Conservatism IS what keeps my business alive.
> Only a damn fool would believe that running a business liberally makes a cent.
Click to expand...


Conservative government took us from the the probability of being a debt free country to $17T in debt.  We're lucky to have survived it.  

How will you ever know if your business would not have been twice as successful if you'd have focused on the top rather than bottom line?

Pursued success rather than avoiding failure.  

Invested in better employees and innovative products rather than cheap.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism has nearly destroyed American business,  government,  and religion. It is absolutely unaffordable in every application. The truth of that is well documented,  measurable,  and undeniable. Yet the cult denies it.
> 
> Why is it that all conservatives are exactly equally ignorant about simple facts?
> 
> Is there any other explanation than propaganda? Brain washing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you say it does not make it so.
> You are the one that is brainwashed into believing you and only you determines what conservatism is and who is a conservative.
> The arrogant and pompous man you are.
> Tell us what YOU believe and we will accept that.
> We will tell what WE believe and quit telling us what you believe we are.
> Conservatism IS what keeps my business alive.
> Only a damn fool would believe that running a business liberally makes a cent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservative government took us from the the probability of being a debt free country to $17T in debt.  We're lucky to have survived it.
> 
> How will you ever know if your business would not have been twice as successful if you'd have focused on the top rather than bottom line?
> 
> Pursued success rather than avoiding failure.
> 
> Invested in better employees and innovative products rather than cheap.
Click to expand...


----------



## Londoner

Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.

The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.

Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.

Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River. 

No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.

But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.

During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class. 

Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).

BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).

Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy). 

As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa. 

Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits (and repealing their affordable education), than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive (and to keep consuming so as to sustain economic growth). Debt-based consumption works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them. [Reaganomics worked better in the 80s when demand was vibrant enough to warrant the increased investment made possible by tax cuts. However, once demand is dead and you have no consumers, tax cuts won't repair that demand, it will only make the problem worse because tax cuts _to the wealthy_ are usually coupled with austerity for the consumer classes]

But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.


----------



## RKMBrown

Londoner said:


> Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
> 
> The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
> 
> Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
> 
> Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
> 
> No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the massive infrastructure projects upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
> 
> During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
> 
> Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access all the world's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
> 
> BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the businesses of the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
> 
> Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model, where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy.
> 
> As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven by debt. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
> 
> Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
> 
> But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.



What an upside down view of the world you have.  Unspoken contract.  Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers.  The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project.  ROFL


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
> 
> The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
> 
> Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
> 
> Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
> 
> No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the massive infrastructure projects upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
> 
> During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
> 
> Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access all the world's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
> 
> BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the businesses of the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
> 
> Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model, where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy.
> 
> As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven by debt. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
> 
> Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
> 
> But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside down view of the world you have.  Unspoken contract.  Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers.  The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project.  ROFL
Click to expand...


Still surprised that you are unable  to leave this country for greener pastures.  Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate? 

You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much evidence that criminals with guns are huge a problem except for other criminals with guns.
> 
> Nutballs with guns is a different story.
> 
> There are many success stories around the world of effective gun control.  Of course other countries don't have as effective firearms marketing as the NRA, or the number of suckers to fall for it as Americans.
> 
> I don't think that it's possible to take guns away from just criminals.  If everyone can have them criminals will have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and if no one's allowed to have them . . . criminals will STILL have them.  It's like they don't pay attention to what they're allowed to do, or something.
> 
> I'd love to hear some of these "effective gun control success stories".  Do tell.
> 
> You "don't see" a problem with criminals with guns to anyone but other criminals, huh?  Perhaps if you stopped staring at your own belly button, leftist, and took a gander at the real world around you once in a while.  Why don't you tell us how you "know" that only criminals have to worry about armed criminals, hmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've lived a long time without being armed with out a single problem.  I have many friends who've had the same experience.  Yet I hear from folks like you that there's apparently a war going on.
> 
> Personally I think my odds of being shot by accident is greater than by crime.
Click to expand...


I hear you.  If you don't think you need a gun, that justifies your view supporting government taking everyone else's gun. That is the lofty standard liberals hold yourselves to.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and if no one's allowed to have them . . . criminals will STILL have them.  It's like they don't pay attention to what they're allowed to do, or something.
> 
> I'd love to hear some of these "effective gun control success stories".  Do tell.
> 
> You "don't see" a problem with criminals with guns to anyone but other criminals, huh?  Perhaps if you stopped staring at your own belly button, leftist, and took a gander at the real world around you once in a while.  Why don't you tell us how you "know" that only criminals have to worry about armed criminals, hmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've lived a long time without being armed with out a single problem.  I have many friends who've had the same experience.  Yet I hear from folks like you that there's apparently a war going on.
> 
> Personally I think my odds of being shot by accident is greater than by crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear you.  If you don't think you need a gun, that justifies your view supporting government taking everyone else's gun. That is the lofty standard liberals hold yourselves to.
Click to expand...


Why should I risk my life for your hobby?


----------



## PMZ

Londoner said:


> Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
> 
> The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
> 
> Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
> 
> Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
> 
> No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
> 
> During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
> 
> Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
> 
> BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
> 
> Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
> 
> As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
> 
> Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
> 
> But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.



While details that you post are quite conspiracy theory centric for my beliefs,  I think that the effects that you worry about are real worries. I tend to place the blame more on the impact of media on culture though. 

Media has taught us to worship celebrity (read wealth,  read aristocracy),  violence,  irresponsibility,  ignorance,  greed,  and hate. 

I personally can't imagine a successful country emerging from that culture. 

People say that alcoholics don't recover until they hit rock bottom. 

I don't know if that applies to cultures too. 

If it does,  we have stormy  seas ahead.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
> 
> The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
> 
> Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
> 
> Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
> 
> No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the massive infrastructure projects upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
> 
> During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
> 
> Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access all the world's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
> 
> BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the businesses of the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
> 
> Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model, where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy.
> 
> As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven by debt. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
> 
> Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
> 
> But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside down view of the world you have.  Unspoken contract.  Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers.  The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project.  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still surprised that you are unable  to leave this country for greener pastures.  Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate?
> 
> You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.
Click to expand...

I can always tell when you agree with my argument.  You ask me to leave or scream fox.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
> 
> The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
> 
> Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
> 
> Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
> 
> No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
> 
> During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
> 
> Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
> 
> BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
> 
> Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
> 
> As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
> 
> Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
> 
> But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While details that you post are quite conspiracy theory centric for my beliefs,  I think that the effects that you worry about are real worries. I tend to place the blame more on the impact of media on culture though.
> 
> Media has taught us to worship celebrity (read wealth,  read aristocracy),  violence,  irresponsibility,  ignorance,  greed,  and hate.
> 
> I personally can't imagine a successful country emerging from that culture.
> 
> People say that alcoholics don't recover until they hit rock bottom.
> 
> I don't know if that applies to cultures too.
> 
> If it does,  we have stormy  seas ahead.
Click to expand...


Like I said... you can always tell when you agree with my argument.  ROFL  Fox fox fox...


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an upside down view of the world you have.  Unspoken contract.  Super secret plans to help the middle class... ROFL Government doesn't provide ANYTHING. The people of this country employ government workers.  The Tax payer foots the bill FOR EVERYTHING. Oh look how much we did for you we spent a trillion dollars of your money to give you water... ROFL Yeah cause no state could ever have worked with other states to do a water works project.  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still surprised that you are unable  to leave this country for greener pastures.  Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate?
> 
> You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can always tell when you agree with my argument.  You ask me to leave or scream fox.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask you to leave.  I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government.  I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure needs to be accurately itemized before you answer this question.
> 
> The U.S. taxpayer has invested trillions in engineering the Colorado River Delta so that it could support the current population of the Southwest.
> 
> Over 40 million people depend on its water for agricultural, commerce, energy and domestic needs.
> 
> Much of the Southwest would not exist in its current form without the massive taxpayer investment in the Colorado River.
> 
> No collection of individual businesses had the capital or incentive for a project of _this_ scale. Indeed, much of the infrastructure upon which capital depends has been funded by the taxpayer.
> 
> But here is the point that "talk radio" Republicans don't understand.
> 
> During the postwar years there was an unspoken compact between Government, business and the middle class.
> 
> Government agreed to provide business with the advanced industrial infrastructure needed for commerce. And Government agreed to protect the mideast oil fields of Big Oil. And government agreed to protect the trade routes of our transnationals so they could access the globe's (cheap) labor and raw materials. Government agreed to fund Boeing through the Pentagon budget and hand out trillions of dollars a year in subsidies to business. (see lobbying).
> 
> BUT there was an unspoken agreement. In exchange for subsidizing the costs of business - and dumping those costs on the public - business agreed to allow government to invest in the middle class, the very middle class which had to shoulder the tax burden of subsidizing the the profit makers. So the Government provided American families with the tools of success, things like affordable education, health care and a livable wage so that those born poor could climb the ladder of success. This is why the Reagan family was bailed out by FDR's big government during the Great Depression. FDR didn't view this as a handout to the lazy; rather, he viewed it as an investment in our greatest resource, the American People. He believed that if you gave people a leg up during hard times, than many of them would go on to make a real contribution (like Ronald Reagan).
> 
> Unfortunately (and ironically), the Reagan Revolution convinced America to stop investing in the middle class. Reagan convinced the nation that if we cut back on the resources/investment going to the middle class, then we would have more room for tax cuts to the wealthy - who would use that money to grow the economy and create middle class jobs. It sounded great! Let the market do it! Problem was, right after making that promise, the "job creators" moved production to ultra cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations like Communist China (where Walmart gets over 30% of its products made). Meaning: the nation got punk'd. Instead of giving the middle class high paying jobs with great benefits and affordable education, the Reagan Revolution waged war on over-priced American Labor. The GM job model (where the father could support the entire family and send his children to school) turned into the no-benefit Walmart job model (where the worker is one health care emergency from bankruptcy).
> 
> As a result of frozen wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to go deeper and deeper into debt in order to survive (and compensate for the money/jobs/benefits that never trickled down). Starting in 1980, domestic economic growth was driven not by wage-based consumption but by debt-based consumption. Indeed, as we shipped more and more good jobs overseas, the financial industry had to devise ever more creative ways to loan money into the economy. The need to sustain consumption in the face of disappearing jobs, benefits and middle class programs became so dysfunctional that the financial system eventually targeted the non-credit worthy, who were loaned trillions under Bush. Of course, the financial industry profited because this corrupt maneuver grew a massive asset bubble in housing, but the credit-based bubble eventually popped and did long term damage to the economy. But make no mistake, it worked for a while. Both Reagan and Clinton enjoyed glorious economic booms funded by a radical expansion of credit. We believed in these booms. We believed in Reaganomics. Who knew that Morning in America was being funded by MasterCard, Amex and Visa.
> 
> Here is the dirty little secret of post-Carter Capitalism. The market doesn't want a healthy, well-paid, vibrant, politically active middle class (because these things drive up labor costs). The market wants the kind of cheap labor it gets in freedom hating shit-holes like Taiwan and Vietnam. Meaning: Nike investors make higher returns when their products are made by workers earning $5/day ... and living in slums. Here is the rub: the problem with low wages (which Reaganomics says incentivizes investment, see higher returns) is that workers are also consumers. So if you spend 30 years lowering their wages and benefits, and repealing their affordable education, than those consumers must take on greater and greater amounts of debt to survive and buy your products. This works for a little while - in fact it worked incredibly well in the U.S. - but eventually too many consumers are too indebted to meet the aggregate demand requirements of economic growth. And when there are not enough consumers, the result is that companies have no incentive to add jobs no matter how many tax breaks you give them.
> 
> But . . . to answer the OPs question. You can't talk about taxes until you itemize the infrastructure and subsidies and investments made by the commons into the private sector. I've tried to explain to Republicans the relationship between say the Colorado River and commerce in the Southwest. I've tried to explain to them the technology that was developed in the Cold War Pentagon and Space Program and seeded into the private sector. I've tried to ask them to research where satellite technology came from - and what kind of profits it has produced. In each case, I find myself talking to a Republican voter who doesn't understand what taxes pay for - and how much help business has been given by the taxpayer. These sad souls only know a small handful of talking points about evil government. Most of them have had little or no college education. In short, they are easy marks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While details that you post are quite conspiracy theory centric for my beliefs,  I think that the effects that you worry about are real worries. I tend to place the blame more on the impact of media on culture though.
> 
> Media has taught us to worship celebrity (read wealth,  read aristocracy),  violence,  irresponsibility,  ignorance,  greed,  and hate.
> 
> I personally can't imagine a successful country emerging from that culture.
> 
> People say that alcoholics don't recover until they hit rock bottom.
> 
> I don't know if that applies to cultures too.
> 
> If it does,  we have stormy  seas ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said... you can always tell when you agree with my argument.  ROFL  Fox fox fox...
Click to expand...


Your rants have no impact at all on what I think. 

There is a Fox in our henhouse.  Do you think that I ought to be yelling "FIRE"?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still surprised that you are unable  to leave this country for greener pastures.  Why would anyone with the means to correct their situation instead choose to live in a country that they hate?
> 
> You are a failure compared to illegal workers who risk their lives to find a better life.
> 
> 
> 
> I can always tell when you agree with my argument.  You ask me to leave or scream fox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you to leave.  I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government.  I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.
Click to expand...


I did not say it's better anywhere else.  America is worth fighting for.  I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so.  It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can always tell when you agree with my argument.  You ask me to leave or scream fox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you to leave.  I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government.  I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say it's better anywhere else.  America is worth fighting for.  I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so.  It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
Click to expand...


You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world. 

"It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "

They have.  Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning. 

They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in the absence of competition, becomes make more money. 

The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness.  Time for you to catch up to us,  not us to fall back to where you are. 

You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them,  bad for everyone else.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you to leave.  I wondered why you choose to subject yourself and your family to what you describe as a swamp of out of control incompetent government.  I can think of other countries that I would describe that way and I wouldn't live there for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say it's better anywhere else.  America is worth fighting for.  I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so.  It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
> 
> "It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
> 
> They have.  Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
> 
> They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
> 
> The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness.  Time for you to catch up to us,  not us to fall back to where you are.
> 
> You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them,  bad for everyone else.
Click to expand...


I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it.  Can someone translate lib talk to english?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say it's better anywhere else.  America is worth fighting for.  I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so.  It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
> 
> "It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
> 
> They have.  Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
> 
> They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
> 
> The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness.  Time for you to catch up to us,  not us to fall back to where you are.
> 
> You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them,  bad for everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it.  Can someone translate lib talk to english?
Click to expand...


Lib talk is English.  You speak,  apparently,  only Texan.  Nothing more intelligent than rattlesnakes understand that.


----------



## kaz

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say it's better anywhere else.  America is worth fighting for.  I can be completely off the grid any time I desire to do so.  It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
> 
> "It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
> 
> They have.  Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
> 
> They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
> 
> The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness.  Time for you to catch up to us,  not us to fall back to where you are.
> 
> You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them,  bad for everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it.  Can someone translate lib talk to english?
Click to expand...


TM is saying that capitalism works best in socialist countries, the world and the American leftists have figured that out, the rest of us haven't yet.  The enlightened in the world like TM recognize that total government control over the economy maximizes our economic freedom.   You're saying that doesn't make sense to you???


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Lib talk is English.  You speak,  apparently,  only Texan.  Nothing more intelligent than rattlesnakes understand that.



I got that, you were punning red Texas with the rich corporations.  Very clever...


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do an awful lot of whining about a place that you say is unexcelled in the world.
> 
> "It's a shame people around the world have bought into socialism. "
> 
> They have.  Virtually every country, including ours from the beginning.
> 
> They know that make more money regardless of the cost to others,  in the absence of competition, becomes make more money.
> 
> The world knows that denying that is pure foolishness.  Time for you to catch up to us,  not us to fall back to where you are.
> 
> You are stuck in the same swamp as the fossil fuels industry trying to extract maximum profit from unsustainable solutions. Good for them,  bad for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it.  Can someone translate lib talk to english?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TM is saying that capitalism works best in socialist countries, the world and the American leftists have figured that out, the rest of us haven't yet.  The enlightened in the world like TM recognize that total government control over the economy maximizes our economic freedom.   You're saying that doesn't make sense to you???
Click to expand...


Don't know TM,  but to clear up some of your confusion :

Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems.  They apply to markets,  not countries,  as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets. 

Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness.  It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.  In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are trying to make a point in there, but I can't make heads or tails of it.  Can someone translate lib talk to english?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM is saying that capitalism works best in socialist countries, the world and the American leftists have figured that out, the rest of us haven't yet.  The enlightened in the world like TM recognize that total government control over the economy maximizes our economic freedom.   You're saying that doesn't make sense to you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know TM,  but to clear up some of your confusion :
> 
> Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems.  They apply to markets,  not countries,  as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets.
> 
> Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness.  It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.  In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.
Click to expand...




Um...OK...


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Don't know TM,  but to clear up some of your confusion :
> 
> Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems.  They apply to markets,  not countries,  as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets.
> 
> Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness.  It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.  In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.



JUST in case anyone was unaware that you're fucking retarded...


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know TM,  but to clear up some of your confusion :
> 
> Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems.  They apply to markets,  not countries,  as virtually all countries now employ both depending on the possibility of competition in particular markets.
> 
> Capitalism in a noncompetitive market is foolishness.  It would always be unaffordable as the one rule of capitalism is, make more money regardless of the cost to others.  In the absence of competition that translates into make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST in case anyone was unaware that you're fucking retarded...
Click to expand...


What's retarded is not thinking for yourself. Being led down a path that is indefensible but you are too ignorant to resist.


----------



## Gadawg73

The ignorance of the left concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
Many want to return to the 90% days over a certain amount of income and 50% over a certain amount of income.
Someone makes $200,000 and they raise the tax rate from 35% to 50% for that.
Someone makes $199.999.99 and their rate is 35% and the person that makes ONE CENT MORE has to pay 50%.


----------



## dcraelin

Gadawg73 said:


> The ignorance of the left concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
> Many want to return to the 90% days over a certain amount of income and 50% over a certain amount of income.
> Someone makes $200,000 and they raise the tax rate from 35% to 50% for that.
> Someone makes $199.999.99 and their rate is 35% and the person that makes ONE CENT MORE has to pay 50%.



its a marginal rate they only pay that rate on the amount over 199999.99. so he pays .15cents extra, so whos ignorant?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> The ignorance of the left concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
> Many want to return to the 90% days over a certain amount of income and 50% over a certain amount of income.
> Someone makes $200,000 and they raise the tax rate from 35% to 50% for that.
> Someone makes $199.999.99 and their rate is 35% and the person that makes ONE CENT MORE has to pay 50%.



He has to pay the 50% on that 1 cent only. 

ignorance of the right concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dcraelin said:


> its a marginal rate they only pay that rate on the amount over 199999.99. so he pays .15cents extra, so whos ignorant?



Yet net tax was lower in 1955, because of loopholes and dodges. What you of the left fail to acknowledge is that when Reagan lowered the rates in 86' the net taxes paid by people earning $100,000 and above went UP - despite rates dropping, because the loopholes were closed.

Dishonesty is the foundation of leftism, and leftists routinely fail to mention this part of the calculus.

You want FAIR taxes? ZERO deductions for any reason, a flat rate regardless of income.

Of course most leftists want to rob others and stuff the loot in their own greedy maw.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> its a marginal rate they only pay that rate on the amount over 199999.99. so he pays .15cents extra, so whos ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet net tax was lower in 1955, because of loopholes and dodges. What you of the left fail to acknowledge is that when Reagan lowered the rates in 86' the net taxes paid by people earning $100,000 and above went UP - despite rates dropping, because the loopholes were closed.
> 
> Dishonesty is the foundation of leftism, and leftists routinely fail to mention this part of the calculus.
> 
> You want FAIR taxes? ZERO deductions for any reason, a flat rate regardless of income.
> 
> Of course most leftists want to rob others and stuff the loot in their own greedy maw.
Click to expand...


In order to fall for this, one has to assume that the only variable affecting tax revenue is tax rate. And that one data point shows trends. 

Is there anybody out there that cognitively challenged? 

And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits? 

The truth is that the most significant variable in tax revenue is the state of business. When business is doing well,  tax revenues are doing well. 

What allows business to do well?  The most significant variable is technological innovation. Ideas. Products that drive whole new markets.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> In order to fall for this, one has to assume that the only variable affecting tax revenue is tax rate. And that one data point shows trends.
> 
> Is there anybody out there that cognitively challenged?
> 
> And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits?
> 
> The truth is that the most significant variable in tax revenue is the state of business. When business is doing well,  tax revenues are doing well.
> 
> What allows business to do well?  The most significant variable is technological innovation. Ideas. Products that drive whole new markets.



Reagan left such a staggering debt that over 8 years, he indebted the nation almost as much as Obama does every month.....

"Truth" and you will never enter the same space. The fact is that the tax reform act placed MORE tax burden on the top - simply by stopping the most blatant cheating. People forget, that high taxes were coupled with insider fraud and were designed primarily to shield the top 1% from upward mobility by the middle.

This is what you of the shameful left work so hard to reinstate, a defacto aristocracy where exemptions and loopholes serve the well connected whilst fucking any who would seek to move up. Sadly, you are having great success, as the wealth disparity of the nation shows.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> its a marginal rate they only pay that rate on the amount over 199999.99. so he pays .15cents extra, so whos ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet net tax was lower in 1955, because of loopholes and dodges. What you of the left fail to acknowledge is that when Reagan lowered the rates in 86' the net taxes paid by people earning $100,000 and above went UP - despite rates dropping, because the loopholes were closed.
> 
> Dishonesty is the foundation of leftism, and leftists routinely fail to mention this part of the calculus.
> 
> You want FAIR taxes? ZERO deductions for any reason, a flat rate regardless of income.
> 
> Of course most leftists want to rob others and stuff the loot in their own greedy maw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to fall for this, one has to assume that the only variable affecting tax revenue is tax rate. And that one data point shows trends.
> 
> Is there anybody out there that cognitively challenged?
> 
> And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits?
> 
> The truth is that the most significant variable in tax revenue is the state of business. When business is doing well,  tax revenues are doing well.
> 
> What allows business to do well?  The most significant variable is technological innovation. Ideas. Products that drive whole new markets.
Click to expand...


The net tax a person pays isn't affected by the business climate or technological innovation.  It's determined purely by the tax code, so you just proved you're an idiot.

The strange thing about technological innovation is that it tends to expand when government gets the hell out of the way.

How much technological innovation do you see coming from those welfare states in Europe?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance of the left concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
> Many want to return to the 90% days over a certain amount of income and 50% over a certain amount of income.
> Someone makes $200,000 and they raise the tax rate from 35% to 50% for that.
> Someone makes $199.999.99 and their rate is 35% and the person that makes ONE CENT MORE has to pay 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has to pay the 50% on that 1 cent only.
> 
> ignorance of the right concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
Click to expand...


Both the left and the right have their share of ignoramuses, but only the left-wing agenda counts on people being stupid.  Every time Obama got in front of a microphone and said "you can keep your current healthcare plan," he was counting a majority of Americans swallowing what a lot of people knew was obvious bullshit.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to fall for this, one has to assume that the only variable affecting tax revenue is tax rate. And that one data point shows trends.
> 
> Is there anybody out there that cognitively challenged?
> 
> And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits?
> 
> The truth is that the most significant variable in tax revenue is the state of business. When business is doing well,  tax revenues are doing well.
> 
> What allows business to do well?  The most significant variable is technological innovation. Ideas. Products that drive whole new markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan left such a staggering debt that over 8 years, he indebted the nation almost as much as Obama does every month.....
> 
> "Truth" and you will never enter the same space. The fact is that the tax reform act placed MORE tax burden on the top - simply by stopping the most blatant cheating. People forget, that high taxes were coupled with insider fraud and were designed primarily to shield the top 1% from upward mobility by the middle.
> 
> This is what you of the shameful left work so hard to reinstate, a defacto aristocracy where exemptions and loopholes serve the well connected whilst fucking any who would seek to move up. Sadly, you are having great success, as the wealth disparity of the nation shows.
Click to expand...


You'd be absolutely right if dates caused debt.  Unfortunately for conservatives,  government policy does.  Here's a picture for you.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorance of the left concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
> Many want to return to the 90% days over a certain amount of income and 50% over a certain amount of income.
> Someone makes $200,000 and they raise the tax rate from 35% to 50% for that.
> Someone makes $199.999.99 and their rate is 35% and the person that makes ONE CENT MORE has to pay 50%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has to pay the 50% on that 1 cent only.
> 
> ignorance of the right concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both the left and the right have their share of ignoramuses, but only the left-wing agenda counts on people being stupid.  Every time Obama got in front of a microphone and said "you can keep your current healthcare plan," he was counting a majority of Americans swallowing what a lot of people knew was obvious bullshit.
Click to expand...


He was talking about ACA's grandfathering provision.  He was not usurping the prerogatives of private insurance companies, although perhaps what they are doing to America now will require that.  

He assumed that they would not shoot their feet off.  He was mistaken having a high opinion of them.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has to pay the 50% on that 1 cent only.
> 
> ignorance of the right concerning taxes is recognizable to a 7 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the left and the right have their share of ignoramuses, but only the left-wing agenda counts on people being stupid.  Every time Obama got in front of a microphone and said "you can keep your current healthcare plan," he was counting a majority of Americans swallowing what a lot of people knew was obvious bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was talking about ACA's grandfathering provision.  He was not usurping the prerogatives of private insurance companies, although perhaps what they are doing to America now will require that.
> 
> He assumed that they would not shoot their feet off.  He was mistaken having a high opinion of them.
Click to expand...


Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?

If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the left and the right have their share of ignoramuses, but only the left-wing agenda counts on people being stupid.  Every time Obama got in front of a microphone and said "you can keep your current healthcare plan," he was counting a majority of Americans swallowing what a lot of people knew was obvious bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about ACA's grandfathering provision.  He was not usurping the prerogatives of private insurance companies, although perhaps what they are doing to America now will require that.
> 
> He assumed that they would not shoot their feet off.  He was mistaken having a high opinion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?
> 
> If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.
Click to expand...


You're one of the imbeciles that I count on. You are the poster boy for the Fox Opinions cult. 

All of the insurance companies had a  free choice.  Grandfather or new.  They all chose.  Some to grandfather,  some not.  

As a capitalist you ought to realize that customers choose and companies choose. 

I don't know what % chose what,  but I think that they are flirting with single payer. 

Their customers,  like they do as an electorate,  will decide the winners and losers.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits?



Because he was forced to clean up after Jimmy Carter. It takes a lot of money to rebuild the military after each Dumbocrat administration dismantles it completely.

Every time the Dumbocrats appeasement stragey fails (see Carter, Clinton, Obama), the Republican's have to clean up the mess that's left. It's unfortunate, but a reality of having ignorant Dumbocrats in your nation.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the left and the right have their share of ignoramuses, but only the left-wing agenda counts on people being stupid.  Every time Obama got in front of a microphone and said "you can keep your current healthcare plan," he was counting a majority of Americans swallowing what a lot of people knew was obvious bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about ACA's grandfathering provision.  He was not usurping the prerogatives of private insurance companies, although perhaps what they are doing to America now will require that.
> 
> He assumed that they would not shoot their feet off.  He was mistaken having a high opinion of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?
> 
> If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.
Click to expand...


He's not so much dumb Bripat (I mean, obviously he is) as much as he is a parasite who is desperate to push the Dumbocrat agenda so he can keep living his life as a parasite to his fellow citizens.

I'm shredding him to pieces in another thread and all he does is shit like this - he keeps claiming Obama never lied, Obama didn't collapse the U.S. economy, etc. And my personal favorite, after adding dozens of links which shows that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance policies, he actually keeps claiming that "nobody has lost their health insurance"... 

Obviously, nobody is that dumb. Not even PMZ. He just thinks he can convince people that Obama and the Dumbocrats have not been as big of failures as they actually have been.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was forced to clean up after Jimmy Carter. It takes a lot of money to rebuild the military after each Dumbocrat administration dismantles it completely.
> 
> Every time the Dumbocrats appeasement stragey fails (see Carter, Clinton, Obama), the Republican's have to clean up the mess that's left. It's unfortunate, but a reality of having ignorant Dumbocrats in your nation.
Click to expand...


Now we pay for more than half of the military in the world.  I thought that you didn't like high taxes. Must have been another Rotweiner.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about ACA's grandfathering provision.  He was not usurping the prerogatives of private insurance companies, although perhaps what they are doing to America now will require that.
> 
> He assumed that they would not shoot their feet off.  He was mistaken having a high opinion of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?
> 
> If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not so much dumb Bripat (I mean, obviously he is) as much as he is a parasite who is desperate to push the Dumbocrat agenda so he can keep living his life as a parasite to his fellow citizens.
> 
> I'm shredding him to pieces in another thread and all he does is shit like this - he keeps claiming Obama never lied, Obama didn't collapse the U.S. economy, etc. And my personal favorite, after adding dozens of links which shows that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance policies, he actually keeps claiming that "nobody has lost their health insurance"...
> 
> Obviously, nobody is that dumb. Not even PMZ. He just thinks he can convince people that Obama and the Dumbocrats have not been as big of failures as they actually have been.
Click to expand...


Where did they lose them? 

It's good  that we have competition for health insurance.  If you don't like your insurance company,  buy from another.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if Reagan was such a macroeconomic genius how come he left behind huge deficits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was forced to clean up after Jimmy Carter. It takes a lot of money to rebuild the military after each Dumbocrat administration dismantles it completely.
> 
> Every time the Dumbocrats appeasement stragey fails (see Carter, Clinton, Obama), the Republican's have to clean up the mess that's left. It's unfortunate, but a reality of having ignorant Dumbocrats in your nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we pay for more than half of the military in the world.  I thought that you didn't like high taxes. Must have been another Rotweiner.
Click to expand...


The military is only 18% of our budget.   We have high taxes to pay for all your Democrat socialist boondoggles.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?
> 
> If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not so much dumb Bripat (I mean, obviously he is) as much as he is a parasite who is desperate to push the Dumbocrat agenda so he can keep living his life as a parasite to his fellow citizens.
> 
> I'm shredding him to pieces in another thread and all he does is shit like this - he keeps claiming Obama never lied, Obama didn't collapse the U.S. economy, etc. And my personal favorite, after adding dozens of links which shows that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance policies, he actually keeps claiming that "nobody has lost their health insurance"...
> 
> Obviously, nobody is that dumb. Not even PMZ. He just thinks he can convince people that Obama and the Dumbocrats have not been as big of failures as they actually have been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did they lose them?
> 
> It's good  that we have competition for health insurance.  If you don't like your insurance company,  buy from another.
Click to expand...


Obamacare is destroying competition, not creating it.   Government is what prevented competition in the first place.  The only "uncompetitive" markets are the ones where government outlaws competition.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.

One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was talking about ACA's grandfathering provision.  He was not usurping the prerogatives of private insurance companies, although perhaps what they are doing to America now will require that.
> 
> He assumed that they would not shoot their feet off.  He was mistaken having a high opinion of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?
> 
> If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of the imbeciles that I count on. You are the poster boy for the Fox Opinions cult.
> 
> All of the insurance companies had a  free choice.  Grandfather or new.  They all chose.  Some to grandfather,  some not.
Click to expand...


Wrong, asshole, they had no choice.  Obamacare took away their choices.  Obamacare forced them to cover people with pre-exisitng conditions.  Obamacare forced them to cover "children" up to 26 years of age.  It forced them to make every policy include, obstetrics, birth control, abortion, sex change operations, psychiatric care, and a host of other expensive additions.

You have to be a totally brain damaged Obama fluffer to believe they had any choice in the matter.



PMZ said:


> As a capitalist you ought to realize that customers choose and companies choose.



Not when government gets in the way, moron.



PMZ said:


> I don't know what % chose what,  but I think that they are flirting with single payer.



Who is "they?"   I thought you supported increasing competition, not eliminating it.



PMZ said:


> Their customers,  like they do as an electorate,  will decide the winners and losers.



Not if Obamacare remains in place.  The whole point of Obamacare is taking choice away from consumers.


----------



## bripat9643

Matthew said:


> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.
> 
> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.



The only problem with your theory is that government never does that.  Almost every time it does precisely the opposite.  It outlaws competition.  That's what it did with insurance companies when it ruled that states could prevent companies from outside a state from offering their products.

Whenever we have a problem with a lack of competition, government is always to blame.


----------



## uhkilleez

We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Matthew said:


> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.
> 
> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.



Wow.  Someone sure brainwashed you into the perfect little leftist government drone, didn't they?


----------



## Gadawg73

What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.


----------



## johnwk

uhkilleez said:


> We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.


You support a thieving tax upon the bread a working person earns by the sweat of their labor and also would deprive the working person their inalienable right to negotiate the value of their own labor? 

JWK

 *
They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
*


----------



## johnwk

Gadawg73 said:


> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.



And our founding fathers provided a fair share formula in our Constitution:



*States pop.*
*----------------  X   SUM NEEDED = STATES FAIR SHARE*
*U.S. Pop.*


JWK


 George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:

*The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244*


----------



## Gadawg73

johnwk said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our founding fathers provided a fair share formula in our Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> *States pop.*
> *----------------  X   SUM NEEDED = STATES FAIR SHARE*
> *U.S. Pop.*
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244*
Click to expand...


There was no income tax when this nation was founded.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was forced to clean up after Jimmy Carter. It takes a lot of money to rebuild the military after each Dumbocrat administration dismantles it completely.
> 
> Every time the Dumbocrats appeasement stragey fails (see Carter, Clinton, Obama), the Republican's have to clean up the mess that's left. It's unfortunate, but a reality of having ignorant Dumbocrats in your nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we pay for more than half of the military in the world.  I thought that you didn't like high taxes. Must have been another Rotweiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military is only 18% of our budget.   We have high taxes to pay for all your Democrat socialist boondoggles.
Click to expand...


The military is more than half of our discretionary budget.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not so much dumb Bripat (I mean, obviously he is) as much as he is a parasite who is desperate to push the Dumbocrat agenda so he can keep living his life as a parasite to his fellow citizens.
> 
> I'm shredding him to pieces in another thread and all he does is shit like this - he keeps claiming Obama never lied, Obama didn't collapse the U.S. economy, etc. And my personal favorite, after adding dozens of links which shows that millions of Americans have lost their health insurance policies, he actually keeps claiming that "nobody has lost their health insurance"...
> 
> Obviously, nobody is that dumb. Not even PMZ. He just thinks he can convince people that Obama and the Dumbocrats have not been as big of failures as they actually have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they lose them?
> 
> It's good  that we have competition for health insurance.  If you don't like your insurance company,  buy from another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is destroying competition, not creating it.   Government is what prevented competition in the first place.  The only "uncompetitive" markets are the ones where government outlaws competition.
Click to expand...


What you wish was true. None of it is though.  Your brain has been washed clean of your eighth grade education.


----------



## PMZ

uhkilleez said:


> We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.



We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let get this straight:  You're claiming Obama wasn't lying when he said people could keep their current policies?
> 
> If so, you're even dumber than I thought.  Obamacare forced the insurance companies to change their policies, and Obama knew it would.  You're one of the imbeciles that Obama counts on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of the imbeciles that I count on. You are the poster boy for the Fox Opinions cult.
> 
> All of the insurance companies had a  free choice.  Grandfather or new.  They all chose.  Some to grandfather,  some not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, asshole, they had no choice.  Obamacare took away their choices.  Obamacare forced them to cover people with pre-exisitng conditions.  Obamacare forced them to cover "children" up to 26 years of age.  It forced them to make every policy include, obstetrics, birth control, abortion, sex change operations, psychiatric care, and a host of other expensive additions.
> 
> You have to be a totally brain damaged Obama fluffer to believe they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when government gets in the way, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what % chose what,  but I think that they are flirting with single payer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they?"   I thought you supported increasing competition, not eliminating it.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their customers,  like they do as an electorate,  will decide the winners and losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if Obamacare remains in place.  The whole point of Obamacare is taking choice away from consumers.
Click to expand...


Yes it does.  The choice of getting screwed by the insurance company.  The choice of dumping your health care costs on others.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.
> 
> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Someone sure brainwashed you into the perfect little leftist government drone, didn't they?
Click to expand...


No.  Fox Opinions brain washed you onto a well trained American Taliban extremist.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.



And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Matthew said:


> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.



In exactly the same manner that Crocodiles help Wildebeests cross rivers.





> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.



Yeah, I noticed that with TARP..

You don't HAVE to be a fucking retard to be a leftist...

Oh wait, yeah, I guess you do...


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> The only problem with your theory is that government never does that.  Almost every time it does precisely the opposite.  It outlaws competition.  That's what it did with insurance companies when it ruled that states could prevent companies from outside a state from offering their products.
> 
> Whenever we have a problem with a lack of competition, government is always to blame.



Matthew thinks that abortionists help babies survive....

Matthew is a fucking retard.

Matthew is a leftist.


----------



## PMZ

The goose stepping right is clear.  Every thing broadcast on Fox Opinions is the truth,  the whole truth,  and nothing but the truth.  

How is that known?  It feels right.  Fox Opinions says is right.  It clearly creates the hobgoblin of little minds,  black or white simplicity. Scapegoats and aristocracy. 

It makes winners from losers and vice versa.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we pay for more than half of the military in the world.  I thought that you didn't like high taxes. Must have been another Rotweiner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military is only 18% of our budget.   We have high taxes to pay for all your Democrat socialist boondoggles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military is more than half of our discretionary budget.
Click to expand...


The entire budget is "discretionary," as if that was actual relevant to this discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military is only 18% of our budget.   We have high taxes to pay for all your Democrat socialist boondoggles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military is more than half of our discretionary budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire budget is "discretionary," as if that was actual relevant to this discussion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Here's a not surprising bit of ignorance.


----------



## johnwk

Gadawg73 said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our founding fathers provided a fair share formula in our Constitution:
> 
> 
> 
> *States&#8217; pop.*
> *----------------  X   SUM NEEDED = STATE&#8217;S FAIR SHARE*
> *U.S. Pop.*
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
> 
> *&#8220;The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil&#8221;**3 Elliot&#8217;s, 243*,*&#8220;Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax&#8221;* *3 Elliot&#8217;s, 244*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no income tax when this nation was founded.
Click to expand...


That is true.  I believe most people know that.  Did you have something else to add?


JWK


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
Click to expand...


Name an American that locks little girls into schools, sets the building on fire and reads the Koran praising Allah as the girls scream while they are burned alive like the Taliban does.
You live in LA LA land and take for granted that you live in the greatest nation on earth.
Move if you do not like it here.
Delta is ready when you are.
Comparing anything American to the Taliban is a fraud that only a fool parrots.


----------



## Gadawg73

So easy to be a liberal when you are plundering and spending the money earned by other people.
But hey, socialism is great up until you run out of money.
And we ran out long ago.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
Click to expand...


What am I responsible for?


----------



## bripat9643

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name an American that locks little girls into schools, sets the building on fire and reads the Koran praising Allah as the girls scream while they are burned alive like the Taliban does.
> You live in LA LA land and take for granted that you live in the greatest nation on earth.
> Move if you do not like it here.
> Delta is ready when you are.
> Comparing anything American to the Taliban is a fraud that only a fool parrots.
Click to expand...


In PMS's world view, declining to open the floodgates for more federal borrowing is the equivalent of cutting off an infidel's head.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military is more than half of our discretionary budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire budget is "discretionary," as if that was actual relevant to this discussion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a not surprising bit of ignorance.
Click to expand...


You mean here's someone who isn't fooled by libturd propaganda.  The theory that some government spending is "discretionary" while other spending is "mandatory" is total bullshit.   It's even dumber to believe that defense spending is in the former category rather than the later.  It's just a way for libturds to cow the voters into believing that certain sacred cows can't be touched.  The fact is that Congress changes what we spend on Social Security and Medicare all the time.  Obama just took a $700 billion whack out of Medicare when the ACA act passed.  Congress can cut Social Security and Medicare anytime it wants to.  It's purely up to their "discretion."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of the imbeciles that I count on. You are the poster boy for the Fox Opinions cult.
> 
> All of the insurance companies had a  free choice.  Grandfather or new.  They all chose.  Some to grandfather,  some not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, asshole, they had no choice.  Obamacare took away their choices.  Obamacare forced them to cover people with pre-exisitng conditions.  Obamacare forced them to cover "children" up to 26 years of age.  It forced them to make every policy include, obstetrics, birth control, abortion, sex change operations, psychiatric care, and a host of other expensive additions.
> 
> You have to be a totally brain damaged Obama fluffer to believe they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when government gets in the way, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they?"   I thought you supported increasing competition, not eliminating it.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their customers,  like they do as an electorate,  will decide the winners and losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if Obamacare remains in place.  The whole point of Obamacare is taking choice away from consumers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.  The choice of getting screwed by the insurance company.  The choice of dumping your health care costs on others.
Click to expand...


We're all getting screwed 10 times worse by Obamacare then any insurance company ever thought of screwing anyone.

The whole point of Obamacare is to dump the insurance costs of some on others.  Why am I going to have to pay for abortions, birth control and sex change operations?  Are those part of my insurance costs?

The truth almost always turns out to be exactly the opposite of what you post, PMS.

Funny, isn't it?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
Click to expand...


They haven't forgotten how.  It's just that government keeps cutting them off at the knees.  No matter how many times you try to pin the blame on it, the fact is that business isn't responsible for this crummy economy.  Obama is.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did they lose them?
> 
> It's good  that we have competition for health insurance.  If you don't like your insurance company,  buy from another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is destroying competition, not creating it.   Government is what prevented competition in the first place.  The only "uncompetitive" markets are the ones where government outlaws competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you wish was true. None of it is though.  Your brain has been washed clean of your eighth grade education.
Click to expand...


Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?

One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Uncensored2008 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner that Crocodiles help Wildebeests cross rivers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that with TARP..
> 
> You don't HAVE to be a fucking retard to be a leftist...
> 
> Oh wait, yeah, I guess you do...
Click to expand...


Thank god this reforms of the early 20 century occurred  No one company should be able to control the market!

Now they some more work too do  I wish the government would break the airlines up and the banks.


----------



## bripat9643

Matthew said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner that Crocodiles help Wildebeests cross rivers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that with TARP..
> 
> You don't HAVE to be a fucking retard to be a leftist...
> 
> Oh wait, yeah, I guess you do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank god that the reforms of the early 20 century occurred  No one company should be able to control the market!
> 
> Now they do have some work too do  I wish the government would break the airlines up and the banks.
Click to expand...


There were no "reforms."  There was only a massive power grab by the so-called "progressives."

Why would you want to break up the airlines?  There's only about 150 of them.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name an American that locks little girls into schools, sets the building on fire and reads the Koran praising Allah as the girls scream while they are burned alive like the Taliban does.
> You live in LA LA land and take for granted that you live in the greatest nation on earth.
> Move if you do not like it here.
> Delta is ready when you are.
> Comparing anything American to the Taliban is a fraud that only a fool parrots.
Click to expand...


Both are extreme right wing cults.  Your point is that some in the Taliban are more extreme than many American conservatives. 

Point granted.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> So easy to be a liberal when you are plundering and spending the money earned by other people.
> But hey, socialism is great up until you run out of money.
> And we ran out long ago.



First of all I dare say that I have, at least, contributed and earned as much as you have. 

Second,  the biggest evidence of our financial situation comes in the form of debt.  The debt comes from our experiment with conservative policies.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is fair is always what a liberal considers fair under the guidelines that it is someone else's fair share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What am I responsible for?
Click to expand...


Nothing that I can detect.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name an American that locks little girls into schools, sets the building on fire and reads the Koran praising Allah as the girls scream while they are burned alive like the Taliban does.
> You live in LA LA land and take for granted that you live in the greatest nation on earth.
> Move if you do not like it here.
> Delta is ready when you are.
> Comparing anything American to the Taliban is a fraud that only a fool parrots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In PMS's world view, declining to open the floodgates for more federal borrowing is the equivalent of cutting off an infidel's head.
Click to expand...


I don't like having to borrow.  I like business leaders doing their job of growing until there is a well paying job for every American who wants one. Much of the borrowing that's been done is making up for businesses failure to do that job.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner that Crocodiles help Wildebeests cross rivers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed that with TARP..
> 
> You don't HAVE to be a fucking retard to be a leftist...
> 
> Oh wait, yeah, I guess you do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank god that the reforms of the early 20 century occurred  No one company should be able to control the market!
> 
> Now they do have some work too do  I wish the government would break the airlines up and the banks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were no "reforms."  There was only a massive power grab by the so-called "progressives."
> 
> Why would you want to break up the airlines?  There's only about 150 of them.
Click to expand...


What power was grabbed by who?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is destroying competition, not creating it.   Government is what prevented competition in the first place.  The only "uncompetitive" markets are the ones where government outlaws competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you wish was true. None of it is though.  Your brain has been washed clean of your eighth grade education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?
> 
> One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
Click to expand...


There is not the slightest doubt that Fox Opinions has brainwashed you.  You are a parrot.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten how.  It's just that government keeps cutting them off at the knees.  No matter how many times you try to pin the blame on it, the fact is that business isn't responsible for this crummy economy.  Obama is.
Click to expand...


When did the Great Recession start?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government helps competive businesses by making a fair field for smaller companies.
> 
> One of the better things that came out of the early 20th century is the government can break apart abusive corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Someone sure brainwashed you into the perfect little leftist government drone, didn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Fox Opinions brain washed you onto a well trained American Taliban extremist.
Click to expand...


Did I wave a Snausage over your nose, Fido?  Go back to your kennel and lick your balls until I call you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is fair to the American Taliban is no responsibility for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What am I responsible for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing that I can detect.
Click to expand...


Then what are you always whining about?


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare is destroying competition, not creating it.   Government is what prevented competition in the first place.  The only "uncompetitive" markets are the ones where government outlaws competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you wish was true. None of it is though.  Your brain has been washed clean of your eighth grade education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?
> 
> One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
Click to expand...


Oh, we've learned something else from him:

"Fox! FOX!  FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten how.  It's just that government keeps cutting them off at the knees.  No matter how many times you try to pin the blame on it, the fact is that business isn't responsible for this crummy economy.  Obama is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did the Great Recession start?
Click to expand...


It didn't become "The Great Recession" until Obama's economic policies kicked in.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire budget is "discretionary," as if that was actual relevant to this discussion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a not surprising bit of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean here's someone who isn't fooled by libturd propaganda.  The theory that some government spending is "discretionary" while other spending is "mandatory" is total bullshit.   It's even dumber to believe that defense spending is in the former category rather than the later.  It's just a way for libturds to cow the voters into believing that certain sacred cows can't be touched.  The fact is that Congress changes what we spend on Social Security and Medicare all the time.  Obama just took a $700 billion whack out of Medicare when the ACA act passed.  Congress can cut Social Security and Medicare anytime it wants to.  It's purely up to their "discretion."
Click to expand...


Actually discretionary means approved each year by an appropriations bill and mandatory means required by existing law. 

Not surprised that you didn't know that.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wish was true. None of it is though.  Your brain has been washed clean of your eighth grade education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?
> 
> One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we've learned something else from him:
> 
> "Fox! FOX!  FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"
Click to expand...


The beauty of being a liberal is that you only need to learn a few knee-jerk responses to answer every question put to you.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Someone sure brainwashed you into the perfect little leftist government drone, didn't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Fox Opinions brain washed you onto a well trained American Taliban extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I wave a Snausage over your nose, Fido?  Go back to your kennel and lick your balls until I call you.
Click to expand...


Typical conservative arrogance.  You'd think that your cult would have had some accomplishment for such outsized self importance.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a not surprising bit of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean here's someone who isn't fooled by libturd propaganda.  The theory that some government spending is "discretionary" while other spending is "mandatory" is total bullshit.   It's even dumber to believe that defense spending is in the former category rather than the later.  It's just a way for libturds to cow the voters into believing that certain sacred cows can't be touched.  The fact is that Congress changes what we spend on Social Security and Medicare all the time.  Obama just took a $700 billion whack out of Medicare when the ACA act passed.  Congress can cut Social Security and Medicare anytime it wants to.  It's purely up to their "discretion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually discretionary means approved each year by an appropriations bill and mandatory means required by existing law.
> 
> Not surprised that you didn't know that.
Click to expand...


All spending is required by existing law.  Any law Congress makes it can unmake at the stroke of a pen.  There is no such thing as "mandatory spending."  It's all discretionary.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't forgotten how.  It's just that government keeps cutting them off at the knees.  No matter how many times you try to pin the blame on it, the fact is that business isn't responsible for this crummy economy.  Obama is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Great Recession start?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't become "The Great Recession" until Obama's economic policies kicked in.
Click to expand...


2008. Well before he was even in office.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What am I responsible for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing that I can detect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what are you always whining about?
Click to expand...


I hate irresponsible people.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you wish was true. None of it is though.  Your brain has been washed clean of your eighth grade education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?
> 
> One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we've learned something else from him:
> 
> "Fox! FOX!  FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"
Click to expand...


The most destructive internal  force that we've ever had to deal with.  Much more so than Communism.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean here's someone who isn't fooled by libturd propaganda.  The theory that some government spending is "discretionary" while other spending is "mandatory" is total bullshit.   It's even dumber to believe that defense spending is in the former category rather than the later.  It's just a way for libturds to cow the voters into believing that certain sacred cows can't be touched.  The fact is that Congress changes what we spend on Social Security and Medicare all the time.  Obama just took a $700 billion whack out of Medicare when the ACA act passed.  Congress can cut Social Security and Medicare anytime it wants to.  It's purely up to their "discretion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually discretionary means approved each year by an appropriations bill and mandatory means required by existing law.
> 
> Not surprised that you didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All spending is required by existing law.  Any law Congress makes it can unmake at the stroke of a pen.  There is no such thing as "mandatory spending."  It's all discretionary.
Click to expand...


You are massively ignorant about basic government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing that I can detect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what are you always whining about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate irresponsible people.
Click to expand...


You said I have no responsibilities, not that I'm ignoring the ones I have.  

Again, what are my responsibilities?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually discretionary means approved each year by an appropriations bill and mandatory means required by existing law.
> 
> Not surprised that you didn't know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All spending is required by existing law.  Any law Congress makes it can unmake at the stroke of a pen.  There is no such thing as "mandatory spending."  It's all discretionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are massively ignorant about basic government.
Click to expand...


I simply ignore bullshit.

What have I said that isn't 100% accurate?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Great Recession start?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't become "The Great Recession" until Obama's economic policies kicked in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2008. Well before he was even in office.
Click to expand...


You obviously missed the part where I didn't claim Obama caused the recession.  He turned a short recession into a depression.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what are you always whining about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate irresponsible people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I have no responsibilities, not that I'm ignoring the ones I have.
> 
> Again, what are my responsibilities?
Click to expand...


Your minimum responsibilities are to comply with all our laws. 

I have no idea what your other responsibilities are.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't become "The Great Recession" until Obama's economic policies kicked in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2008. Well before he was even in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously missed the part where I didn't claim Obama caused the recession.  He turned a short recession into a depression.
Click to expand...


The evidence of this is???? 

What does "Great" Recession mean  to you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate irresponsible people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said I have no responsibilities, not that I'm ignoring the ones I have.
> 
> Again, what are my responsibilities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your minimum responsibilities are to comply with all our laws.
> 
> I have no idea what your other responsibilities are.
Click to expand...


Complying with the law isn't a responsibility any more than not drinking poison is a responsibility.  

You keep accusing me of being irresponsible, yet you don't know what my responsibilities are.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2008. Well before he was even in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously missed the part where I didn't claim Obama caused the recession.  He turned a short recession into a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence of this is????
> 
> What does "Great" Recession mean  to you?
Click to expand...


The evidence is 5 years of high unemployment and anemic economic growth.   Plus, there's the fact that we know every thing Obama is trying to do kills economic growth.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said I have no responsibilities, not that I'm ignoring the ones I have.
> 
> Again, what are my responsibilities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your minimum responsibilities are to comply with all our laws.
> 
> I have no idea what your other responsibilities are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complying with the law isn't a responsibility any more than not drinking poison is a responsibility.
> 
> You keep accusing me of being irresponsible, yet you don't know what my responsibilities are.
Click to expand...


" Complying with the law isn't a responsibility"

Bizarre response.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously missed the part where I didn't claim Obama caused the recession.  He turned a short recession into a depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of this is????
> 
> What does "Great" Recession mean  to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence is 5 years of high unemployment and anemic economic growth.   Plus, there's the fact that we know every thing Obama is trying to do kills economic growth.
Click to expand...


Growth is the business of business,  not government. The fact that Obama was willing to invest as we have in recovery from Bush's Great Recession is more support than business earned.  They choose not to do their job.  It's up to consumers to not support businesses and leaders that are not capable of growth.  Hold them accountable.  Teach the some personal responsibility.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your minimum responsibilities are to comply with all our laws.
> 
> I have no idea what your other responsibilities are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complying with the law isn't a responsibility any more than not drinking poison is a responsibility.
> 
> You keep accusing me of being irresponsible, yet you don't know what my responsibilities are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Complying with the law isn't a responsibility"
> 
> Bizarre response.
Click to expand...


Are you accusing me of breaking the law?  If not, then what am I responsible for that I'm not doing?  You accused me of being irresponsible.  Now list the terms of your indictment.  What are you afraid of?


----------



## uhkilleez

johnwk said:


> You support a thieving tax upon the bread a working person earns by the sweat of their labor and also would deprive the working person their inalienable right to negotiate the value of their own labor?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
> *



Any sort of government tax would be considered just as much theft of the hard earned income of labor. I am simply in favor of a flat 10% tax of income in order to pay for military and law enforcement expenses, and the day to day business of legislating. I am not exactly sure where you got that I am against unionizing the workplace, or against any other form of worker's organization, however you were mislead. When I  say limited government, that includes removal of their ability to use coercion to meddle with the affairs of the private sector. It should be the responsibility of employees and employers to keep wages fair and working conditions safe, not the responsibility of a legislator whom has little knowledge at best of their day to day operations or profits for that matter.


----------



## uhkilleez

PMZ said:


> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.



Perhaps business would be more keen on worldwide performance if they were not so busy trying to find tax cuts and loopholes in order to save more of their own profits? I have to say, I'm not sure why all of our manufacturing base is leaving the states when we have such a high tax rate and high wages, it's not like there are other countries out there with cheap labor and cheap taxes with no tariff response from the U.S....


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy to be a liberal when you are plundering and spending the money earned by other people.
> But hey, socialism is great up until you run out of money.
> And we ran out long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I dare say that I have, at least, contributed and earned as much as you have.
> 
> Second,  the biggest evidence of our financial situation comes in the form of debt.  The debt comes from our experiment with conservative policies.
Click to expand...


Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
Only a dumb ass would claim that.


----------



## johnwk

uhkilleez said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support a thieving tax upon the bread a working person earns by the sweat of their labor and also would deprive the working person their inalienable right to negotiate the value of their own labor?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any sort of government tax would be considered just as much theft of the hard earned income of labor. I am simply in favor of a flat 10% tax of income in order to pay for military and law enforcement expenses, and the day to day business of legislating..
Click to expand...


And being in favor of a direct tax upon the working persons earned wage indicates you disagree with our founders beliefs and support an evil power being placed in the hands of Congress.

I take it you do not understand the distinction between direct and indirect taxation, and the evil nature of direct taxation.  As to the evils of an unrestrained power to impose direct taxes, our founders were fully cognizant of their destructive nature which is noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes *January 18th, 1797*:

*"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."*

Perhaps someday you will take the time to study our Constitutions original tax plan, and the vital protections built into that plan, especially the rule requiring  direct taxes to be apportioned.


JWK



_*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


----------



## PMZ

uhkilleez said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps business would be more keen on worldwide performance if they were not so busy trying to find tax cuts and loopholes in order to save more of their own profits? I have to say, I'm not sure why all of our manufacturing base is leaving the states when we have such a high tax rate and high wages, it's not like there are other countries out there with cheap labor and cheap taxes with no tariff response from the U.S....
Click to expand...


Businesses used to be smart about product innovation,  quality,  customer service,  employee development,  productivity improvement. Now they are smart about executives and shareholders looting the workers.  Government has nothing to do with that.  It's all about instant gratification and greed.


----------



## DGS49

Back to basics:

A "fair share" system of taxation would take the same amount of money from every person living within the borders of the U.S., and subject to its laws.  Take the total required to operate the government, divide by the population, and assess everyone their "fair share."  It is the same in any sane club or association.  Figure out how much you need to get by, set the dues accordingly, and collect the dues.  If you don't pay the dues, you don't get ANY benefits from the organization.  What could be more fair than that?

Parenthetically, one might note somewhere in this discussion that an income tax is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and was only made possible by Amendment - which was sold on a number of lies.  Ideally, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, the national government could generate all of the revenue it needed by tariffs and fees.  But I digress...

Assuming that a tax on incomes (rather than on wealth) is the most viable option, a less "fair" system - but more workable - is one that taxes all incomes at a fixed percentage:  the so-called "flat tax."  It has the built-in advantage of minimizing the taxes on those with the least ability to pay, and maximizing taxes on those who can most "afford" it.  But it is inherently unfair because it punishes financial success with higher payments to the government.

You will find very few organizations that fund themselves on such an unfair basis.  Indeed, who would want to join such an organization?  A masochist?

An extremely "unfair" system that is even more inequitable than the Flat Tax is a graduated income tax, where not only do the successful pay more because they earn more, but the rate of extraction is graduated so that their "contribution" goes up exponentially as their financial success increases.  This goes beyond "unfair" to the level of diabolical.  It truly punishes success and discourages innovation, creativity, and productivity.

The only "good" thing one can say about the American graduated tax system is that it has been worse than it is now, in the not so distant past.  Also, thankfully, we do not have quite the crushing burden of the European welfare states, so the top rate here is less than it is there.

The proof of the unfairness of the graduated tax is the sheer size of the Internal Revenue Code and its associated Regulations.  Much of the "fluff" in the IRC and IRR is comprised of elaborate (and not so elaborate) mechanisms by which various constituencies can avoid paying taxes - legally - by doing the things that Congress wants them to do.  Build things, invest in things, grow things, don't grow other things, make your stuff more energy-efficient, and so on.

If the graduated income tax were actually "fair," then none of this would be necessary.  You would simply pay the tax and be done with it.  But it isn't fair, so Congress has to manipulate the rules to soften the impact.

And at the other end of the spectrum, we have Congress trying to buy the votes of the unsuccessful and the wretched by minimizing or eliminating their obligation to pay taxes, or - believe it or not - causing the government to PAY THEM NEGATIVE TAXES through the perversely-named Earned Income Tax Credit!

The one universal principle that is always ignored is this:  EVERYBODY should pay something.  Whether it is a payroll deduction, a percentage of a person's profits in business, or a deduction from a Social Security or welfare deposit, every emancipated adult in the country should feel a pinch of taxation, so that they can be vested in the business of Government.  We have fully half of our (fucking) population that pays no Federal income tax each year, and THIS is a crime.

The fairest tax:  A flat percentage tax with a fixed maximum amount - whether its a hundred thousand dollars or a million, I don't care.  But there should be an amount over which the government has maxed out its share of a person's income.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy to be a liberal when you are plundering and spending the money earned by other people.
> But hey, socialism is great up until you run out of money.
> And we ran out long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I dare say that I have, at least, contributed and earned as much as you have.
> 
> Second,  the biggest evidence of our financial situation comes in the form of debt.  The debt comes from our experiment with conservative policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
> Only a dumb ass would claim that.
Click to expand...


No.  Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office.  Pure politics.  When Republicans are in office they want to spend,  spend,  spend,  and not tax.  Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally.  With them it will be generations,  if we're lucky,  before recovery. 

The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing.  The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy to be a liberal when you are plundering and spending the money earned by other people.
> But hey, socialism is great up until you run out of money.
> And we ran out long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I dare say that I have, at least, contributed and earned as much as you have.
> 
> Second,  the biggest evidence of our financial situation comes in the form of debt.  The debt comes from our experiment with conservative policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
> Only a dumb ass would claim that.
Click to expand...


Only a brained dead zombie would deny it.


----------



## PMZ

DGS49 said:


> Back to basics:
> 
> A "fair share" system of taxation would take the same amount of money from every person living within the borders of the U.S., and subject to its laws.  Take the total required to operate the government, divide by the population, and assess everyone their "fair share."  It is the same in any sane club or association.  Figure out how much you need to get by, set the dues accordingly, and collect the dues.  If you don't pay the dues, you don't get ANY benefits from the organization.  What could be more fair than that?
> 
> Parenthetically, one might note somewhere in this discussion that an income tax is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and was only made possible by Amendment - which was sold on a number of lies.  Ideally, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, the national government could generate all of the revenue it needed by tariffs and fees.  But I digress...
> 
> Assuming that a tax on incomes (rather than on wealth) is the most viable option, a less "fair" system - but more workable - is one that taxes all incomes at a fixed percentage:  the so-called "flat tax."  It has the built-in advantage of minimizing the taxes on those with the least ability to pay, and maximizing taxes on those who can most "afford" it.  But it is inherently unfair because it punishes financial success with higher payments to the government.
> 
> You will find very few organizations that fund themselves on such an unfair basis.  Indeed, who would want to join such an organization?  A masochist?
> 
> An extremely "unfair" system that is even more inequitable than the Flat Tax is a graduated income tax, where not only do the successful pay more because they earn more, but the rate of extraction is graduated so that their "contribution" goes up exponentially as their financial success increases.  This goes beyond "unfair" to the level of diabolical.  It truly punishes success and discourages innovation, creativity, and productivity.
> 
> The only "good" thing one can say about the American graduated tax system is that it has been worse than it is now, in the not so distant past.  Also, thankfully, we do not have quite the crushing burden of the European welfare states, so the top rate here is less than it is there.
> 
> The proof of the unfairness of the graduated tax is the sheer size of the Internal Revenue Code and its associated Regulations.  Much of the "fluff" in the IRC and IRR is comprised of elaborate (and not so elaborate) mechanisms by which various constituencies can avoid paying taxes - legally - by doing the things that Congress wants them to do.  Build things, invest in things, grow things, don't grow other things, make your stuff more energy-efficient, and so on.
> 
> If the graduated income tax were actually "fair," then none of this would be necessary.  You would simply pay the tax and be done with it.  But it isn't fair, so Congress has to manipulate the rules to soften the impact.
> 
> And at the other end of the spectrum, we have Congress trying to buy the votes of the unsuccessful and the wretched by minimizing or eliminating their obligation to pay taxes, or - believe it or not - causing the government to PAY THEM NEGATIVE TAXES through the perversely-named Earned Income Tax Credit!
> 
> The one universal principle that is always ignored is this:  EVERYBODY should pay something.  Whether it is a payroll deduction, a percentage of a person's profits in business, or a deduction from a Social Security or welfare deposit, every emancipated adult in the country should feel a pinch of taxation, so that they can be vested in the business of Government.  We have fully half of our (fucking) population that pays no Federal income tax each year, and THIS is a crime.
> 
> The fairest tax:  A flat percentage tax with a fixed maximum amount - whether its a hundred thousand dollars or a million, I don't care.  But there should be an amount over which the government has maxed out its share of a person's income.



Another ad for poorer poor and richer rich in the Republican push for feudal aristocracy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps business would be more keen on worldwide performance if they were not so busy trying to find tax cuts and loopholes in order to save more of their own profits? I have to say, I'm not sure why all of our manufacturing base is leaving the states when we have such a high tax rate and high wages, it's not like there are other countries out there with cheap labor and cheap taxes with no tariff response from the U.S....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses used to be smart about product innovation,  quality,  customer service,  employee development,  productivity improvement. Now they are smart about executives and shareholders looting the workers.  Government has nothing to do with that.  It's all about instant gratification and greed.
Click to expand...


Any you are a LYING POS.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps business would be more keen on worldwide performance if they were not so busy trying to find tax cuts and loopholes in order to save more of their own profits? I have to say, I'm not sure why all of our manufacturing base is leaving the states when we have such a high tax rate and high wages, it's not like there are other countries out there with cheap labor and cheap taxes with no tariff response from the U.S....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses used to be smart about product innovation,  quality,  customer service,  employee development,  productivity improvement. Now they are smart about executives and shareholders looting the workers.  Government has nothing to do with that.  It's all about instant gratification and greed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any you are a LYING POS.
Click to expand...


Lying POSs don't get that reaction.  Prophets do. Your aristocracy has failed.  Failed at their coup,  failed to produce what they're paid for.  Growth.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
> Only a dumb ass would claim that.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brained dead zombie would deny it.
Click to expand...

Read Kevin Phillip's _Arrogant Capital_ to see how politicians, especially those close to bankers, do not really want to pay down debt. That really explains the opposition to tax increases by establishment Republicans. And Kevin Phillips once wrote _the Emerging Republican Majority _


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
> Only a dumb ass would claim that.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a brained dead zombie would deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read Kevin Phillip's _Arrogant Capital_ to see how politicians, especially those close to bankers, do not really want to pay down debt. That really explains the opposition to tax increases by establishment Republicans. And Kevin Phillips once wrote _the Emerging Republican Majority _
Click to expand...


King Bush was told by the CBO that he could lead the US,  in his term,  to debt free.  He ran the other direction as fast as Alan Greenspan could carry him.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
Click to expand...


Are you Wesley Mouch?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a flat tax and a fiscally conservative and limited government which has its budget under control, coupled with worker's unions that are actually involved with those they are representing in order to negotiate what a fair wage is between the employer and employee without having mindless legislators suggesting they know better what a fair wage is, having no knowledge of the job or the profits earned and then forcing their decision through the coercion of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need business to perform in a way that competes with the rest of the world. They have forgotten how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you Wesley Mouch?
Click to expand...


No.  I don't think that he would have been in favor of holding business accountable.  On the other hand,  if John Galt was real,  I imagine he would have been.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> No.  I don't think that he would have been in favor of holding business accountable.  On the other hand,  if John Galt was real,  I imagine he would have been.



Yeah, Galt was a Marxist through and through. Yer right fucking brilliant, PMZ


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I don't think that he would have been in favor of holding business accountable.  On the other hand,  if John Galt was real,  I imagine he would have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Galt was a Marxist through and through. Yer right fucking brilliant, PMZ
Click to expand...


Are you saying that only Marxists hold private businesses accountable? 

Bizarre. 

Consumers do.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses used to be smart about product innovation,  quality,  customer service,  employee development,  productivity improvement. Now they are smart about executives and shareholders looting the workers.  Government has nothing to do with that.  It's all about instant gratification and greed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any you are a LYING POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying POSs don't get that reaction.  Prophets do. Your aristocracy has failed.  Failed at their coup,  failed to produce what they're paid for.  Growth.
Click to expand...


ROFL now you are a "prophet." Prophet for who? Satan?


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Are you saying that only Marxists hold private businesses accountable?
> 
> Bizarre.
> 
> Consumers do.



Does it hurt to be that stupid?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any you are a LYING POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POSs don't get that reaction.  Prophets do. Your aristocracy has failed.  Failed at their coup,  failed to produce what they're paid for.  Growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL now you are a "prophet." Prophet for who? Satan?
Click to expand...


Truth is only referred to "satan"  on Fox Opinions.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that only Marxists hold private businesses accountable?
> 
> Bizarre.
> 
> Consumers do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it hurt to be that stupid?
Click to expand...


Are you another one who believes that only Marxists hold private businesses accountable?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POSs don't get that reaction.  Prophets do. Your aristocracy has failed.  Failed at their coup,  failed to produce what they're paid for.  Growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL now you are a "prophet." Prophet for who? Satan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth is only referred to "satan"...
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a yes.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Truth is only referred to "satan"  on Fox Opinions.



You huff a LOT of spray paint, doncha PMZ?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL now you are a "prophet." Prophet for who? Satan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is only referred to "satan"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take that as a yes.
Click to expand...


Prophet for truth.  Your satan.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is only referred to "satan"  on Fox Opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You huff a LOT of spray paint, doncha PMZ?
Click to expand...


You watch a lot of Fox Opinions,  don't you, sucker.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> You watch a lot of Fox Opinions,  don't you, sucker.



Almost never, you drooling baboon.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You watch a lot of Fox Opinions,  don't you, sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost never, you drooling baboon.
Click to expand...


Nobody admits to Fox,  and you can't blame them.  Admitting to that addiction is like admitting to be incapable of original thought.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I dare say that I have, at least, contributed and earned as much as you have.
> 
> Second,  the biggest evidence of our financial situation comes in the form of debt.  The debt comes from our experiment with conservative policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
> Only a dumb ass would claim that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office.  Pure politics.  When Republicans are in office they want to spend,  spend,  spend,  and not tax.  Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally.  With them it will be generations,  if we're lucky,  before recovery.
> 
> The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing.  The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.
Click to expand...


Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%. 
Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income. 

On to Bush tax cuts:
The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.

As usual you have nothing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?
> 
> One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we've learned something else from him:
> 
> "Fox! FOX!  FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The beauty of being a liberal is that you only need to learn a few knee-jerk responses to answer every question put to you.
Click to expand...


Or to make the vast majority of people throw up their hands in disgust and walk away, allowing the leftist to then claim victory.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim FOX news has brainwashed me?
> 
> One thing we've learned since your tenure here began:  truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we've learned something else from him:
> 
> "Fox! FOX!  FOOOOoooooxxxxx!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most destructive internal  force that we've ever had to deal with.  Much more so than Communism.
Click to expand...


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the current squabble over finances at the Federal level was because conservatives wanted to take on more debt and liberals did not.
> Only a dumb ass would claim that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office.  Pure politics.  When Republicans are in office they want to spend,  spend,  spend,  and not tax.  Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally.  With them it will be generations,  if we're lucky,  before recovery.
> 
> The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing.  The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
> In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
> Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
> The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
> The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.
> 
> On to Bush tax cuts:
> The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
> After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
> The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
> The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
> Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.
> 
> As usual you have nothing.
Click to expand...


Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office.  Pure politics.  When Republicans are in office they want to spend,  spend,  spend,  and not tax.  Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally.  With them it will be generations,  if we're lucky,  before recovery.
> 
> The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing.  The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
> In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
> Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
> The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
> The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.
> 
> On to Bush tax cuts:
> The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
> After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
> The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
> The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
> Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.
> 
> As usual you have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
Click to expand...


Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds.  It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
> In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
> Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
> The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
> The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.
> 
> On to Bush tax cuts:
> The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
> After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
> The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
> The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
> Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.
> 
> As usual you have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds.  It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.
Click to expand...


Typical conservative non thinking.  When confronted by an inconvenient truth,  censor the source. 

The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is only referred to "satan"...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prophet for truth.  Your satan.
Click to expand...


You are getting less and less intelligible as the days go on.  How many days did they give you?  6months?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds.  It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative non thinking.  When confronted by an inconvenient truth,  censor the source.
> 
> The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.
Click to expand...


Libturd thinking:  lie, lie, lie.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is an ultra left-wing propaganda mill.  Nothing coming out of that organization gets within 1000 feet of a fact.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone already posted that totally made-up chart in the forum a few months ago, and it was torn to shreds.  It's just another example of blatant libturd lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative non thinking.  When confronted by an inconvenient truth,  censor the source.
> 
> The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libturd thinking:  lie, lie, lie.
> 
> The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is an ultra left-wing propaganda mill.  Nothing coming out of that organization gets withing 1000 feet of a fact.
Click to expand...


Conservatives censorship for freedom.  Hmmmmm mm.


----------



## uhkilleez

johnwk said:


> And being in favor of a direct tax upon the working persons earned wage indicates you disagree with our founders beliefs and support an evil power being placed in the hands of Congress.
> 
> I take it you do not understand the distinction between direct and indirect taxation, and the evil nature of direct taxation.  As to the evils of an unrestrained power to impose direct taxes, our founders were fully cognizant of their destructive nature which is noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes *January 18th, 1797*:
> 
> *"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."*
> 
> Perhaps someday you will take the time to study our Constitutions original tax plan, and the vital protections built into that plan, especially the rule requiring  direct taxes to be apportioned.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> _*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address



I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.

The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.


----------



## uhkilleez

PMZ said:


> Businesses used to be smart about product innovation,  quality,  customer service,  employee development,  productivity improvement. Now they are smart about executives and shareholders looting the workers.  Government has nothing to do with that.  It's all about instant gratification and greed.



Some of them were, and some still are. Government does have quite a bit to do with corporate greed, however. Let's not forget that corporations can only exist because of government. It is also government who coddles those corporations and stifles the right of the workers to organize and strike. A classic example would be the union struggles in the mines of Virginia, and government is no different now than it was then... in fact it is worse.

EDIT: In fact, come to think of it, the coming increase of the minimum wage is a great example at how government is to blame. They increase minimum wage laws, and then subsidize the major corporations who have to pay more. We pay for our own raises.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative non thinking.  When confronted by an inconvenient truth,  censor the source.
> 
> The most effective recipe that there is for maintaining ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libturd thinking:  lie, lie, lie.
> 
> The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is an ultra left-wing propaganda mill.  Nothing coming out of that organization gets withing 1000 feet of a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives censorship for freedom.  Hmmmmm mm.
Click to expand...


Criticizing your bullshit propaganda is not censorship.  However, threatening insurance companies with financial penalties if they criticize government policy is censorship, and your ilk never had a problem when Sibelius did that.


----------



## billyerock1991

here's the fair share share make every registered republicans pay for everything ... that's fair


----------



## johnwk

uhkilleez said:


> I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.
> 
> The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.


With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitutions original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.  If you had, I do not believe you would assert indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.

Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal excise taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.

Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

*There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised. 


It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. *

Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected.  The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation.  If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed.  And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founders intended free market system.


And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury!  It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles.  But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power.  If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury.  In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyists particular article from taxation, another articles tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny.  And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.


Finally, under our Constitutions original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each states congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its states apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own states treasury.


The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York States big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit?  I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would *REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS* for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

Why is it that not one of our conservative media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitutions original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world? 

Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitutions original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



JWK

*a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.___ * Madison, during the creation of our *Nations first revenue raising Act*


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Conservatives only want to cut expenditures when democrats are in office.  Pure politics.  When Republicans are in office they want to spend,  spend,  spend,  and not tax.  Without the Bush's and Reagan we'd be well off fiscally.  With them it will be generations,  if we're lucky,  before recovery.
> 
> The fact that so many are in denial of those simple and obvious facts is a measure of one thing.  The effectiveness of Republican 24/4/365 media propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
> In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
> Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
> The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
> The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.
> 
> On to Bush tax cuts:
> The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
> After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
> The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
> The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
> Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.
> 
> As usual you have nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
Click to expand...


"crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.
> The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitutions original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.  If you had, I do not believe you would assert indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.
> Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal excise taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
> Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
Click to expand...

There was disagreement over the meaning of some of the terms on taxes in the constitution. The Nation passed an income tax during the civil war without any concern as to constitutionality.  Read Kevin Phillips _Arrogant Capital_ on how many politicians are subservient to bankers and actually dont want to pay down debt.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I paid taxes under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II.
> In 1986 Congress lowered the top rate from 35 to 28%. The 1986 bill was revenue neutral as in it the long term capital gains rate went from 20 to 28%.
> Reagan ended the IRA deduction on high earners and maxed the 401k type plans at 7K instead of 30K. Reagan signed into law tax increases in 1982 and 1984.
> The 1986 law took 6 million lower middle class and working poor families off the tax roles.
> The 1986 law hit tax shelters for the rich and limited individual taxpayer's ability to use speculative real estate losses to offset salary and other income.
> 
> On to Bush tax cuts:
> The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% from 44% to 60%.
> After the Bush tax cuts of 2001 unemployment fell to the lowest level since WWII.
> The Bush tax cuts caused Federal revenues to increase 800 billion dollars from 2001 to 2008.
> The Bush tax cuts doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1000.
> Middle income families saw their taxes rise an average of $1800 a year when the Bush tax cuts ended.
> 
> As usual you have nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.
Click to expand...


Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?
Click to expand...


Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post, PMS.  You've proved it time and time again.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post, PMS.  You've proved it time and time again.
Click to expand...


This,  like all your posts,  is what you have to believe, in order for all of your opinions to be right. 

Here's another possibility.  All of your opinions are wrong because they stem from Fox Opinions Republican sponsored propaganda. So,  they only represent what the GOP wishes to be true. 

This would be easy for you to figure out,  but nobody believes that you ever will. 

I'm much more tolerant.  All I care is that people like you who have fallen into the cult stay out of government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post, PMS.  You've proved it time and time again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This,  like all your posts,  is what you have to believe, in order for all of your opinions to be right.
> 
> Here's another possibility.  All of your opinions are wrong because they stem from Fox Opinions Republican sponsored propaganda. So,  they only represent what the GOP wishes to be true.
> 
> This would be easy for you to figure out,  but nobody believes that you ever will.
> 
> I'm much more tolerant.  All I care is that people like you who have fallen into the cult stay out of government.
Click to expand...


See?  You just proved it again.  Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post, PMS.  You've proved it time and time again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This,  like all your posts,  is what you have to believe, in order for all of your opinions to be right.
> 
> Here's another possibility.  All of your opinions are wrong because they stem from Fox Opinions Republican sponsored propaganda. So,  they only represent what the GOP wishes to be true.
> 
> This would be easy for you to figure out,  but nobody believes that you ever will.
> 
> I'm much more tolerant.  All I care is that people like you who have fallen into the cult stay out of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See?  You just proved it again.  Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
Click to expand...


Your truth is.  The point is that your truth is not reality,  but what you wish was.  It's a self serving delusion that would make you happy if it were to become true,  but, in fact,  doesn't correlate with what actually happens in the real world. 

Thats why it is essential that people who share your delusion,  who got it from the same as you did,  apparently,  be voted out of,  never in to, government.  And why the elections that ignored that,  led to such disastrous results for America in the recent past. 

Our country needs to be run in accordance with the reality of how people behave,  what problems exist,  what problems are the greatest threats to the lives of we,  the people who are in charge of government, what future we want,  what is known today and will be learned tomorrow,  our role in the world,  our security,  etc. 

Being consistent with reality is what makes plans and actions effective.


----------



## Gadawg73

My sister is in hospice care with weeks at best to live. We are looking at personal care homes for her to stay in. Interesting that at the hospice many of the CNAs and LPNs are from Jamaica and Ghana. Spoke today with Afia who is working there and attending a local college to get her RN. She moved to the US 7 years ago and has worked at different nursing homes and studied to get her CNA and LPN and now her RN. One of the personal care homes is owned by a woman from Ghana also. This house is a beautiful home and she owns 4. They care for the elderly that have Alzheimers and also cancer patients. These people come here with no job and have a work ethic which gets them where they are, in professional jobs and as business owners.
The liberal left has created a welfare state in this country of dependence on government with their bull shit lies of the big bad corporations, insurance companies, CEOs, management and everyone else that worked harder than they did and has more than them. The elitist academia leads the way.
What they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands. A RN makes 80K a year in Georgia. 
Over the last 10 years only 50% of college graduates prepared themselves for what the market demands and found work.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the results of the Bush tax cuts that you admire so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?
Click to expand...


You post your source as "crooksandliars.com" and claim it to be the truth?
Once again you show proof positive you are an elitist snob.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "crooksandliars.com" a fitting source from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post your source as "crooksandliars.com" and claim it to be the truth?
> Once again you show proof positive you are an elitist snob.
Click to expand...


It's actually all over the Web.  Do a Google image search for it.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> My sister is in hospice care with weeks at best to live. We are looking at personal care homes for her to stay in. Interesting that at the hospice many of the CNAs and LPNs are from Jamaica and Ghana. Spoke today with Afia who is working there and attending a local college to get her RN. She moved to the US 7 years ago and has worked at different nursing homes and studied to get her CNA and LPN and now her RN. One of the personal care homes is owned by a woman from Ghana also. This house is a beautiful home and she owns 4. They care for the elderly that have Alzheimers and also cancer patients. These people come here with no job and have a work ethic which gets them where they are, in professional jobs and as business owners.
> The liberal left has created a welfare state in this country of dependence on government with their bull shit lies of the big bad corporations, insurance companies, CEOs, management and everyone else that worked harder than they did and has more than them. The elitist academia leads the way.
> What they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands. A RN makes 80K a year in Georgia.
> Over the last 10 years only 50% of college graduates prepared themselves for what the market demands and found work.



Another good Fox Opinions recital.  

Show us any evidence that "they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands." 

I'll show you evidence that those social ills are caused by extreme wealth inequality.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ:
Do you ever socialize with conservatives and tell them to their face that you believe them to be second class citizens? 
I bet your entire group of friends consists of liberals only.
My best friends consist of liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, gay, straight, black, white and others. We discuss things without labeling each other. We define who WE are and listen and respect when others tell us who THEY are.
Instead of acting like we know everything about everything like you claim.
EVERYBODY knows something that you and I and everyone else does not know.
You could use a dose of listening instead of telling others what you believe they are.
No one cares about how much you know. They want to know how much you care.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is in hospice care with weeks at best to live. We are looking at personal care homes for her to stay in. Interesting that at the hospice many of the CNAs and LPNs are from Jamaica and Ghana. Spoke today with Afia who is working there and attending a local college to get her RN. She moved to the US 7 years ago and has worked at different nursing homes and studied to get her CNA and LPN and now her RN. One of the personal care homes is owned by a woman from Ghana also. This house is a beautiful home and she owns 4. They care for the elderly that have Alzheimers and also cancer patients. These people come here with no job and have a work ethic which gets them where they are, in professional jobs and as business owners.
> The liberal left has created a welfare state in this country of dependence on government with their bull shit lies of the big bad corporations, insurance companies, CEOs, management and everyone else that worked harder than they did and has more than them. The elitist academia leads the way.
> What they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands. A RN makes 80K a year in Georgia.
> Over the last 10 years only 50% of college graduates prepared themselves for what the market demands and found work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good Fox Opinions recital.
> 
> Show us any evidence that "they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands."
> 
> I'll show you evidence that those social ills are caused by extreme wealth inequality.
Click to expand...


Never watch FOX news or the Tube like you do. 
Occasional ball game, Antiques Road Show, Frontline, old movies.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is in hospice care with weeks at best to live. We are looking at personal care homes for her to stay in. Interesting that at the hospice many of the CNAs and LPNs are from Jamaica and Ghana. Spoke today with Afia who is working there and attending a local college to get her RN. She moved to the US 7 years ago and has worked at different nursing homes and studied to get her CNA and LPN and now her RN. One of the personal care homes is owned by a woman from Ghana also. This house is a beautiful home and she owns 4. They care for the elderly that have Alzheimers and also cancer patients. These people come here with no job and have a work ethic which gets them where they are, in professional jobs and as business owners.
> The liberal left has created a welfare state in this country of dependence on government with their bull shit lies of the big bad corporations, insurance companies, CEOs, management and everyone else that worked harder than they did and has more than them. The elitist academia leads the way.
> What they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands. A RN makes 80K a year in Georgia.
> Over the last 10 years only 50% of college graduates prepared themselves for what the market demands and found work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good Fox Opinions recital.
> 
> Show us any evidence that "they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands."
> 
> I'll show you evidence that those social ills are caused by extreme wealth inequality.
Click to expand...


http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ:
> Do you ever socialize with conservatives and tell them to their face that you believe them to be second class citizens?
> I bet your entire group of friends consists of liberals only.
> My best friends consist of liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, gay, straight, black, white and others. We discuss things without labeling each other. We define who WE are and listen and respect when others tell us who THEY are.
> Instead of acting like we know everything about everything like you claim.
> EVERYBODY knows something that you and I and everyone else does not know.
> You could use a dose of listening instead of telling others what you believe they are.
> No one cares about how much you know. They want to know how much you care.



I don't argue politics or religion socially.  I thought that that was the purpose of venues like this. 

The purpose of using venues like this to try to get things right are the consequences of doing things wrong.


----------



## Gadawg73

So PMZ:
How does the woman that came here from Ghana with NO money now own 4 nice personal care homes?
All about work ethic and nothing about income equality.
Same with Afi that will have her RN soon.
You look down on them because you believe you know better than they do and believe they are too stupid to achieve on their own the elitist you are.
They do not listen to you and want to do things and achieve on their own from hard work.
Same as my Muslim friend from Pakistan who has 3 sons all in engineering schools and my Mexican friend that lives in a 400K home down the street from me.
They have a work ethic and despise you and all you stand for because you believe people like them are too stupid to do things on their own and achieve.
Instead of supporting people that have no work educate themselves to do what the market demands you would rather have someone to blame and keep them down in their place in mediocrity claiming the high ground that you are actually doing something for them.
In reality instead of doing something to lift people out of poverty by encouraging them and going to them and showing them the way you give them the middle finger and say "FUCK YOU, go to government and I will support plundering the fruits of other's labor so you can have something. I do not have time to help you. Do not bother me. I am busy. Go ask government for money."


----------



## Gadawg73

All of my friends from other countries despise the left in this country. They come here and work for their rewards and teach their kids to do the same.
The left looks down on them and hates them as they are Exhibit A of the way things should be in this country. The left can not stand to see achievement without government help as when that happens they have no one to blame.
The left loves it when poor people remain poor as they can blame corporations, the 1%, Republicans, conservatives and all others that dare question their elitist higher than thou mandate that government must plunder from producers to give to the rapidly growing moocher class.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> So PMZ:
> How does the woman that came here from Ghana with NO money now own 4 nice personal care homes?
> All about work ethic and nothing about income equality.
> Same with Afi that will have her RN soon.
> You look down on them because you believe you know better than they do and believe they are too stupid to achieve on their own the elitist you are.
> They do not listen to you and want to do things and achieve on their own from hard work.
> Same as my Muslim friend from Pakistan who has 3 sons all in engineering schools and my Mexican friend that lives in a 400K home down the street from me.
> They have a work ethic and despise you and all you stand for because you believe people like them are too stupid to do things on their own and achieve.
> Instead of supporting people that have no work educate themselves to do what the market demands you would rather have someone to blame and keep them down in their place in mediocrity claiming the high ground that you are actually doing something for them.
> In reality instead of doing something to lift people out of poverty by encouraging them and going to them and showing them the way you give them the middle finger and say "FUCK YOU, go to government and I will support plundering the fruits of other's labor so you can have something. I do not have time to help you. Do not bother me. I am busy. Go ask government for money."



It would be interesting to know who inspired each of those people.  Why don't you ask them? 

You have the idea that helping families financially to cover minimal life needs precludes encouraging and teaching them.  

Where does that come from?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best that you could come up with to obscure truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post your source as "crooksandliars.com" and claim it to be the truth?
> Once again you show proof positive you are an elitist snob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually all over the Web.  Do a Google image search for it.
Click to expand...


And what does that prove. If I Google "Bigfoot" I get 17 million hits.  I doubt your source gets that many.  So Bigfoot is more credible than  your source.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So PMZ:
> How does the woman that came here from Ghana with NO money now own 4 nice personal care homes?
> All about work ethic and nothing about income equality.
> Same with Afi that will have her RN soon.
> You look down on them because you believe you know better than they do and believe they are too stupid to achieve on their own the elitist you are.
> They do not listen to you and want to do things and achieve on their own from hard work.
> Same as my Muslim friend from Pakistan who has 3 sons all in engineering schools and my Mexican friend that lives in a 400K home down the street from me.
> They have a work ethic and despise you and all you stand for because you believe people like them are too stupid to do things on their own and achieve.
> Instead of supporting people that have no work educate themselves to do what the market demands you would rather have someone to blame and keep them down in their place in mediocrity claiming the high ground that you are actually doing something for them.
> In reality instead of doing something to lift people out of poverty by encouraging them and going to them and showing them the way you give them the middle finger and say "FUCK YOU, go to government and I will support plundering the fruits of other's labor so you can have something. I do not have time to help you. Do not bother me. I am busy. Go ask government for money."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know who inspired each of those people.  Why don't you ask them?
> 
> You have the idea that helping families financially to cover minimal life needs precludes encouraging and teaching them.
> 
> Where does that come from?
Click to expand...


Government social workers don't inspire anyone to do anything other than demand more free stuff.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post your source as "crooksandliars.com" and claim it to be the truth?
> Once again you show proof positive you are an elitist snob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually all over the Web.  Do a Google image search for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what does that prove. If I Google "Bigfoot" I get 17 million hits.  I doubt your source gets that many.  So Bigfoot is more credible than  your source.
Click to expand...


Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.


----------



## ShawnChris13

All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My sister is in hospice care with weeks at best to live. We are looking at personal care homes for her to stay in. Interesting that at the hospice many of the CNAs and LPNs are from Jamaica and Ghana. Spoke today with Afia who is working there and attending a local college to get her RN. She moved to the US 7 years ago and has worked at different nursing homes and studied to get her CNA and LPN and now her RN. One of the personal care homes is owned by a woman from Ghana also. This house is a beautiful home and she owns 4. They care for the elderly that have Alzheimers and also cancer patients. These people come here with no job and have a work ethic which gets them where they are, in professional jobs and as business owners.
> The liberal left has created a welfare state in this country of dependence on government with their bull shit lies of the big bad corporations, insurance companies, CEOs, management and everyone else that worked harder than they did and has more than them. The elitist academia leads the way.
> What they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands. A RN makes 80K a year in Georgia.
> Over the last 10 years only 50% of college graduates prepared themselves for what the market demands and found work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good Fox Opinions recital.
> 
> Show us any evidence that "they ave created is a class of milk weak pussies too lazy to educate themselves to what the market demands."
> 
> I'll show you evidence that those social ills are caused by extreme wealth inequality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  The U.N. is the source of all the statistics used.  We've already seen how the WHO statistics are pure bullshit.  The odds are so are these.  You have to wonder how the U.N. measured the amount of "trust" in a society.  That metric obviously isn't measurable.  Yet, your source put up a chart show "trust" in different countries.

Only the truly gullible would swallow such obvious crap.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?



Life is not fair,  why should taxes be? 

People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers. 

Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually all over the Web.  Do a Google image search for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what does that prove. If I Google "Bigfoot" I get 17 million hits.  I doubt your source gets that many.  So Bigfoot is more credible than  your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.
Click to expand...


"Ignorance" must be a euphemism for "irrefutable logic and facts."


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
Click to expand...



The argument life is not fair isn't an argument. That's a cop out. You might as well say "I don't know." 

Wealth inequality is such a huge problem because of unfair taxes in which all the loopholes are offered to the wealthy. So yes, definitely "life is not fair." But you know what could make life a little more fair? Fair taxes.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what does that prove. If I Google "Bigfoot" I get 17 million hits.  I doubt your source gets that many.  So Bigfoot is more credible than  your source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Ignorance" must be a euphemism for "irrefutable logic and facts."
Click to expand...


But it's not.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The argument life is not fair isn't an argument. That's a cop out. You might as well say "I don't know."
> 
> Wealth inequality is such a huge problem because of unfair taxes in which all the loopholes are offered to the wealthy. So yes, definitely "life is not fair." But you know what could make life a little more fair? Fair taxes.
Click to expand...


Fair is a completely subjective concept. 

I'm sure that the folks on the short end of the stick would accept your "fair" taxes if you could also make life fair.  

Alas,  you cannot.  

So the folks who benefitted from breaks that allowed them wealth are going to have to share some of their good fortune.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This,  like all your posts,  is what you have to believe, in order for all of your opinions to be right.
> 
> Here's another possibility.  All of your opinions are wrong because they stem from Fox Opinions Republican sponsored propaganda. So,  they only represent what the GOP wishes to be true.
> 
> This would be easy for you to figure out,  but nobody believes that you ever will.
> 
> I'm much more tolerant.  All I care is that people like you who have fallen into the cult stay out of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You just proved it again.  Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your truth is.  The point is that your truth is not reality,  but what you wish was.  It's a self serving delusion that would make you happy if it were to become true,  but, in fact,  doesn't correlate with what actually happens in the real world.
Click to expand...


It would have been much simpler for you to just say "Nuh Uhn!"



PMZ said:


> Thats why it is essential that people who share your delusion,  who got it from the same as you did,  apparently,  be voted out of,  never in to, government.  And why the elections that ignored that,  led to such disastrous results for America in the recent past.



Once again, truth is precisely the opposite of what you post.



PMZ said:


> Our country needs to be run in accordance with the reality of how people behave,  what problems exist,  what problems are the greatest threats to the lives of we,  the people who are in charge of government, what future we want,  what is known today and will be learned tomorrow,  our role in the world,  our security,  etc.
> 
> Being consistent with reality is what makes plans and actions effective.



True (for once).  However, that is precisely why we need to kick your ilk out of office.  You and your ilk are the reason for disasters like Obamacare.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for BriPat to put on his ignorance demonstration tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ignorance" must be a euphemism for "irrefutable logic and facts."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's not.
Click to expand...


Based on your posts, it is.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See?  You just proved it again.  Truth is the exact opposite of whatever you post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your truth is.  The point is that your truth is not reality,  but what you wish was.  It's a self serving delusion that would make you happy if it were to become true,  but, in fact,  doesn't correlate with what actually happens in the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would have been much simpler for you to just say "Nuh Uhn!"
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats why it is essential that people who share your delusion,  who got it from the same as you did,  apparently,  be voted out of,  never in to, government.  And why the elections that ignored that,  led to such disastrous results for America in the recent past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, truth is precisely the opposite of what you post.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our country needs to be run in accordance with the reality of how people behave,  what problems exist,  what problems are the greatest threats to the lives of we,  the people who are in charge of government, what future we want,  what is known today and will be learned tomorrow,  our role in the world,  our security,  etc.
> 
> Being consistent with reality is what makes plans and actions effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True (for once).  However, that is precisely why we need to kick your ilk out of office.  You and your ilk are the reason for disasters like Obamacare.
Click to expand...


You did that in 2000, remember?  Our great great great grandchildren will still be paying your unpaid bills. 

And now that government has done what it can to recover from Bush's Great Recession,  we're still waiting for business to fix what they threw away.  Millions of American careers.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
Click to expand...


Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?



PMZ said:


> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.



No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect.  Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.



PMZ said:


> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????



Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument life is not fair isn't an argument. That's a cop out. You might as well say "I don't know."
> 
> Wealth inequality is such a huge problem because of unfair taxes in which all the loopholes are offered to the wealthy. So yes, definitely "life is not fair." But you know what could make life a little more fair? Fair taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair is a completely subjective concept.
> 
> I'm sure that the folks on the short end of the stick would accept your "fair" taxes if you could also make life fair.
> 
> Alas,  you cannot.
> 
> So the folks who benefitted from breaks that allowed them wealth are going to have to share some of their good fortune.
Click to expand...



Punishing successful people will come to no avail. I think a great step to granting access for success for the people on the short end of the stick would be to level the playing field.

Giving the government funds to provide programs so filled with fraud is no solution for the poor. Focus that money on education and public infrastructure. Then you will see how people with work ethic can rise to the top. Opportunity is the only thing they need to achieve success.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect.  Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.
Click to expand...


If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in,  I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.


----------



## Gadawg73

The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house. 
How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
> How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?



Perhaps you should tell them to stop.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect.  Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in,  I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history.  You are.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
Click to expand...


Life is not fair.
Some have more wealth than others.
Because life is not fair.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
> How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should tell them to stop.
Click to expand...


LOL, and they would listen.
Stop the incentives for them to have more children when they can not properly take care of the ones they have.
Bring back where there is SHAME when one acts irresponsible in society and there are real consequences for the ADULTS that are the ones acting irresponsible.
Because what we have is now is a growing class of citizens raising children in poverty because of their own actions.
That you fully support, reward and encourage.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if government isn't supposed to treat people equally, then why not bring back slavery or segregation?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they only showed that the USA is less equal than the European welfare states they compared it with, and their measure of "social ills" are highly suspect.  Most of them, like "trust," aren't even measurable.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we aren't stupid gullible suckers like you and your friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in,  I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history.  You are.
Click to expand...


Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
Click to expand...


Why should taxes be fair if life's not?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left runs from the fact that children are BORN into poverty with the exact same % of children born out of wedlock and no father in house.
> How is it the fault of income inequality when women keep having babies they can not afford and no father is around to help raise them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should tell them to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, and they would listen.
> Stop the incentives for them to have more children when they can not properly take care of the ones they have.
> Bring back where there is SHAME when one acts irresponsible in society and there are real consequences for the ADULTS that are the ones acting irresponsible.
> Because what we have is now is a growing class of citizens raising children in poverty because of their own actions.
> That you fully support, reward and encourage.
Click to expand...


I don't think that there's anything preventing you from going on such a campaign.


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> I studied the constitution in college, and the truth is that indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes. The part that is evil is when government spends more than it makes and continually raises taxes. What I am in favor of is an abolition of all current taxes to be replaced by a fixed 10% direct tax and not a penny more, along with removing Congress' ability to borrow money on credit except from legal U.S. citizens registered to vote in the form of bonds.
> 
> The evil nature of taxes is evil no matter how direct or indirect they are, at the end of the day they are still taking YOUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitution&#8217;s original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.  If you had, I do not believe you would assert &#8220;indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.&#8221;
> Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal &#8220;excise&#8221; taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
> 
> Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was disagreement over the meaning of some of the terms on taxes in the constitution. The Nation passed an income tax during the civil war without any concern as to constitutionality.  Read Kevin Phillips _Arrogant Capital_ on how many politicians are subservient to bankers and actually dont want to pay down debt.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how your post relates to what is posted above.  But one thing is certain, there was no disagreement among those who ratified the Constitution with respect to direct taxes being required to be apportioned.  But don't take my word, let our founder's speak for themselves:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

*&#8220;With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.&#8221;* *4 Elliot&#8216;s, S.C., 305-6*

And see:
*&#8220;The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil&#8221;**3 Elliot&#8217;s, 243*,*&#8220;Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax&#8221;* *3 Elliot&#8217;s, 244* ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution. 

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress&#8217;s *&#8220;general power of taxation&#8221;* that, *"they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."**3 Elliot, 255*

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lion&#8217;s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution,  Mr. PENDLETON says:

*&#8220;The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion&#8221;**3 Elliot&#8217;s 41* 

Also see an *Act laying a direct tax for $3 million* in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see *Section 7 of direct tax of 1813* allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


Additionally, direct taxes are still required to be apportioned:

See: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), in which the Court stated, 

*&#8220;[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.&#8221;*


And this is once again confirmed in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) *&#8220;As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.&#8221;*

Finally, Justice Roberts, in the Obamacare case also confirms * The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.*


JWK

*If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.*  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)


----------



## dcraelin

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the name calling in this thread really years away from useful debate. Can't a fair share be FAIR. Let everyone throw in 12% if there MUST be taxes. If not twelve then some other number that can be agreed upon. Everyone throws in the same. Why is that unfair?
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
Click to expand...

We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I was you, surrounded by the failure of everything that you believe in,  I think that I might be tempted to deny reality too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history.  You are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.
Click to expand...


Our Constitution is conservatism in writing,  and you believe it's a failure.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should taxes be fair if life's not?
Click to expand...


Yeah, why not bring back slavery or segregation?


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.
Click to expand...


You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  What's "wrongheaded" about it?


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.



Actually, we live in a constitutionally limited system of government, and although I appreciate you posting your personal sense of what is "fair", the fact is, our Constitution lays out a fair share formula to be followed whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly. And that formula for direct taxation, turns out to be an equal per capita tax if levied directly upon the people!

The formula is:

State`s population 
_________________ X sum being raised  = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population 



For example, if Congress lays a direct tax on the people of the united states and the people of New York each pay one dollar to meet New Yorks apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New Yorks total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New Yorks larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitutions fair share formula! 

I take it you do not support our Constitution's command for equal taxation when and if Congress taxes the people directly?


JWK


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
> *With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.* *4 Elliots, S.C., 305-6*
> JWK


The above quote actually supports what I said, that there were differing opinions. Pinckney is equating direct taxes to the requisitions of the Articles of Confederation years.



bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.
> 
> 
> 
> You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  What's "wrongheaded" about it?
Click to expand...

Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.
> 
> 
> 
> You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  What's "wrongheaded" about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.
Click to expand...


Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges.  Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.

The former type of exchange is moral and ethical.  The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery.  Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.

You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.
Click to expand...


Insurance spreads risk.  Another way to look at it is that it spreads good and misfortune.  The lucky ones who don't suffer loss pay more than they get,  the unlucky ones who suffer the insured loss get more back than they put in. 

Progressive taxation does the same.  And,  as I said before,  it's easy for the wealthy ones to change places with the poor if they think that their tax burden is too much.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.
> 
> 
> 
> Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges.  Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
> The former type of exchange is moral and ethical.  The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery.  Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
> You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.
Click to expand...

if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.    Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance spreads risk.  Another way to look at it is that it spreads good and misfortune.  The lucky ones who don't suffer loss pay more than they get,  the unlucky ones who suffer the insured loss get more back than they put in.
> 
> Progressive taxation does the same.  And,  as I said before,  it's easy for the wealthy ones to change places with the poor if they think that their tax burden is too much.
Click to expand...


Insurance is voluntary.  Taxation is at the point of a gun.  Why would I want to "share the risk" with an organization that has no problem covering alcoholics, drug addicts and people who engage in risky behavior?

Guido the leg breaker says the same thing:  "If you don't like paying for my protection, then it's easy for you to move your business somewhere else."

It's easy for you to move to Cuba where the tax burden is more to your liking.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who believes in Obamacare and AGW, two of the biggest failures in history.  You are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is conservatism in writing,  and you believe it's a failure.
> 
> Why don't you move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking?
Click to expand...


Our Constitution is extremely liberal.  Progressive.  It is the ultimate in equality with one person,  one vote. Everyone with the same power over government.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  What's "wrongheaded" about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges.  Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
> 
> The former type of exchange is moral and ethical.  The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery.  Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
> 
> You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.
Click to expand...


The whining of conservatives is like people who choose to live in a risky neighborhood.  The natural question is,  if this is too rough for you,  why don't you move? 

Why do you choose to live where people point guns at you?


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.
> 
> 
> 
> Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges.  Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
> The former type of exchange is moral and ethical.  The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery.  Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
> You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.
Click to expand...


Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?



dcraelin said:


> Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.



The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.

Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its wrongheaded because u seem to place some moral evil on taxing wealthy actors for example, when really their compensation is not determined by their extra sweat but by supply and demand...the marketplace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges.  Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
> 
> The former type of exchange is moral and ethical.  The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery.  Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
> 
> You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whining of conservatives is like people who choose to live in a risky neighborhood.  The natural question is,  if this is too rough for you,  why don't you move?
> 
> Why do you choose to live where people point guns at you?
Click to expand...


You sound just like Guido the Leg Breaker who tells the "clients" who pay him "protection" that they can just move to another neighborhood if they don't like his "services."

You're nothing but a cheap thug, PMS.  That's all liberalism is: the moral code of thugs.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservativism is the biggest failure in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is conservatism in writing,  and you believe it's a failure.
> 
> Why don't you move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is extremely liberal.  Progressive.  It is the ultimate in equality with one person,  one vote. Everyone with the same power over government.
Click to expand...


It didn't do that when it was written, so you must believe the Founding Fathers were reactionaries.

It actually still doesn't do that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their compensation is entirely the result of voluntary exchanges.  Taxation, on the other hand, comes at the point of a gun.
> The former type of exchange is moral and ethical.  The later type of exchange it the mark of thuggery.  Taxing some more than others simply because of envy is even more despicable.
> You'll find that thugs don't sweat much either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.
> 
> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.
Click to expand...


People who have been fortunate in life,  aren't forced into wealth.  If the obligations of it are unbearable,  give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness,  and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth. 

You are in full control.  You have choices.  Don't pay your taxes.  We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you. 

Just stop whining.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.
> 
> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who have been fortunate in life,  aren't forced into wealth.  If the obligations of it are unbearable,  give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness,  and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.
> 
> You are in full control.  You have choices.  Don't pay your taxes.  We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.
> 
> Just stop whining.
Click to expand...



Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?

Of course not!  You're proud of what you are!


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?
> 
> 
> 
> The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.
> 
> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who have been fortunate in life,  aren't forced into wealth.  If the obligations of it are unbearable,  give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness,  and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.
> 
> You are in full control.  You have choices.  Don't pay your taxes.  We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.
> 
> Just stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?
> 
> Of course not!  You're proud of what you are!
Click to expand...


Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who have been fortunate in life,  aren't forced into wealth.  If the obligations of it are unbearable,  give it away. There's zero correlation between wealth and happiness,  and obviously you are made unhappy by paying the taxes on wealth.
> 
> You are in full control.  You have choices.  Don't pay your taxes.  We will help you by relieving you of that burden by reducing your wealth for you.
> 
> Just stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?
> 
> Of course not!  You're proud of what you are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?
Click to expand...


I don't come off as the village idiot.  You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.

Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?
Click to expand...


it doesnt, The OP was about how much, and I assumed marginally progressive taxation. As I pointed out, 45% in times of peace and 70-90% in times of war would most likely keep our budget balanced. 



dcraelin said:


> Marginally higher taxes on the wealthy is not the result of envy as the taxes go to fund government generally and, ideally, all have a say in how they are spent.





bripat9643 said:


> The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.



To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be a war of all against all, and render life nasty, brutish, and short. 


bripat9643 said:


> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.


 I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair,  why should taxes be?
> 
> People who study such things have the data that shows that the US is extreme in the world in wealth inequality.  Statisticians show substantial correlation between wealth inequality and the social ills we read about every single day in the papers.
> 
> Why on earth would we take steps to make all of those problems worse????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.
> Some have more wealth than others.
> Because life is not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should taxes be fair if life's not?
Click to expand...



You're right. Let's just increase taxes disproportionately and never try to fix any broken system. Let every pothole remain I unfilled we need the sales tax from new tires. Don't worry about those bridges that are getting old and need to be replaced we gotta tax those insurance claims. Hurricane hit New Orleans? They obviously got water to drink look at the streets. Why bother trying to help anybody out? Life's not fair.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of coming off like a cheap thug?
> 
> Of course not!  You're proud of what you are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't come off as the village idiot.  You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.
> 
> Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?
Click to expand...


Most economists here think like me. I love it here.  All except for the village idiots.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesnt, The OP was about how much, and I assumed marginally progressive taxation. As I pointed out, 45% in times of peace and 70-90% in times of war would most likely keep our budget balanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be a war of all against all, and render life nasty, brutish, and short.
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.
Click to expand...


I think that above comfortable,  wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of coming off like the village idiot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't come off as the village idiot.  You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.
> 
> Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most economists here think like me. I love it here.  All except for the village idiots.
Click to expand...


Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression?  I think not.

Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll.  They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics. 

The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> I think that above comfortable,  wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.



How does that justify taking the money he earned?  Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy?  The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters.  Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it.  That's how we got the progressive income tax.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> if u say taxation comes at the point of a gun, then ALL taxation comes at the point of a gun, and thru out history it has generally been a gun pointed by a wealthy aristocrat at a poor farmer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it were true, how does it make pointing guns at people moral or ethical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it doesnt, The OP was about how much, and I assumed marginally progressive taxation. As I pointed out, 45% in times of peace and 70-90% in times of war would most likely keep our budget balanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The envious who have little money far outnumber the wealthy.  The fact that Curly and Moe conspired to rob Larry doesn't alter the fact that it's still robbery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To paraphrase Hobbes, life without government would be a war of all against all, and render life nasty, brutish, and short.
Click to expand...


I think not.  It's true that states have conquered peoples lacking the machinery of oppression, but that doesn't prove those people will war among themselves.  Stateless people's have always evolved means of resolving disputes among themselves.



dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.
Click to expand...


Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what?  Why should I care why a man wants to be rich so long as he doesn't rob or clonk anyone over the head in his effort to achieve wealth?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't come off as the village idiot.  You confuse what you and your friends think as some kind of objective opinion.
> 
> Why don't you move to Cuba where the village thinks more like you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most economists here think like me. I love it here.  All except for the village idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression?  I think not.
> 
> Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll.  They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.
> 
> The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
Click to expand...


Most village idiots think that the Great Recession,  which began a year before Obama was elected should be called Obama's Recession.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that above comfortable,  wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that justify taking the money he earned?  Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy?  The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters.  Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it.  That's how we got the progressive income tax.
Click to expand...


I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that above comfortable,  wealthy is all about creating envy and being envious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that justify taking the money he earned?  Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy?  The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters.  Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it.  That's how we got the progressive income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.
Click to expand...


People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?"  How about people who hate others simply because they have money?  

What makes you tick?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most economists here think like me. I love it here.  All except for the village idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression?  I think not.
> 
> Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll.  They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.
> 
> The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most village idiots think that the Great Recession,  which began a year before Obama was elected should be called Obama's Recession.
Click to expand...


A recession began under Bush, but Obama turned it into a depression.


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
> *With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.* *4 Elliots, S.C., 305-6*
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> The above quote actually supports what I said, that there were differing opinions. Pinckney is equating direct taxes to the requisitions of the Articles of Confederation years.
> .
Click to expand...



"Differing opinions"? His comparison was accurate and not in dispute.  And I seen nothing in what I posted which supports your personal idea of tax fairness. As a matter of fact, our Constitution's rule of apportionment is in direct conflict with you view of tax fairness.
Did you miss what I wrote to you? 


> Actually, we live in a constitutionally limited system of government, and although I appreciate you posting your personal sense of what is "fair", the fact is, our Constitution lays out a fair share formula to be followed whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly. And that formula for direct taxation, turns out to be an equal per capita tax if levied directly upon the people!
> 
> The formula is:
> 
> State`s population
> _________________ X sum being raised = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> Total U.S. Population
> 
> 
> 
> For example, if Congress lays a direct tax on the people of the united states and the people of New York each pay one dollar to meet New Yorks apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New Yorks total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New Yorks larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when voting to spend from the federal treasury, which is also part of our Constitutions fair share formula!
> 
> I take it you do not support our Constitution's command for equal taxation when and if Congress taxes the people directly?
> 
> 
> JWK


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could be more obvious than that higher marginal taxes are the product of left-wing demagogues appealing to the envy of the mob.  Every argument used to justify it is dripping with envy.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what?  Why should I care why a man wants to be rich so long as he doesn't rob or clonk anyone over the head in his effort to achieve wealth?
Click to expand...

 Why should you care about his motivation for wanting progressive taxes then?



johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
> *With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.* *4 Elliots, S.C., 305-6*
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> The above quote actually supports what I said, that there were differing opinions. Pinckney is equating direct taxes to the requisitions of the Articles of Confederation years.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Differing opinions"? His comparison was accurate and not in dispute.  And I seen nothing in what I posted which supports your personal idea of tax fairness. As a matter of fact, our Constitution's rule of apportionment is in direct conflict with you view of tax fairness.
> Did you miss what I wrote to you?
Click to expand...

somewhere in all that goop you wrote I believe is the old argument that an income tax couldn't be legal according to original constitution. That is wrong as we had one during civil war without any concern by the populace. 

Argument was based on idea that direct taxes had to be apportioned. and that income tax was direct tax. It isnt a direct tax under Pinckneys phrase equating to a requisition. 

anyway we now have the income tax amendment.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I read once in an economics text something to the effect that market economics are motivated by envy. one man trying to out do another, competition.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that were true, which it isn't, so what?  Why should I care why a man wants to be rich so long as he doesn't rob or clonk anyone over the head in his effort to achieve wealth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should you care about his motivation for wanting progressive taxes then?
Click to expand...


I care for the same reason that it's important to know the motivation of a criminal for committing a crime.  It's part of the case against him.  However, there is no "case" against the wealthy since they haven't done anything criminal.

The wealthy are not villains.  They haven't violated anyone's rights by making money.  In fact, they have normally gotten wealthy by provided thousands or even millions with incalculable benefits.  

Consider your smartphone.  It wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Steve Jobs.  What did he do that justifies looting him for everything he earned?


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Differing opinions"? His comparison was accurate and not in dispute.  And I seen nothing in what I posted which supports your personal idea of tax fairness. As a matter of fact, our Constitution's rule of apportionment is in direct conflict with you view of tax fairness.
> Did you miss what I wrote to you?
> 
> 
> 
> somewhere in all that goop you wrote I believe is the old argument that an income tax couldn't be legal according to original constitution. That is wrong as we had one during civil war without any concern by the populace.
Click to expand...


That was only one of the examples where Abraham Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution.  The Supreme Court ruled his income tax unconstitutional after the war and his dictatorship was over with.


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> somewhere in all that goop you wrote I believe is the old argument that an income tax couldn't be legal according to original constitution. That is wrong as we had one during civil war without any concern by the populace.
> 
> Argument was based on idea that direct taxes had to be apportioned. and that income tax was direct tax. It isnt a direct tax under Pinckneys phrase equating to a requisition.
> 
> anyway we now have the income tax amendment.



So now  you decide to switch the subject?  You previously wrote and I responded to your comment that *We live in a market economy where supply and demand determine compensation. The idea that its unfair to tax a billionaire liberal actor or singer or a CEO at a progressively higher rate is wrongheaded.* I responded to your above comment as follows:


> Actually, we live in a constitutionally limited system of government, and although I appreciate you posting your personal sense of what is "fair", the fact is, our Constitution lays out a fair share formula to be followed whenever Congress decides to enter the states and tax the people directly. And that formula for direct taxation, turns out to be an equal per capita tax if levied directly upon the people!
> 
> The formula is:
> 
> State`s population
> _________________ X sum being raised = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> Total U.S. Population



Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?



*No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*

Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.

JWK

*If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.*  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
> 
> Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)[/SIZE]



There are two types of taxes in our Constitution, Direct and Indirect.
Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned
Direct taxes do.... or did.

Pinckney equated direct taxes to requisitions on the states. i.e. the federal government would send a bill directly to the state's governor. Using that definition, an income tax would not be considered a direct tax. Other framers also held that view. 

You are correct to the extent that most of the framers would not have been familiar with income taxes as I believe only a couple of European nations were using them at the time, so it is open to debate weather or not they would have supported them.  But during the civil war an income tax was enacted without worry about unconstitutionality. 

The POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO was one of the most ridiculed Supreme Court cases in history.....There was a nationwide outcry on it, which led to the introduction of the 16th amendment, one of the shortest tersest amendments in the constitution.  This was passed by 3/4ths plus of the States legislatures and represented the will of the vast majority of the American people at the time.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that justify taking the money he earned?  Who gives a damn why people want to become wealthy?  The means they use to accomplish the goal is all that matters.  Envy only becomes an issue when guns are pointed at people to mollify it.  That's how we got the progressive income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?"  How about people who hate others simply because they have money?
> 
> What makes you tick?
Click to expand...


No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to study dysfunctional people to learn what makes them tick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?"  How about people who hate others simply because they have money?
> 
> What makes you tick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.
Click to expand...


How am I "dysfunctional?"  

For you're information, I'm not a conservative.  I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist.  I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.

BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious.  You're a Stalinist.  How much more extreme can you get?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who want to become wealthy are "dysfunctional?"  How about people who hate others simply because they have money?
> 
> What makes you tick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I "dysfunctional?"
> 
> For you're information, I'm not a conservative.  I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist.  I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.
> 
> BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious.  You're a Stalinist.  How much more extreme can you get?
Click to expand...


I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.

From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.

Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan. 

No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation. 

Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are dysfunctional in precisely the way other extreme conservatives are. You learned it from the same boobs and boobies on Fox Opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I "dysfunctional?"
> 
> For you're information, I'm not a conservative.  I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist.  I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.
> 
> BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious.  You're a Stalinist.  How much more extreme can you get?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.
> 
> From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.
> 
> Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.
> 
> No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.
> 
> Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.
Click to expand...



Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.

At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I "dysfunctional?"
> 
> For you're information, I'm not a conservative.  I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist.  I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.
> 
> BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious.  You're a Stalinist.  How much more extreme can you get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.
> 
> From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.
> 
> Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.
> 
> No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.
> 
> Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
> 
> At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
Click to expand...


It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.
> 
> From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.
> 
> Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.
> 
> No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.
> 
> Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
> 
> At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...



You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.

I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
> 
> At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
> 
> I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
Click to expand...


BTW, I believe that the downfall of Hitler wasn't due to Germany's economic system, but totalitarianism. It's common in governments and businesses that when one mind over rules all others, innovation stops.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
> 
> I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, I believe that the downfall of Hitler wasn't due to Germany's economic system, but totalitarianism. It's common in governments and businesses that when one mind over rules all others, innovation stops.
Click to expand...



I would love to debate the fall if Hitler in another forum. Start a thread and message me please so I can hear your points in full.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
> 
> I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I believe that the downfall of Hitler wasn't due to Germany's economic system, but totalitarianism. It's common in governments and businesses that when one mind over rules all others, innovation stops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to debate the fall if Hitler in another forum. Start a thread and message me please so I can hear your points in full.
Click to expand...


I don't think that would be a hot topic today.  History gets written by the winners.


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
> 
> Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)[/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two types of taxes in our Constitution, Direct and Indirect.
> Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned
> Direct taxes do.... or did.
> 
> Pinckney equated direct taxes to requisitions on the states. i.e. the federal government would send a bill directly to the state's governor. Using that definition, an income tax would not be considered a direct tax. Other framers also held that view.
> 
> You are correct to the extent that most of the framers would not have been familiar with income taxes as I believe only a couple of European nations were using them at the time, so it is open to debate weather or not they would have supported them.  But during the civil war an income tax was enacted without worry about unconstitutionality.
> 
> The POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO was one of the most ridiculed Supreme Court cases in history.....There was a nationwide outcry on it, which led to the introduction of the 16th amendment, one of the shortest tersest amendments in the constitution.  This was passed by 3/4ths plus of the States legislatures and represented the will of the vast majority of the American people at the time.
Click to expand...



I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked.  I wrote to you


johnwk said:


> Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
> 
> 
> 
> *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*
> 
> Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
> 
> JWK
> 
> *If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) *




Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*?


JWK


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression?  I think not.
> 
> Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll.  They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.
> 
> The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most village idiots think that the Great Recession,  which began a year before Obama was elected should be called Obama's Recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A recession began under Bush, but Obama turned it into a depression.
Click to expand...


There isn't an economist in the country that would agree with you even a little. 

The government has done all that it can for recovery.  Business has failed at their job.  Recreating the careers that they gave away.


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked.  I wrote to you
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
> *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*
> Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
> JWK
> *If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) *
> 
> 
> 
> Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*?
> JWK
Click to expand...


I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value. 

That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment. 

 POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked.  I wrote to you
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
> *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*
> Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
> JWK
> *If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) *
> 
> 
> 
> Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*?
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
> If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value.
> 
> That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
Click to expand...


Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words.  And, you still have not answered the question.

I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

JWK


*"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked.  I wrote to you
> 
> Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*?
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
> If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value.
> 
> That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words.  And, you still have not answered the question.
> 
> I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Click to expand...


Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then,  including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
> If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value.
> 
> That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words.  And, you still have not answered the question.
> 
> I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then,  including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.
Click to expand...


Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.  And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.

And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they 



*have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.




JWK



*The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


----------



## orogenicman

Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words.  And, you still have not answered the question.
> 
> I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then,  including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.  And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> 
> 
> 
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*
> 
> And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*
> 
> 
> And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*
> 
> And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*
> 
> Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Click to expand...


Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy. 

As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.


----------



## ShawnChris13

orogenicman said:


> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?




Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.


----------



## orogenicman

ShawnChris13 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
Click to expand...


Well, that made no sense, particularly since such a tax rate does not apply to just ANYONE who earns money in the U.S.  You know, when I hear the obscenely rich make such claims of, erm, discrimination, I almost shed a single tear.  Oh wait...no I don't.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
> 
> At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
> 
> I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
Click to expand...


And how did they become more successful?  "It is gladdening to see that the Chinese government is not only handing out food, or giving the poor people fish, but also giving them a hand up in life, that is teaching them how to fish," Rierson said. http://english.cntv.cn/20131017/104761.shtml


----------



## orogenicman

Define success.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
Click to expand...


Insurance spreads risk across populations.  The fortunate,  that don't suffer the loss of whatever's insured, pay for the misfortunate who do.  

Progressive income tax does the same.  It spreads the consequence of good fortune,  to those unfortunate. 

And it keeps the biggest risk of capitalism,  dysfunctional wealth inequality,  under control. 

America as we've known it,  wouldn't exist without it.


----------



## ShawnChris13

orogenicman said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that made no sense, particularly since such a tax rate does not apply to just ANYONE who earns money in the U.S.  You know, when I hear the obscenely rich make such claims of, erm, discrimination, I almost shed a single tear.  Oh wait...no I don't.
Click to expand...



If it does not please show proof it does not. Your emotionally based argument founded on contempt of success holds no bearing in a debate that wishes to dispute actual things that exist. Emotions are irrelevant, alongside your jealousy of those who are successful.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
> 
> I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how did they become more successful?  "It is gladdening to see that the Chinese government is not only handing out food, or giving the poor people fish, but also giving them a hand up in life, that is teaching them how to fish," Rierson said. http://english.cntv.cn/20131017/104761.shtml
Click to expand...


Clearly,  they are copying us.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance spreads risk across populations.  The fortunate,  that don't suffer the loss of whatever's insured, pay for the misfortunate who do.
> 
> Progressive income tax does the same.  It spreads the consequence of good fortune,  to those unfortunate.
> 
> And it keeps the biggest risk of capitalism,  dysfunctional wealth inequality,  under control.
> 
> America as we've known it,  wouldn't exist without it.
Click to expand...



Taxation and insurance are apples and oranges. Purchasing an insurance product and taxing people because of their success is not related nor comparable. America existed for a long time without "Progressive" ideals. Also America was arguably a stronger nation without them.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance spreads risk across populations.  The fortunate,  that don't suffer the loss of whatever's insured, pay for the misfortunate who do.
> 
> Progressive income tax does the same.  It spreads the consequence of good fortune,  to those unfortunate.
> 
> And it keeps the biggest risk of capitalism,  dysfunctional wealth inequality,  under control.
> 
> America as we've known it,  wouldn't exist without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taxation and insurance are apples and oranges. Purchasing an insurance product and taxing people because of their success is not related nor comparable. America existed for a long time without "Progressive" ideals. Also America was arguably a stronger nation without them.
Click to expand...


No evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?



Your "fair share" of my income is zero.

Any questions?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...


Life is not fair.  Why should taxes be?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
> 
> I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how did they become more successful?  "It is gladdening to see that the Chinese government is not only handing out food, or giving the poor people fish, but also giving them a hand up in life, that is teaching them how to fish," Rierson said. UN official praises China´s poverty reduction CCTV News - CNTV English
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly,  they are copying us.
Click to expand...


No, they are copying conservatives.  They are laughing at libtards like Obama and his green energy programs.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...


That isn't actually true.  But yes, I do have a question.  Why did you not answer my question?  Do you need me to post it again?  Oh wait, I just did.


----------



## PMZ

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't actually true.  But yes, I do have a question.  Why did you not answer my question?  Do you need me to post it again?  Oh wait, I just did.
Click to expand...


As masters of the universe they are entitled to ask questions but not required to answer them.  Rush Limbaugh conferred that entitlement.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't actually true.  But yes, I do have a question.  Why did you not answer my question?  Do you need me to post it again?  Oh wait, I just did.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is true.  What have you done that entitles you to anything I've earned?  I did answer the question.  You just aren't able to comprehend the answer.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how did they become more successful?  "It is gladdening to see that the Chinese government is not only handing out food, or giving the poor people fish, but also giving them a hand up in life, that is teaching them how to fish," Rierson said. UN official praises China´s poverty reduction CCTV News - CNTV English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly,  they are copying us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are copying conservatives.  They are laughing at libtards like Obama and his green energy programs.
Click to expand...


And choking on their air. 

If they were copying conservatives their economy would be shrinking,  not growing.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly,  they are copying us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are copying conservatives.  They are laughing at libtards like Obama and his green energy programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And choking on their air.
> 
> If they were copying conservatives their economy would be shrinking,  not growing.
Click to expand...


Huh?  You are the stupidest human alive.  Male or female?  I'd like to the courtesy of knowing whether it's ok to curse you out, or whether I have to hold the door for you in spite of your plans to destroy my country with socialism.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't actually true.  But yes, I do have a question.  Why did you not answer my question?  Do you need me to post it again?  Oh wait, I just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is true.  What have you done that entitles you to anything I've earned?  I did answer the question.  You just aren't able to comprehend the answer.
Click to expand...


I fought for you; I also cleaned up hundreds of gasoline service stations and hazardous waste sites so you and your family don't die of chemical exposure, both situations of which put me at risk for your sake.  But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you apparently want your cake and eat it too.  My taxes pay for your roads, for your freedoms and privileges, just as yours does mine.  That's what it means to be a citizen.  Do you ever recite the pledge of allegiance?  Ever read the Constitution?

And no you didn't answer my question.  I asked what is an unfair share.  You did not address this.  You assume that you don't have to pay anything, apparently.  If you believe that, perhaps you need to find another country in which to live, because as citizens of the U.S., you and I are constitutionally required to pay taxes.  And by Constitutional law, the government is required to determine what those taxes are and how to collect them.  So my question to you and anyone else, what constitutes an unfair share?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.  Why should taxes be?
Click to expand...



No evidence.


----------



## ShawnChris13

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't actually true.  But yes, I do have a question.  Why did you not answer my question?  Do you need me to post it again?  Oh wait, I just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is true.  What have you done that entitles you to anything I've earned?  I did answer the question.  You just aren't able to comprehend the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fought for you; I also cleaned up hundreds of gasoline service stations and hazardous waste sites so you and your family don't die of chemical exposure, both situations of which put me at risk for your sake.  But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you apparently want your cake and eat it too.  My taxes pay for your roads, for your freedoms and privileges, just as yours does mine.  That's what it means to be a citizen.  Do you ever recite the pledge of allegiance?  Ever read the Constitution?
Click to expand...



None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly,  they are copying us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are copying conservatives.  They are laughing at libtards like Obama and his green energy programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And choking on their air.
> 
> If they were copying conservatives their economy would be shrinking,  not growing.
Click to expand...


Can you list any libturd policy the Chinese have implemented in the last 30 years?


----------



## orogenicman

ShawnChris13 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is true.  What have you done that entitles you to anything I've earned?  I did answer the question.  You just aren't able to comprehend the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fought for you; I also cleaned up hundreds of gasoline service stations and hazardous waste sites so you and your family don't die of chemical exposure, both situations of which put me at risk for your sake.  But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you apparently want your cake and eat it too.  My taxes pay for your roads, for your freedoms and privileges, just as yours does mine.  That's what it means to be a citizen.  Do you ever recite the pledge of allegiance?  Ever read the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...


OMG.  Folks this is what this guys wishes we had for roads today:


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.  Why should taxes be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence.
Click to expand...


Every day is full of evidence for those with both eyes open.


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment.
> 
> That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> And, you still have not answered the question.
> 
> I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.   JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Click to expand...


I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is true.  What have you done that entitles you to anything I've earned?  I did answer the question.  You just aren't able to comprehend the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fought for you; I also cleaned up hundreds of gasoline service stations and hazardous waste sites so you and your family don't die of chemical exposure, both situations of which put me at risk for your sake.  But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you apparently want your cake and eat it too.  My taxes pay for your roads, for your freedoms and privileges, just as yours does mine.  That's what it means to be a citizen.  Do you ever recite the pledge of allegiance?  Ever read the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.
Click to expand...


Now that the wealthy with their bought and payed for political party have had a decade of redistributing wealth up,  and the wealthy are in possession of all but the 15% of it shared by 80% of us,  they think that they are entitled to what they stole from the middle class. 

So they say "We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth."

They would,  the country won't be.  There is no doubt that the efforts of the wealthy to have it all are destructive to the country.  No question that their successful wealth redistribution efforts have put the entire country at risk. 

Fortunately we know how to restore what works.  And we will.


----------



## ShawnChris13

orogenicman said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fought for you; I also cleaned up hundreds of gasoline service stations and hazardous waste sites so you and your family don't die of chemical exposure, both situations of which put me at risk for your sake.  But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you apparently want your cake and eat it too.  My taxes pay for your roads, for your freedoms and privileges, just as yours does mine.  That's what it means to be a citizen.  Do you ever recite the pledge of allegiance?  Ever read the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Folks this is what this guys wishes we had for roads today:
Click to expand...



Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fought for you; I also cleaned up hundreds of gasoline service stations and hazardous waste sites so you and your family don't die of chemical exposure, both situations of which put me at risk for your sake.  But that isn't the issue. The issue is that you apparently want your cake and eat it too.  My taxes pay for your roads, for your freedoms and privileges, just as yours does mine.  That's what it means to be a citizen.  Do you ever recite the pledge of allegiance?  Ever read the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that the wealthy with their bought and payed for political party have had a decade of redistributing wealth up,  and the wealthy are in possession of all but the 15% of it shared by 80% of us,  they think that they are entitled to what they stole from the middle class.
> 
> So they say "We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth."
> 
> They would,  the country won't be.  There is no doubt that the efforts of the wealthy to have it all are destructive to the country.  No question that their successful wealth redistribution efforts have put the entire country at risk.
> 
> Fortunately we know how to restore what works.  And we will.
Click to expand...



Restore what works? Also I'm far from wealthy. What's being restored that works so well? Taking my money?


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the wealthy with their bought and payed for political party have had a decade of redistributing wealth up,  and the wealthy are in possession of all but the 15% of it shared by 80% of us,  they think that they are entitled to what they stole from the middle class.
> 
> So they say "We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth."
> 
> They would,  the country won't be.  There is no doubt that the efforts of the wealthy to have it all are destructive to the country.  No question that their successful wealth redistribution efforts have put the entire country at risk.
> 
> Fortunately we know how to restore what works.  And we will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Restore what works? Also I'm far from wealthy. What's being restored that works so well? Taking my money?
Click to expand...


Return to the country democracticly run by the majority, who are middle class wealth creating workers.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then,  including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.  And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> 
> 
> 
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*
> 
> And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*
> 
> 
> And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*
> 
> And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*
> 
> Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.
> 
> As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.
Click to expand...


Your post makes no sense to me.  You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.


JWK


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment.
> 
> That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
> 
> POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> And, you still have not answered the question.
> 
> I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.   JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.
Click to expand...



I will not presume to know what you intended to express.  I take it that you do not want to answer the question, and that's ok by me.  The question was *Do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken?*


JWK


*The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVES  nightmare and not the American Dream*


----------



## uhkilleez

johnwk said:


> With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitutions original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.  If you had, I do not believe you would assert indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.



I read the entire constitution, and I still assert the same opinion. What difference does the form in which they steal your money make? It is just a petty nitpicking of the inevitable. With a fixed flat tax, the government gets an equal portion of everyone's income and nothing more. It is fair and easy to budget, and will still save you close to 40% of what you are currently paying in taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you even realize how much you pay in taxes, and when you do it. A fixed flat rate is straight forward and fair, indirect taxing is unfair and often hidden. What is more evil, bluntness or deception?



> Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal excise taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
> 
> Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
> 
> *There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
> 
> 
> It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. *
> 
> Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected.  The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation.  If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed.  And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founders intended free market system.
> 
> 
> And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury!  It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.



The same efforts to productivity would be true under a fixed flat direct tax, the income of the government would be solely dependent on economic prosperity at a flat tax rate of 10% of income. A key problem that I have with taxes on the articles of consumption is it allows Congress to legislate without passing legislation, and the best example of this is in cigarettes. It would be relatively hard for Congress to ban smoking altogether, although clearly not impossible as we nearly have no freedoms left in this country, however with the ability to apply taxes on articles of consumption they may purposefully overtax the product in order to influence the market as they see it fit. This is an inescapable consequence of indirect taxing, just as the waste that is the prohibition of drugs is the inescapable consequence of the Commerce Clause. In giving Congress the ability to legislate over inter-state commerce, consequently our founding fathers handed Congress the key to taking freedoms as they please. After studying the constitution I have found it is not even close to a perfect document, and our founding fathers were not right 100% of the time, they just had the right idea.  They laid down a great foundation for a prosperous nation, but they also left gaps for Congress to over reach.



> Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles.



I suppose that's what I get for reading whilst I reply, but yes some would make such claims and I am obviously of that sector, moving on. ;D



> But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power.  If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury.  In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyists particular article from taxation, another articles tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny.  And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.



Quite simply. this is not true. Political favoritism of this sort comes in the form of stifling competition, and the reality of what you would see is a high tax on any specific article of consumption, and consequently subsidies for the lobbyists to ensure their ability to maintain prices for the consumer, while the competition pays the tab. If you'd like to see this in action, look outside. It's going on all around you. With a flat tax, this would be impossible, and it would save everyone the hassle of a grossly overcomplicated tax code.



> Finally, under our Constitutions original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each states congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its states apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own states treasury.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York States big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit?  I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would *REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS* for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.
> 
> Why is it that not one of our conservative media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitutions original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?
> 
> Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitutions original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.___ * Madison, during the creation of our *Nations first revenue raising Act*



While in many parts I strongly agree with you, our only disagreement is on the morality of direct taxes versus indirect taxes. Taxes in their nature are a theft, and as such a necessary evil-- the question is to which degree. Indirect taxing simply leaves too much room for abuse, and there is no getting around it. On top of that issue, indirect taxing also bears the consequence of over complicating the tax code, also leaving much room for unfair practices as we see today. 

When it comes to the blissful ignorance the majority of this country is in a state of, it really all comes down to money and competition. There are five major media corporations in this country, none of which want the public knowing what goes on behind closed doors. Politicians collect campaign contributions from these five media corporations, and are just as content with an ignorant population. The media corporations control their media personalities, and if one steps out of line there isn't much opposition to go work for. They don't want you to know anything, they want you to go to work, buy their products, and pay your taxes.

As for the founding fathers, they were very wise but that is not to be confused with perfect. This subject is the epitome of that point.


----------



## dcraelin

its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.


----------



## ShawnChris13

dcraelin said:


> its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.




Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.  And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> 
> 
> 
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*
> 
> And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*
> 
> 
> And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*
> 
> And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*
> 
> Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.
> 
> As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post makes no sense to me.  You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


I did. 

The Founders designed an aristocracy in the fashion of their times.  Only white wealthy males voted. 

Through the years we,  the people, amended their design until by 1930 we had universal suffrage and full representative democracy. 

A republic is defined as a government without a monarch.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you still have not answered the question.
> 
> I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.   JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I will not presume to know what you intended to express.  I take it that you do not want to answer the question, and that's ok by me.  The question was *Do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken?*
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVES  nightmare and not the American Dream*
Click to expand...


My answer would be that I support the Constitution unconditionally, as amended,  including what has been extracted from it as to its interpretation.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%
Click to expand...


Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.


----------



## PMZ

uhkilleez said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitutions original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.  If you had, I do not believe you would assert indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the entire constitution, and I still assert the same opinion. What difference does the form in which they steal your money make? It is just a petty nitpicking of the inevitable. With a fixed flat tax, the government gets an equal portion of everyone's income and nothing more. It is fair and easy to budget, and will still save you close to 40% of what you are currently paying in taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you even realize how much you pay in taxes, and when you do it. A fixed flat rate is straight forward and fair, indirect taxing is unfair and often hidden. What is more evil, bluntness or deception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal excise taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
> 
> Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
> 
> *There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
> 
> 
> It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. *
> 
> Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected.  The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation.  If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed.  And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founders intended free market system.
> 
> 
> And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury!  It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same efforts to productivity would be true under a fixed flat direct tax, the income of the government would be solely dependent on economic prosperity at a flat tax rate of 10% of income. A key problem that I have with taxes on the articles of consumption is it allows Congress to legislate without passing legislation, and the best example of this is in cigarettes. It would be relatively hard for Congress to ban smoking altogether, although clearly not impossible as we nearly have no freedoms left in this country, however with the ability to apply taxes on articles of consumption they may purposefully overtax the product in order to influence the market as they see it fit. This is an inescapable consequence of indirect taxing, just as the waste that is the prohibition of drugs is the inescapable consequence of the Commerce Clause. In giving Congress the ability to legislate over inter-state commerce, consequently our founding fathers handed Congress the key to taking freedoms as they please. After studying the constitution I have found it is not even close to a perfect document, and our founding fathers were not right 100% of the time, they just had the right idea.  They laid down a great foundation for a prosperous nation, but they also left gaps for Congress to over reach.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that's what I get for reading whilst I reply, but yes some would make such claims and I am obviously of that sector, moving on. ;D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power.  If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury.  In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyists particular article from taxation, another articles tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny.  And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite simply. this is not true. Political favoritism of this sort comes in the form of stifling competition, and the reality of what you would see is a high tax on any specific article of consumption, and consequently subsidies for the lobbyists to ensure their ability to maintain prices for the consumer, while the competition pays the tab. If you'd like to see this in action, look outside. It's going on all around you. With a flat tax, this would be impossible, and it would save everyone the hassle of a grossly overcomplicated tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, under our Constitutions original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each states congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its states apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own states treasury.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York States big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit?  I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would *REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS* for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.
> 
> Why is it that not one of our conservative media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitutions original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?
> 
> Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitutions original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.___ * Madison, during the creation of our *Nations first revenue raising Act*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While in many parts I strongly agree with you, our only disagreement is on the morality of direct taxes versus indirect taxes. Taxes in their nature are a theft, and as such a necessary evil-- the question is to which degree. Indirect taxing simply leaves too much room for abuse, and there is no getting around it. On top of that issue, indirect taxing also bears the consequence of over complicating the tax code, also leaving much room for unfair practices as we see today.
> 
> When it comes to the blissful ignorance the majority of this country is in a state of, it really all comes down to money and competition. There are five major media corporations in this country, none of which want the public knowing what goes on behind closed doors. Politicians collect campaign contributions from these five media corporations, and are just as content with an ignorant population. The media corporations control their media personalities, and if one steps out of line there isn't much opposition to go work for. They don't want you to know anything, they want you to go to work, buy their products, and pay your taxes.
> 
> As for the founding fathers, they were very wise but that is not to be confused with perfect. This subject is the epitome of that point.
Click to expand...


Theft is defined by the law.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.
Click to expand...



The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives. In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)


----------



## originalthought

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives.* In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.


----------



## ShawnChris13

originalthought said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives.* In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
Click to expand...



Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.


----------



## originalthought

ShawnChris13 said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives.* In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
Click to expand...


You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.


----------



## ShawnChris13

originalthought said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.
Click to expand...



Agree to disagree


----------



## originalthought

ShawnChris13 said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agree to disagree
Click to expand...


Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives.* In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
Click to expand...


Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives.* In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
Click to expand...


While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits,  I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that true capitalism has never existed anywhere. And it would not lead to monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.
Click to expand...


"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
Click to expand...


LOL.  Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
> You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade? 

Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
> You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
Click to expand...


You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE). 

I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.

How do you explain the contradiction?


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
> You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).
> 
> I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.
> 
> How do you explain the contradiction?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Except for the contradiction part.  

Government regulates business on behalf of we,  the people.  In my post,  I said that I was talking about the US government.  

Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US. 

If you check carefully,  you'll find that you can buy energy from any provider.  What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source.  You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them. 

Do you have a better idea?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
> You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
Click to expand...


That's what their supporters claim.  However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  Government prevents monopolies! WOW! So let's look in countries that are completely controlled by governments (North Korea and Cuba). Do they have monopolies? Or is the governments there preventing monopolies?
> You said at least in America... So why is the local energy provider a monopoly, but it is set up by the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what their supporters claim.  However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.
Click to expand...


So you believe that by preventing monopolies,  competition is restricted? 

That's bizarre even for you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).
> 
> I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.
> 
> How do you explain the contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Except for the contradiction part.
> 
> Government regulates business on behalf of we,  the people.  In my post,  I said that I was talking about the US government.
> 
> Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right.  Under the Sherman anti-trust act the following actions are illegal.

Charging more than your competitors.
Charging less than your competitors.
Charging the same price as your competitors.

The bottom line is that there really is no way to objectively determine whether any given company is "restraining trade."  The reality is that all they've ever done to instigate an enforcement action is piss off some politician in Washington, generally the president.



PMZ said:


> If you check carefully,  you'll find that you can buy energy from any provider.



That's only true in some states where they have decontrolled energy production.



PMZ said:


> What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source.  You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.



In other words, the government enforces a monopoly on this service.



PMZ said:


> Do you have a better idea?



Yes, it's called free competition.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what their supporters claim.  However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that by preventing monopolies,  competition is restricted?
> 
> That's bizarre even for you.
Click to expand...


The government doesn't prevent monopolies.  It creates them.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Fundamental disagreements of monopolies and what causes them (statism or no regulation) aside this post is about the fair share. While I agree that there is a disparate wealth gap in this country the answer is not taxes. Why would we put the wealth in the hands of people who spend millions of dollars on vacations and alcohol and per diem and benefits? The money they already have is being grossly misused with no accountability. 

Why not instead consider legislation that could prevent these (and please I know I'm stretching this a little) "personal monopolies" on wealth that the top 20% (namely the top 1%) have accrued over the last 20 years? "Fair share" could be changed to "fair compensation".


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits,  I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.
Click to expand...


There's nothing in the definition of water that says it has to be wet.  It's an inherent feature of water.  The same goes for competition and capitalism.  You can't prevent competition under capitalism except by law.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what their supporters claim.  However, the reality is that what they really do is prevent competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that by preventing monopolies,  competition is restricted?
> 
> That's bizarre even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't prevent monopolies.  It creates them.
Click to expand...


Try operating in restraint of trade.  You'll get to meet the Justice Dpt.  It'll be fun.  For them.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).
> 
> I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.
> 
> How do you explain the contradiction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Except for the contradiction part.
> 
> Government regulates business on behalf of we,  the people.  In my post,  I said that I was talking about the US government.
> 
> Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Under the Sherman anti-trust act the following actions are illegal.
> 
> Charging more than your competitors.
> Charging less than your competitors.
> Charging the same price as your competitors.
> 
> The bottom line is that there really is no way to objectively determine whether any given company is "restraining trade."  The reality is that all they've ever done to instigate an enforcement action is piss off some politician in Washington, generally the president.
> 
> 
> 
> That's only true in some states where they have decontrolled energy production.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source.  You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, the government enforces a monopoly on this service.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called free competition.
Click to expand...


I'm going to have to assume that even you wouldn't think that anybody who wants to, erecting power poles and wires down the street is a good thing.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The issue with capitalism in America is the unchecked salaries and bonuses received by top executives.* In Europe CEOs earn significantly less than in America. If people being overrated is your issue I agree. Wall Street should be held more accountable for their vagrant lack of judgement in compensation. Not to mention white collar criminals that take advantage of the system with no serious repercussions. (2008)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
Click to expand...


Very good, except that ownership implies control.  If government makes all the decisions, then the only thing you own is a worthless scrap of paper called a title.  The government is the true owner.  We are rapidly approaching such a situation.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the laws here prohibiting actions in restraint of trade?
> 
> Those are the laws that prohibit monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said government prevents monopolies. (you can look at any communist country to see this is FALSE).
> 
> I will stick with the USA, just for you. You said government prevents monopolies. Yet governments set up monoploies in many cases, one example would be your local energy provider. Isn't that a monopoly? Isn't it set up by government? What a huge contradiction.
> 
> How do you explain the contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.*  Except for the contradiction part.
> 
> Government regulates business on behalf of we,  the people.  In my post,  I said that I was talking about the US government.
> 
> Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.
> 
> If you check carefully,  you'll find that you can buy energy from any provider.  What you can't do is run your wires or gas pipe to any source.  You have to use the wires or pipes that are hooked to your house and pay for them.
> 
> Do you have a better idea?
Click to expand...


You said Government prevents monopolies. But is also set up monopolies. AT&T until 1984. The POST office, Professional sports get exemption from anit-trust laws.

Can you explain the contradiction that Government prevents monopolies?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that the wealthy with their bought and payed for political party have had a decade of redistributing wealth up,  and the wealthy are in possession of all but the 15% of it shared by 80% of us,  they think that they are entitled to what they stole from the middle class.
> 
> So they say "We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth."
> 
> They would,  the country won't be.  There is no doubt that the efforts of the wealthy to have it all are destructive to the country.  No question that their successful wealth redistribution efforts have put the entire country at risk.
> 
> Fortunately we know how to restore what works.  And we will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Restore what works? Also I'm far from wealthy. What's being restored that works so well? Taking my money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Return to the country democracticly run by the majority, who are middle class wealth creating workers.
Click to expand...


In other words, return to organized plunder.

Democracy has never worked.  It always self-destructs.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.



You are amazed at the fact that some people believe in principles rather than using the tax code to persecute those you envy?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.
> 
> As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes no sense to me.  You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> The Founders designed an aristocracy in the fashion of their times.  Only white wealthy males voted.
Click to expand...


No, only property owners voted.  In other words, only people who had demonstrated a certain measure of responsibility and who had a stake in a government that acted responsibly.



PMZ said:


> Through the years we,  the people, amended their design until by 1930 we had universal suffrage and full representative democracy.



Yep, and the more the franchise was extended, the faster the country went swirling down the toilet bowl.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the question....all u gotta do is read with a little comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will not presume to know what you intended to express.  I take it that you do not want to answer the question, and that's ok by me.  The question was *Do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken?*
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVES  nightmare and not the American Dream*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My answer would be that I support the Constitution unconditionally, as amended,  including what has been extracted from it as to its interpretation.
Click to expand...


In other words, you wipe your ass on the actual text of the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.
Click to expand...


Capitalism doesn't redistribute wealth, nimrod.  The term doesn't mean, as you are attempting to imply, changing the current state of affairs with regard to how much of their income everyone is allowed to retain.  It means taking from Richard Roe and giving the proceeds to John Doe.  Under capitalism, everyone receives only what they've earned.  I know that's a state of affairs that you object to, but we don't change the definition of words to facilitate your infantile prejudices.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Theft is defined by the law.



You mean it's not theft if the government legalizes it?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Except for the contradiction part.
> 
> Government regulates business on behalf of we,  the people.  In my post,  I said that I was talking about the US government.
> 
> Actions in restraint of trade are prohibited in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, right.  Under the Sherman anti-trust act the following actions are illegal.
> 
> Charging more than your competitors.
> Charging less than your competitors.
> Charging the same price as your competitors.
> 
> The bottom line is that there really is no way to objectively determine whether any given company is "restraining trade."  The reality is that all they've ever done to instigate an enforcement action is piss off some politician in Washington, generally the president.
> 
> 
> 
> That's only true in some states where they have decontrolled energy production.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the government enforces a monopoly on this service.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called free competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to assume that even you wouldn't think that anybody who wants to, erecting power poles and wires down the street is a good thing.
Click to expand...


Under the social system I advocate, you would have to get permission from the owner of the street.  There would be no such thing as a "public street."


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good, except that ownership implies control.  If government makes all the decisions, then the only thing you own is a worthless scrap of paper called a title.  The government is the true owner.  We are rapidly approaching such a situation.
Click to expand...


There's always a reason for regulation.  In business,  it's because of actual experience where a business or businesses tried to screw some or all of us.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theft is defined by the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it's not theft if the government legalizes it?
Click to expand...


Precisely.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theft is defined by the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it's not theft if the government legalizes it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely.
Click to expand...


So the Nazi government didn't steal from the Jews when it took all their property and even the gold from their teeth?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are a means to correct capitalism's wealth redistribution up.  Capitalism and America probably would not survive without that,  as at a certain level of wealth inequality,  society goes unstable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't redistribute wealth, nimrod.  The term doesn't mean, as you are attempting to imply, changing the current state of affairs with regard to how much of their income everyone is allowed to retain.  It means taking from Richard Roe and giving the proceeds to John Doe.  Under capitalism, everyone receives only what they've earned.  I know that's a state of affairs that you object to, but we don't change the definition of words to facilitate your infantile prejudices.
Click to expand...


Capitalism moves wealth up. Thats what it's designed to do.  As people get more influence (read wealth)  they keep tilting the playing field.  After a time the very few have the vast majority of the wealth and influence and the majority react to the unfairness of it and society collapses. 

We are close to that now. Only the actions of government are holding things together. Democrat government.  Republicans would like to tilt the field more.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good, except that ownership implies control.  If government makes all the decisions, then the only thing you own is a worthless scrap of paper called a title.  The government is the true owner.  We are rapidly approaching such a situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's always a reason for regulation.  In business,  it's because of actual experience where a business or businesses tried to screw some or all of us.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a reason for regulation.  Primarily it's because existing businesses want to keep out new competitors, so they get the government to erect obstacles for them to overcome.  Another reason is that bureaucrats would have nothing to justify their salaries and pensions if they weren't constantly creating new regulations.

Protecting the public has almost nothing to do with it.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean it's not theft if the government legalizes it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Nazi government didn't steal from the Jews when it took all their property and even the gold from their teeth?
Click to expand...


They didn't define it as criminal so nobody was prosecuted for it until after the war under international law. Then it became criminal.


----------



## orogenicman

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "fair share" of my income is zero.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.  Why should taxes be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence.
Click to expand...


Are you of the belief that life owes you something?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that by preventing monopolies,  competition is restricted?
> 
> That's bizarre even for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government doesn't prevent monopolies.  It creates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try operating in restraint of trade.  You'll get to meet the Justice Dpt.  It'll be fun.  For them.
Click to expand...


And how would I go about "operating in restraint of trade?"  Every corporation that has ever received that call from the justice department were doing absolutely nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is not fair.  Why should taxes be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that life owes you something?
Click to expand...


Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?


----------



## orogenicman

ShawnChris13 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of which entitled you to the money any other individual earns. We had roads before the income tax. We'd be fine without the redistribution of wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Folks this is what this guys wishes we had for roads today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.
Click to expand...


Really?  In what alternative universe?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Nazi government didn't steal from the Jews when it took all their property and even the gold from their teeth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't define it as criminal so nobody was prosecuted for it until after the war under international law. Then it became criminal.
Click to expand...


So it's not criminal for the government to confiscate all your property, regardless of anything you've done,  shove you into a gas oven, and then collect the gold from your teeth so long as it passes a law saying it can?


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  Folks this is what this guys wishes we had for roads today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  In what alternative universe?
Click to expand...


So you believe private companies have never built any roads?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Nazi government didn't steal from the Jews when it took all their property and even the gold from their teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't define it as criminal so nobody was prosecuted for it until after the war under international law. Then it became criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's not criminal for the government to confiscate all your property, regardless of anything you've done,  shove you into a gas oven, and then collect the gold from your teeth?
Click to expand...


It wasn't criminal in Germany under your bud Adolf.  Thats what happens when the tyranny of a minority assumes power.


----------



## orogenicman

ShawnChris13 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> its always amazing to me how poor "conservatives" are so willing to cut the taxes of rich liberals. Quite a few of the rich are singing and acting stars, mostly liberal. At one point a few years ago I believe it was 9 out of the top 10 richest congresspeople were democrats, i think it is still a majority of dems. Nancy Pelosi must just smirk silently when "conservatives" argue for less taxes on folks like herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less taxes for everybody is the argument that fits. Taxes should be a percentage equal to everyone. Not more taxes for being successful because the poorer classes are jealous of wealth and want free stuff. Work your way to wealth and pay the same taxes you paid when you were less wealthy. %%%%%%%%
Click to expand...


What is fair is that people pay what they can afford to pay.  The filthy rich can afford to pay more.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good, except that ownership implies control.  If government makes all the decisions, then the only thing you own is a worthless scrap of paper called a title.  The government is the true owner.  We are rapidly approaching such a situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's always a reason for regulation.  In business,  it's because of actual experience where a business or businesses tried to screw some or all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a reason for regulation.  Primarily it's because existing businesses want to keep out new competitors, so they get the government to erect obstacles for them to overcome.  Another reason is that bureaucrats would have nothing to justify their salaries and pensions if they weren't constantly creating new regulations.
> 
> Protecting the public has almost nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


You're wrong.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government doesn't prevent monopolies.  It creates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try operating in restraint of trade.  You'll get to meet the Justice Dpt.  It'll be fun.  For them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would I go about "operating in restraint of trade?"  Every corporation that has ever received that call from the justice department were doing absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...


You're wrong.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that life owes you something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
Click to expand...


As a citizen of the United States I have an obligation, and a moral duty to serve my country.  We all do.  Nothing is free, bubba.  And you still haven't answered my question.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't define it as criminal so nobody was prosecuted for it until after the war under international law. Then it became criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not criminal for the government to confiscate all your property, regardless of anything you've done,  shove you into a gas oven, and then collect the gold from your teeth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't criminal in Germany under your bud Adolf.  That&#8217;s what happens when the tyranny of a minority assumes power.
Click to expand...


it wasn't against the law in Germany, but you're the only one who thinks it wasn't criminal.  You think government can do whatever it likes.

BTW, we've already established the fact that your ideas are the ones that have the most in common with the Nazis.  This one right here is a perfect example:

The world according to PMZ:
===============================================
It's morally acceptable for government to do whatever it likes so long as it gives itself permission by writing it down on a piece of paper. it can make you wear a yellow star on your chest, take all your property, herd you into cattle cars, shove you into gas ovens and take the gold from your teeth.  No rights are violated and it does nothing immoral or unethical.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that life owes you something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a citizen of the United States I have an obligation, and a moral duty to serve my country.  We all do.  Nothing is free, bubba.  And you still haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  How did I acquire such an obligation?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that life owes you something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
Click to expand...


Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost. If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try operating in restraint of trade.  You'll get to meet the Justice Dpt.  It'll be fun.  For them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how would I go about "operating in restraint of trade?"  Every corporation that has ever received that call from the justice department were doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong.
Click to expand...


Really?  Provide an example.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Nazi government didn't steal from the Jews when it took all their property and even the gold from their teeth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't define it as criminal so nobody was prosecuted for it until after the war under international law. Then it became criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's not criminal for the government to confiscate all your property, regardless of anything you've done,  shove you into a gas oven, and then collect the gold from your teeth so long as it passes a law saying it can?
Click to expand...


You realize, of course, that in bringing Nazi Germany into the discussion (Godwin's Law) that you just lost the argument.  Congratulations.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  In what alternative universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe private companies have never built any roads?
Click to expand...


I don't think that nowadays they are built by anyone else.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would I go about "operating in restraint of trade?"  Every corporation that has ever received that call from the justice department were doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Provide an example.
Click to expand...


Provide an example of you being wrong? 

This post.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes where would we be without the government to pave roads for us? Only the government can pay with money to pave a road. Companies have no interest in paving roads to transport goods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  In what alternative universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe private companies have never built any roads?
Click to expand...


That is not what he implied.  Certainly private companies have paid for certain roads leading up to their facilities.  They have NEVER built nor paid for a single major highway in this country.  We the people did that, as is our duty as citizens.  And by this I don't mean to say that private road construction and highway engineering firms have not built any roads.  That is not the issue, so before you become obtuse, don't.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that life owes you something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.



PMZ said:


> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.



Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?

The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a citizen of the United States I have an obligation, and a moral duty to serve my country.  We all do.  Nothing is free, bubba.  And you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  How did I acquire such an obligation?
Click to expand...


By being/becoming a U.S. citizen.  Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger?  And you STILL have not answered my question.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  In what alternative universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe private companies have never built any roads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what he implied.  Certainly private companies have paid for certain roads leading up to their facilities.  They have NEVER built nor paid for a single major highway in this country.
Click to expand...


Private companies have built and paid for limited access toll roads that resemble interstate highways in every respect.  Your claim is false.  Many recently built highways are toll roads built and financed by private companies.  Just drive through Orlando and attempt to avoid tolls roads if you don't believe it.  Florida is full of toll roads.



orogenicman said:


> We the people did that, as is our duty as citizens.  And by this I don't mean to say that private road construction and highway engineering firms have not built any roads.  That is not the issue, so before you become obtuse, don't.



Why would I need to be obtuse when you are just plain wrong?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?
> 
> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.
Click to expand...


Move.  That simple.  Problem solved for all of us.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a citizen of the United States I have an obligation, and a moral duty to serve my country.  We all do.  Nothing is free, bubba.  And you still haven't answered my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  How did I acquire such an obligation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By being/becoming a U.S. citizen.  Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger?  And you STILL have not answered my question.
Click to expand...


You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.  

What the hell is a shagger?  In Britain "to shag" means to fuck.  Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?
> 
> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Move.  That simple.  Problem solved for all of us.
Click to expand...


What makes you think I give a damn about solving your "problem?"  Hitler solved his "problem" by shipping Jews off to Auschwitz.  That's the kind of "solution" you're proposing.

You obviously couldn't justify your claim that I owed the government anything, so you punted, like you always do.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  How did I acquire such an obligation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being/becoming a U.S. citizen.  Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger?  And you STILL have not answered my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.
> 
> What the hell is a shagger?  In Britain "to shag" means to fuck.  Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.
Click to expand...


Tell me.  Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
Click to expand...


No, of course he is not.



PMZ said:


> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.





			
				britpat said:
			
		

> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?



But neither Thomas Edison, nor the local gas station is protecting you or your family from countless dangers in this world - from war, pestilence, famine, discrimination, to the availability to criminal and civil justice, you are provided all these things and a whole lot more.  But they are not free.  You must pay for them.  We all do.  Otherwise, you are nothing but a shagger who needs to find some other country to leech off of.



			
				britpat said:
			
		

> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.



What you are suggesting is that the minority (even if it is a minority of one) should hold sway over the majority.  This is not China nor the former Soviet Union.  By the way, uif you don't agree with the Constitution of the United States, perhaps you should be shopping for some other country to shag.


----------



## ShawnChris13

ShawnChris13 said:


> Fundamental disagreements of monopolies and what causes them (statism or no regulation) aside this post is about the fair share. While I agree that there is a disparate wealth gap in this country the answer is not taxes. Why would we put the wealth in the hands of people who spend millions of dollars on vacations and alcohol and per diem and benefits? The money they already have is being grossly misused with no accountability.
> 
> Why not instead consider legislation that could prevent these (and please I know I'm stretching this a little) "personal monopolies" on wealth that the top 20% (namely the top 1%) have accrued over the last 20 years? "Fair share" could be changed to "fair compensation".




Nothing? Come on at least call me a ahagger or obtuse or something.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> By being/becoming a U.S. citizen.  Or did you think that being a citizen affords you the 'freedom' to be a shagger?  And you STILL have not answered my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.
> 
> What the hell is a shagger?  In Britain "to shag" means to fuck.  Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me.  Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.
Click to expand...


Why do you live here?  You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may think that obligates me to something, but you haven't provided the slightest bit of evidence.
> 
> What the hell is a shagger?  In Britain "to shag" means to fuck.  Calling people names doesn't prove jack squat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you live here?  You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  

Why can't you answer my question?


----------



## orogenicman

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  Why do you live here? I find that completely puzzling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you live here?  You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Why can't you answer my question?
Click to expand...


Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.


----------



## Staidhup

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you of the belief that you owe the government something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?
> 
> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.
Click to expand...


Can't agree more, however, as a citizen of this country I am willing to pay for common defense, judicial expense, basic governmental expense to protect my freedom and security, and maintenance of state owned land. As for being a resident of a state I would be willing to pay the state for maintenance of the highway's, roads, police protection, education of our youth from grade 1 thru 12, water/ sewer, and fire protection.
One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, of course he is not.
Click to expand...


That's exactly what he's doing. Guido says if you benefit from his "protection" services then you have to pay for them whether you agreed to or not.



orogenicman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> britpat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But neither Thomas Edison, nor the local gas station is protecting you or your family from countless dangers in this world - from war, pestilence, famine, discrimination, to the availability to criminal and civil justice, you are provided all these things and a whole lot more.  But they are not free.  You must pay for them.  We all do.  Otherwise, you are nothing but a shagger who needs to find some other country to leech off of.
Click to expand...


I wasn't given the option of choosing some other firm to provide these services, was I?  We "must" pay for them because government points guns at us and forces us to pay for them.  When private citizens do that we call it extortion.



orogenicman said:


> britpat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are suggesting is that the minority (even if it is a minority of one) should hold sway over the majority.  This is not China nor the former Soviet Union.  By the way, uif you don't agree with the Constitution of the United States, perhaps you should be shopping for some other country to shag.
Click to expand...


Nope.  I'm suggesting that each person should make his own choice.  What you are saying is that if the majority decides that everyone must buy a green Pontiac, then you are "obligated" to pay for a green Pontiac.  Horseshit.  I'm not obligated to pay for anything I haven't agreed to just because some mob agreed to it. 

BTW, you and you're ilk are the ones who are shagging everyone by making them pay for stuff that you want and they don't want.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you live here?  You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Why can't you answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.
Click to expand...


What difference does it make?  Government will extract the money from my hide at gunpoint, so it doesn't matter what I think I'm entitled to.

However, the libturd system of "ethics" is predicated on the theory that people are entitled to sponge off their neighbors.  There's no way you can deny it.


----------



## JoeNormal

Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:

Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.



And privately controlled.

Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:
> 
> Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn



What do you think that story proves?


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And privately controlled.
> 
> Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.
Click to expand...


I see your banishment has ended.  I imagine it was for giving PMS a good dose of what he deserves.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:
> 
> Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that story proves?
Click to expand...


That people like you are morons.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bripat wants the freedom to be the moron in this story:
> 
> Man Won't Pay for Fire Protection; Firemen Watch Home Burn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that story proves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That people like you are morons.
Click to expand...


What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think that story proves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That people like you are morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?
Click to expand...


You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.


----------



## ShawnChris13

So many things taken out of context. Conversation has swayed far off topic. Fair share!?


----------



## uhkilleez

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That people like you are morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
Click to expand...


Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.


----------



## uhkilleez

PMZ said:


> Theft is defined by the law.



It sure is.



> Theft
> 
> A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
> 
> The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.



Sounds like taxes to me.


----------



## johnwk

uhkilleez said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, let me speculate that while you were in college you certainly did not study our Constitutions original tax plan as our founders intended it to operate.  If you had, I do not believe you would assert indirect taxes are equally as evil as direct taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the entire constitution, and I still assert the same opinion. What difference does the form in which they steal your money make? It is just a petty nitpicking of the inevitable. With a fixed flat tax, the government gets an equal portion of everyone's income and nothing more. It is fair and easy to budget, and will still save you close to 40% of what you are currently paying in taxes. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you even realize how much you pay in taxes, and when you do it. A fixed flat rate is straight forward and fair, indirect taxing is unfair and often hidden. What is more evil, bluntness or deception?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal excise taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
> 
> Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
> 
> *There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
> 
> 
> It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. *
> 
> Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected.  The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation.  If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed.  And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founders intended free market system.
> 
> 
> And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury!  It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same efforts to productivity would be true under a fixed flat direct tax, the income of the government would be solely dependent on economic prosperity at a flat tax rate of 10% of income. .
Click to expand...



I disagree.  Under you method of raising a federal revenue by direct taxation the people do not have the option to avoid the tax.   Direct taxes ought to be used in emergency situations only, and if they are, then the rule of apportionment ought to be strictly enforced!


In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes *January 18th, 1797*:


*"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."*

And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct *taxation shall be in proportion to Representation"* and they went on to command that *No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*

In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:

*With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.* *4 Elliots, S.C., 305-6*

And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
*The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* 


Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congresss *general power of taxation* that, *"they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."**3 Elliot, 255*

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:

*The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion**3 Elliots 41* 

Also see an *Act laying a direct tax for $3 million* in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see *Section 7 of direct tax of 1813* allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK


*If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.*  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> That people like you are morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
Click to expand...


Your belief that you can't have fire protection if the government doesn't provide flies in the face of all the private fire services in the country.

I want to pay for the things I want, and not one thing more.  I don't want to pay for the version that government provides.


----------



## bripat9643

uhkilleez said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theft is defined by the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theft
> 
> A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
> 
> The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like taxes to me.
Click to expand...


Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.


----------



## bripat9643

uhkilleez said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
Click to expand...


Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.


----------



## PMZ

Staidhup said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who benefits from living here owes his or her share of the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone lives here taking advantage of the country but doesn't pay their fair share, they are both criminal and stupid. Stupid for living where they are not satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?
> 
> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't agree more, however, as a citizen of this country I am willing to pay for common defense, judicial expense, basic governmental expense to protect my freedom and security, and maintenance of state owned land. As for being a resident of a state I would be willing to pay the state for maintenance of the highway's, roads, police protection, education of our youth from grade 1 thru 12, water/ sewer, and fire protection.
> One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense.
Click to expand...


"One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense."

Simply what you wish was true.

A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems.


----------



## PMZ

orogenicman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you live here?  You obviously find the government of Cuba more to your liking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Why can't you answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.
Click to expand...


I find the concept of someone hating everything about the country that they choose (and in these days and times it is a choice) to live in simply baffling.


----------



## PMZ

uhkilleez said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
Click to expand...


But the means of production are always owned by the community. Very socialist. 

But, on the other hand, how would you like to be standing there, watching your house burn, while getting quotes from competing privately owned fire businesses?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theft is defined by the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theft
> 
> A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
> 
> The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like taxes to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.
Click to expand...


A crime is breaking the law. What you're talking about is a moral and ethical judgement.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
Click to expand...


It takes a special kind of stupid to promote obscenities doled out by children.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like taxes to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A crime is breaking the law. What you're talking about is a moral and ethical judgement.
Click to expand...

Correct.  Some theft is defined as a crime by the law.  Other acts of theft are defined as legal taxes by the law.  Thus whether or not theft is a crime appears to be based on who's doing the taking.  Further, if you are king, you can pardon even criminal acts of theft. So it's not just who's doing the taking but whether or not the law is a farce.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the importance of the Ammendments that took the founders aristocracy of wealthy white males, to a full representative democracy.
> 
> As long as we avoid having a monarch we will remain a republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes no sense to me.  You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> The Founders designed an aristocracy in the fashion of their times.  Only white wealthy males voted.
Click to expand...



Your above post tells me you are either intentionally lying or do not know that blacks not only voted, but held office when our country was founded.


JWK


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And privately controlled.
> 
> Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.
Click to expand...


If you own, say a factory building, you are free to do as you want with it. However, no business or corporation owns their employees as that would be slavery. They stay or leave on their own volition.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And privately controlled.
> 
> Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your banishment has ended.  I imagine it was for giving PMS a good dose of what he deserves.
Click to expand...


And you thought that there are no consequences for being a jerk.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post makes no sense to me.  You will have to explain your assertions in clear language.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did.
> 
> The Founders designed an aristocracy in the fashion of their times.  Only white wealthy males voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your above post tells me you are either intentionally lying or do not know that blacks not only voted, but held office when our country was founded.
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


A handful.


----------



## johnwk

bripat9643 said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
Click to expand...




They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create



JWK


*The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVES  nightmare and not the American Dream*


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  No we don't.  You're resorting to the ethics of Guido the Leg Breaker again.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my fair share of expenses that I haven't agreed to is zero.   That's how legal contracts work.  Simply benefiting from something someone else has done doesn't obligate me to do jack squat.  I benefit from the existence of the gas station on the corner.  Does that mean it's entitled to collect a payment from me whether I guy gas or not?  I benefit from the invention of the light bulb.  Does that mean I'm obligated to make payments to the heirs of Thomas Edison?
> 
> The question here is whether government is justified in extracting wealth from my hide at gunpoint to provide "benefits" that I haven't asked for or want.  Every principle of law says "no."  You are only obligated to pay for what you have agreed to pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't agree more, however, as a citizen of this country I am willing to pay for common defense, judicial expense, basic governmental expense to protect my freedom and security, and maintenance of state owned land. As for being a resident of a state I would be willing to pay the state for maintenance of the highway's, roads, police protection, education of our youth from grade 1 thru 12, water/ sewer, and fire protection.
> One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense."
> 
> Simply what you wish was true.
> 
> A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The liberal dictionary defines a "solution" as a government program.  Without a government program, it isn't a solution.  Just consider the healthcare debate.  Turds like you are always asking what the "conservative" solution to healthcare is.  When they say allowing the market to work, liberals claim that's not a solution.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Why can't you answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably for the same reason he still hasn't answered mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find the concept of someone hating everything about the country that they choose (and in these days and times it is a choice) to live in simply baffling.
Click to expand...


Where did I say I hate everything about the country?  However, I do despise the government, and I certainly despise Congress.  What intelligent person wouldn't despise Congress?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the means of production are always owned by the community. Very socialist.
Click to expand...


Nope. There are privately owned fired protection services.  A voluntary fire department is not "socialist" because the government doesn't run it.  "socialist" means run by the monopoly on the use of force., ie, the government.



PMZ said:


> But, on the other hand, how would you like to be standing there, watching your house burn, while getting quotes from competing privately owned fire businesses?



You pay for fire protection before the house catches on fire, nimrod.  I doubt you'll find a bank that will give you a mortgage when you don't have fire protection.

It's amazing how stupid liberals think everyone is.  Evidently, they aren't as stupid as liberals because other people manage to find solutions to problems that liberals are incapable of devising.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like taxes to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A crime is breaking the law. What you're talking about is a moral and ethical judgement.
Click to expand...


ROFL!   Yeah, right.  Shoving Jews into gas ovens wasn't criminal.

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

Notice that definitions 2 and 3 do not mention the law.

Is there anything you know that is actually true?


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to promote obscenities doled out by children.
Click to expand...


"obscenities?"  You mean like "shag?"


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't agree more, however, as a citizen of this country I am willing to pay for common defense, judicial expense, basic governmental expense to protect my freedom and security, and maintenance of state owned land. As for being a resident of a state I would be willing to pay the state for maintenance of the highway's, roads, police protection, education of our youth from grade 1 thru 12, water/ sewer, and fire protection.
> One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense."
> 
> Simply what you wish was true.
> 
> A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The liberal dictionary defines a "solution" as a government program.  Without a government program, it isn't a solution.  Just consider the healthcare debate.  Turds like you are always asking what the "conservative" solution to healthcare is.  When they say allowing the market to work, liberals claim that's not a solution.
Click to expand...



Conservatives are scared of all problems because they have only one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone else solves the problem. 

Is that what you tell employees to do?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And privately controlled.
> 
> Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you own, say a factory building, you are free to do as you want with it. However, no business or corporation owns their employees as that would be slavery. They stay or leave on their own volition.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with Mussolini?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And privately controlled.
> 
> Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your banishment has ended.  I imagine it was for giving PMS a good dose of what he deserves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you thought that there are no consequences for being a jerk.
Click to expand...


It doesn't appear that you have suffered for it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "One fact remains, the definition of a liberal is one who has their hand on your wallet for their benefit at your expense."
> 
> Simply what you wish was true.
> 
> A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The liberal dictionary defines a "solution" as a government program.  Without a government program, it isn't a solution.  Just consider the healthcare debate.  Turds like you are always asking what the "conservative" solution to healthcare is.  When they say allowing the market to work, liberals claim that's not a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are scared of all problems because they have only one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone else solves the problem.
> 
> Is that what you tell employees to do?
Click to expand...


Almost all of the "problems" liberals are always moaning about are either
#1 Not solvable.
or
#2 Not as bad as the liberal "solution"

That is the sad record of all their "solutions."

Social Security is bankrupt
Medicare is bankrupt.
Welfare causes illegitimacy and crime.
Regulatory agencies are always captured by the corporations they regulate.
Regulatory agencies are unable to stop imposing new regulations
Democracy is corrupt.
Government "investment" always goes to political cronies.

Yada,
Yada,
Yada .  .  .  .  .  .


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And privately controlled.
> 
> Mussolini took the approach of "owning the owners," which still resulted in a command economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you own, say a factory building, you are free to do as you want with it. However, no business or corporation owns their employees as that would be slavery. They stay or leave on their own volition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Mussolini?
Click to expand...


What does Mussolini have to do with anything?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The liberal dictionary defines a "solution" as a government program.  Without a government program, it isn't a solution.  Just consider the healthcare debate.  Turds like you are always asking what the "conservative" solution to healthcare is.  When they say allowing the market to work, liberals claim that's not a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are scared of all problems because they have only one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone else solves the problem.
> 
> Is that what you tell employees to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost all of the "problems" liberals are always moaning about are either
> #1 Not solvable.
> or
> #2 Not as bad as the liberal "solution"
> 
> That is the sad record of all their "solutions."
> 
> Social Security is bankrupt
> Medicare is bankrupt.
> Welfare causes illegitimacy and crime.
> Regulatory agencies are always captured by the corporations they regulate.
> Regulatory agencies are unable to stop imposing new regulations
> Democracy is corrupt.
> Government "investment" always goes to political cronies.
> 
> Yada,
> Yada,
> Yada .  .  .  .  .  .
Click to expand...


Proof positive of "A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to promote obscenities doled out by children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "obscenities?"  You mean like "shag?"
Click to expand...


No.  Obscenities like this:


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you own, say a factory building, you are free to do as you want with it. However, no business or corporation owns their employees as that would be slavery. They stay or leave on their own volition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Mussolini?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does Mussolini have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


He invented the economic system you favor.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to promote obscenities doled out by children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "obscenities?"  You mean like "shag?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Obscenities like this:
Click to expand...



How is that "stupid?"  It's just a picture.  It may be photoshopped, for all I know.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Mussolini?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mussolini have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He invented the economic system you favor.
Click to expand...


Bullshite.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "obscenities?"  You mean like "shag?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Obscenities like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How is that "stupid?"  It's just a picture.  It may be photoshopped, for all I know.
Click to expand...


It is child abuse, purely and simply.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are scared of all problems because they have only one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone else solves the problem.
> 
> Is that what you tell employees to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all of the "problems" liberals are always moaning about are either
> #1 Not solvable.
> or
> #2 Not as bad as the liberal "solution"
> 
> That is the sad record of all their "solutions."
> 
> Social Security is bankrupt
> Medicare is bankrupt.
> Welfare causes illegitimacy and crime.
> Regulatory agencies are always captured by the corporations they regulate.
> Regulatory agencies are unable to stop imposing new regulations
> Democracy is corrupt.
> Government "investment" always goes to political cronies.
> 
> Yada,
> Yada,
> Yada .  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof positive of "A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


Yeah, liberals are open to all solutions, especially bad ones, and so long as they are government solutions.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Obscenities like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that "stupid?"  It's just a picture.  It may be photoshopped, for all I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is child abuse, purely and simply.
Click to expand...


I'm not abusing anyone.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mussolini have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He invented the economic system you favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshite.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost all of the "problems" liberals are always moaning about are either
> #1 Not solvable.
> or
> #2 Not as bad as the liberal "solution"
> 
> That is the sad record of all their "solutions."
> 
> Social Security is bankrupt
> Medicare is bankrupt.
> Welfare causes illegitimacy and crime.
> Regulatory agencies are always captured by the corporations they regulate.
> Regulatory agencies are unable to stop imposing new regulations
> Democracy is corrupt.
> Government "investment" always goes to political cronies.
> 
> Yada,
> Yada,
> Yada .  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof positive of "A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, liberals are open to all solutions, especially bad ones, and so long as they are government solutions.
Click to expand...


So, conservatives' 'no solutions' are good ones?  Really?  Since when?  For the record, I am for solutions that work, be they government solutions, or private solutions.  When was the last time a private solution was offered to solve national problems?  When did the last private solution to national problems actually work?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with Mussolini?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mussolini have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He invented the economic system you favor.
Click to expand...


I don't favor or disfavor any economic system. They are tools. I favor the best tool for any job.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He invented the economic system you favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.
Click to expand...


The left endorses extreme conservatism?


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He invented the economic system you favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.
Click to expand...


Proving your total and complete misunderstanding of what fascism is.  Congratulations.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Why must everyone insist on debasing their arguments with emotional responses not based on fact?


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof positive of "A liberal is one who is open to all solutions. A conservative is one who's afraid of all problems."
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, liberals are open to all solutions, especially bad ones, and so long as they are government solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, conservatives' 'no solutions' are good ones?  Really?  Since when?  For the record, I am for solutions that work, be they government solutions, or private solutions.  When was the last time a private solution was offered to solve national problems?  When did the last private solution to national problems actually work?
Click to expand...


Well, lets see, there's the light bulb, the telephone, radio, television, cell phones, radar, airplanes, the automobile, anesthesia, vaccines, antibiotics, health insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance, computers, the internet, chemical fertilizer, rubber, plastic, steam engine, internal combustion engine, electric motor, refrigeration, power looms, the cotton gin, the repeating rifle, yada, yada, yada .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does Mussolini have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He invented the economic system you favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't favor or disfavor any economic system. They are tools. I favor the best tool for any job.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  You have made it plain that you despise capitalism.

There are really only two economics systems:  private property or government control.  You either support the former or the later.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving your total and complete misunderstanding of what fascism is.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what fascism is.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> Why must everyone insist on debasing their arguments with emotional responses not based on fact?



Because they have no facts.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left endorses extreme conservatism?
Click to expand...


What's "conservative" about government regulation and "public/private partnerships?"


----------



## JoeNormal

uhkilleez said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I'm like the guy in the story?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
Click to expand...


Yeah, there could be exceptions to the rule when you're out in the Styx.  The volunteer fire department would almost certainly lack the training to handle the variety of situations that a well trained fire department in the city would have and I'm sure the equipment they'd have to work with would be substandard as well.  It'd be better than nothing though.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
Click to expand...


Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?


----------



## PMZ

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
Click to expand...


BriPat only has one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone will figure out how to make money solving the problem. If that doesn't work, do more nothing. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
Click to expand...


They don't because they are already paying for the government product.  What I am asking for is to quit being forced to pay for the government product.  If consumers had a choice, there wouldn't be any government run fire departments.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BriPat only has one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone will figure out how to make money solving the problem. If that doesn't work, do more nothing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


If that doesn't work then it's not a problem people are willing to pay to have solved.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to pay for any of the amenities of society that have been proven beneficial over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before government took over there were volunteer firefighters, some small towns were able to keep them like the one I live in. We don't pay fire protection taxes and our firefighters don't get paid. You speak about the amenities of society as if they are most beneficial in their current form with no better alternatives, and I'm afraid you are misguided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, there could be exceptions to the rule when you're out in the Styx.  The volunteer fire department would almost certainly lack the training to handle the variety of situations that a well trained fire department in the city would have and I'm sure the equipment they'd have to work with would be substandard as well.  It'd be better than nothing though.
Click to expand...


Tempe AZ has private fire protection services.  You pay them a monthly fee to protect your house from fire.  They are as professional as any government run fire department, and a whole lot cheaper.


----------



## ShawnChris13

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat only has one solution. Do nothing and hope that someone will figure out how to make money solving the problem. If that doesn't work, do more nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that doesn't work then it's not a problem people are willing to pay to have solved.
Click to expand...



Not all problems can be fixed with money. Some problems are caused by money. If only Tesla had finished that wireless energy tower...


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't because they are already paying for the government product.  What I am asking for is to quit being forced to pay for the government product.  If consumers had a choice, there wouldn't be any government run fire departments.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's the way they feel about healthcare.  A majority of Americans wanted Medicare for all.  Of course the insurance companies made sure that never happened.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't because they are already paying for the government product.  What I am asking for is to quit being forced to pay for the government product.  If consumers had a choice, there wouldn't be any government run fire departments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the way they feel about healthcare.  A majority of Americans wanted Medicare for all.  Of course the insurance companies made sure that never happened.
Click to expand...


Whenever the public doesn't go along with the liberal agenda it's always because of some sinister corporate plot.

I'm not talking about people voting for some government program.  I'm talking about each consumer individually having the choice of whether to pay for and receive the government product or some other product, just like when they buy a car.  If they had such a choice, then government "services" would disappear.


----------



## PMZ

911, this is Fred on Main St.  My house is on fire. 

You're in luck tonight Fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you. 

Hello Fred,  this is the ABC company and we're proud to announce our Spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat. 

But I don't  know if that will put out my fire. 

Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.

Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous. 

Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish? 

But maybe there's a better deal. 

Well Fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from Harry on Aristocrat St and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry Fred. 


The conservative improvement plan for America.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> 911, this is Fred on Main St.  My house is on fire.
> 
> You're in luck tonight Fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you.
> 
> Hello Fred,  this is the ABC company and we're proud to announce our Spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat.
> 
> But I don't  know if that will put out my fire.
> 
> Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.
> 
> Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous.
> 
> Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish?
> 
> But maybe there's a better deal.
> 
> Well Fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from Harry on Aristocrat St and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry Fred.
> 
> 
> The conservative improvement plan for America.




Is this why people argue forever about things that could be finished so quickly? 

That's the worst scenario anyone could come up with and you pose hat as a serious situation? No one is suggesting something like that and you know it. Why waste time blowing smoke out your ass?


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 911, this is Fred on Main St.  My house is on fire.
> 
> You're in luck tonight Fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you.
> 
> Hello Fred,  this is the ABC company and we're proud to announce our Spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat.
> 
> But I don't  know if that will put out my fire.
> 
> Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.
> 
> Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous.
> 
> Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish?
> 
> But maybe there's a better deal.
> 
> Well Fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from Harry on Aristocrat St and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry Fred.
> 
> 
> The conservative improvement plan for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this why people argue forever about things that could be finished so quickly?
> 
> That's the worst scenario anyone could come up with and you pose hat as a serious situation? No one is suggesting something like that and you know it. Why waste time blowing smoke out your ass?
Click to expand...


You are not paying attention here.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 911, this is Fred on Main St.  My house is on fire.
> 
> You're in luck tonight Fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you.
> 
> Hello Fred,  this is the ABC company and we're proud to announce our Spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat.
> 
> But I don't  know if that will put out my fire.
> 
> Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.
> 
> Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous.
> 
> Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish?
> 
> But maybe there's a better deal.
> 
> Well Fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from Harry on Aristocrat St and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry Fred.
> 
> 
> The conservative improvement plan for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this why people argue forever about things that could be finished so quickly?
> 
> That's the worst scenario anyone could come up with and you pose hat as a serious situation? No one is suggesting something like that and you know it. Why waste time blowing smoke out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not paying attention here.
Click to expand...



You're using a fake scenario that wouldn't happen to prove your point. How has that advanced your argument. I'll make up a skit about aliens eating chocolate and buying expensive cars but that has the same bearing on renal debate as your scenario.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 911, this is Fred on Main St.  My house is on fire.
> 
> You're in luck tonight Fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you.
> 
> Hello Fred,  this is the ABC company and we're proud to announce our Spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat.
> 
> But I don't  know if that will put out my fire.
> 
> Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.
> 
> Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous.
> 
> Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish?
> 
> But maybe there's a better deal.
> 
> Well Fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from Harry on Aristocrat St and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry Fred.
> 
> 
> The conservative improvement plan for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this why people argue forever about things that could be finished so quickly?
> 
> That's the worst scenario anyone could come up with and you pose hat as a serious situation? No one is suggesting something like that and you know it. Why waste time blowing smoke out your ass?
Click to expand...


PMS is too stupid to figure out how a private fire service would work.  I'm certain Obama's healthcare website doesn't work because the work is being performed by morons like PMS.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 911, this is Fred on Main St.  My house is on fire.
> 
> You're in luck tonight Fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you.
> 
> Hello Fred,  this is the ABC company and we're proud to announce our Spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat.
> 
> But I don't  know if that will put out my fire.
> 
> Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.
> 
> Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous.
> 
> Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish?
> 
> But maybe there's a better deal.
> 
> Well Fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from Harry on Aristocrat St and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry Fred.
> 
> 
> The conservative improvement plan for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this why people argue forever about things that could be finished so quickly?
> 
> That's the worst scenario anyone could come up with and you pose hat as a serious situation? No one is suggesting something like that and you know it. Why waste time blowing smoke out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not paying attention here.
Click to expand...


Yes he is.  That's how he knows you're a moron who probably has difficulty tying his shoes in the morning, let alone running a private fire department.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this why people argue forever about things that could be finished so quickly?
> 
> That's the worst scenario anyone could come up with and you pose hat as a serious situation? No one is suggesting something like that and you know it. Why waste time blowing smoke out your ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not paying attention here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're using a fake scenario that wouldn't happen to prove your point. How has that advanced your argument. I'll make up a skit about aliens eating chocolate and buying expensive cars but that has the same bearing on renal debate as your scenario.
Click to expand...


That's all scumbags like PMZ have.  They draw up straw-man arguments that all conservatives are rich evil money hoarding crooks, then ask you to provide support for their straw-man.  All the while these scumbags like PMZ rape and pillage the paychecks of hard working Americans.  

But hey PMZ is smart after all he hired and fired a couple people once, while being paid by an evil rich bastard conservative.


----------



## uhkilleez

bripat9643 said:


> Notice that your definition doesn't make any claims that it must be defined by law.



Correct, because it is the legal definition. You should notice there was no opposition by your opposition.


----------



## uhkilleez

johnwk said:


> Congress is granted power to lay and collect internal &#8220;excise&#8221; taxes.   This power, as intended by our founders allows Congress to lay and collect a tax upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable specifically selected articles of luxury.
> 
> Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:
> 
> *&#8220;There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.
> 
> 
> It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.&#8221; */



I will ask you once more, how does this differ from a flat tax of the national GDP? The answer is simple, indirect taxes make for more complicated codes which are consequently more easily taken advantage of, especially by those whom are already "rich".



> Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected.  The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation.  If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed.  And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder&#8217;s intended free market system.



The same can be said of direct taxation, for only with a rise in the national GDP will Congress achieve a greater income. They suffer the exact influences with a lesser opportunity to take advantage of the means given to them.



> And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress&#8217; best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury!  It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.



It should also be said under a flat and fixed direct tax, there is no opportunity for Congress to raise taxes whatsoever, which drives their truest and only focus in terms of government toward raising the productivity and prosperity of our economy. In a fixed direct tax, the income of Congress is still solely dependent on the prosperity of the economy, the main difference being a close to loopholes which currently allow them to bring in a greater income personally as well as institutionally by stifling competition.



> I disagree.  Under you method of raising a federal revenue by direct taxation the people do not have the option to avoid the tax.   Direct taxes ought to be used in emergency situations only, and if they are, then the rule of apportionment ought to be strictly enforced!


Under the form of true indirect taxes, so long as you reside within the borders of this country there is no ability to avoid taxation, only an ability to be ignorant of it. Your disagreement comes with notice, but receives no serious additional thought, I have already considered this option as well as the consequences of following it. It was this option we pursued in the past, and it lead us to both forms of taxation. In experience, the best way to make things known is by being direct. The easiest way to be fair is to be blunt. There is no such thing as a fair indirect tax, it simply may not exist by its own definition. The honest truth is that if we want to see improvement we need to make a change and not rely on the mistakes which brought us to this point. You may not agree intellectually, but it makes my point no less valid.



> In speaking of direct taxes, and the evils of an unrestrained power to impose them, our founders were fully cognizant of the destructive nature of this tax which was noted by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes *January 18th, 1797*:
> 
> 
> The key word is unrestrained[/u[], and currently our government is unrestrained in both areas. In reality, this is the truth of our problem, is it not? A fixed and flat direct tax is hardly unrestrained, and by forcing Congress to rely on constitutional convention to raise its taxes you will find that its ability to do so is anything but unrestrained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."*
> 
> And to correct the oppressive and destructive nature of direct taxation, our founders intentionally agreed that direct *&#8220;taxation shall be in proportion to Representation"* and they went on to command that *&#8221;No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.&#8221;*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of man uncompromisable to our founding fathers, which is why the added that it should not be done unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein, they realized as well as I and others do that a time may come when the latter may be beneficial over the other. That time is now. In this day and age an indirect tax only paves the road toward unfair practices and stifling of competition, it is much more beneficial for us to pursue a fixed and flat rate tax. That is simply the way of our times, it was different 250 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to the rule of apportionment and direct taxation, here is what some of our founding fathers had to say:
> Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment:
> 
> *&#8220;With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.&#8221;* *4 Elliot&#8216;s, S.C., 305-6*
> 
> And Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution says:
> *&#8220;The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil&#8221;**3 Elliot&#8217;s, 243*,*&#8220;Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax&#8221;* *3 Elliot&#8217;s, 244*
> 
> 
> Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress&#8217;s *&#8220;general power of taxation&#8221;* that, *"they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."**3 Elliot, 255*
> 
> And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state contribute a share of this tax directly in proportion to their voting strength in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON points out:
> 
> *&#8220;The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion&#8221;**3 Elliot&#8217;s 41*
> 
> Also see an *Act laying a direct tax for $3 million* in which the rule of apportionment is applied.
> 
> And then see *Section 7 of direct tax of 1813* allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is that we no longer live in this day and age, and in the interest of the fairness the fathers perpetuated in their rants of fairness and apportionment, the only fair apportion is a direct taxation of income, the taxation and subsidization of articles of consumption has given Congress too much an influence over the private sector, and as result competition has suffered. This is not something I need make a further point to prove, it is self-evident to you as well as it is to myself or anyone else. If you look at the numbers and follow the money, the greatest corporations of this country receive the most subsidies and as result stifle the most competition solely because of their donation into political campaign. This problem can not even be solely addressed by the institution of a fixed and flat tax rate, there are numerous other institutions of legislation which must follow. The overlaying point, however, is that indirect taxation only paves the way for political favoritism simply due to its sustainability of avoidance, but what you fail to realize is those who avoid it are the ones with money and not those whom need the money. Under such a system it is always those with needs who pay to subsidize those whom need not.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving your total and complete misunderstanding of what fascism is.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly what fascism is.
Click to expand...


Fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism.  It is a right wing political movement, dipshit.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe called me a moron, but he only proved that he's one.  He thinks private fire protection services don't exist.  He also equate opposition to being force to pay for the government brand as a desire not to want the product at all.
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to be a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't because they are already paying for the government product.  What I am asking for is to quit being forced to pay for the government product.  If consumers had a choice, there wouldn't be any government run fire departments.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I can imagine what a privatized court system would look like.  Or a privatized police department.  All run by the corporations.  Maybe Rupert Murdock can purchase the NYPD, and have Fox become their spokesperson.  God, you are dumb.


----------



## johnwk

uhkilleez said:


> The problem is that we no longer live in this day and age, and in the interest of the fairness the fathers perpetuated in their rants of fairness and apportionment, the only fair apportion is a direct taxation of income, the taxation and subsidization of articles of consumption has given Congress too much an influence over the private sector, and as result competition has suffered. This is not something I need make a further point to prove, it is self-evident to you as well as it is to myself or anyone else.



What is self-evident to me is, your love affair with taxing income has paved the way to our nations enslavement.

To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over Americas businesses and industries.

In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [thats your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.

During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying *An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.*44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording unearned wealth as distinguished from earned wages.

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor:* As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.* 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal governments manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working peoples *earned wage*s from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the *Temporary Victory Tax of 1942! *

Roosevelts class warfare tax expanded the income tax upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working peoples earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax unearned income, the temporary tax on working peoples earned wages was sold as a* patriotic necessity* in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelts class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!


Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?

Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?

*The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money*

These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding fathers *ORIGINAL TAX PLAN* as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized Americas once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which Americas businesses and labor have produced.

JWK

*Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to Americas future Prosperity* ___ from Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan,no longer in print.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we no longer live in this day and age, and in the interest of the fairness the fathers perpetuated in their rants of fairness and apportionment, the only fair apportion is a direct taxation of income, the taxation and subsidization of articles of consumption has given Congress too much an influence over the private sector, and as result competition has suffered. This is not something I need make a further point to prove, it is self-evident to you as well as it is to myself or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is self-evident to me is, your love affair with taxing income has paved the way to our nations enslavement.
> 
> To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over Americas businesses and industries.
> 
> In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [thats your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.
> 
> During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying *An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.*44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording unearned wealth as distinguished from earned wages.
> 
> And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor:* As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.* 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
> 
> But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal governments manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working peoples *earned wage*s from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the *Temporary Victory Tax of 1942! *
> 
> Roosevelts class warfare tax expanded the income tax upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working peoples earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax unearned income, the temporary tax on working peoples earned wages was sold as a* patriotic necessity* in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelts class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!
> 
> 
> Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?
> 
> Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?
> 
> *The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money*
> 
> These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding fathers *ORIGINAL TAX PLAN* as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized Americas once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which Americas businesses and labor have produced.
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to Americas future Prosperity* ___ from Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan,no longer in print.
Click to expand...


Government services are not free.  Taxes are not the boogeyman that you present,  merely the mechanism by which we pay our Federal bills.  

If you want to do something useful while you are entertaining yourself with your words,  think of ways to reduce poverty or ways for businesses to restore what they used to know,  how to grow. .  Solve real problems.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that we no longer live in this day and age, and in the interest of the fairness the fathers perpetuated in their rants of fairness and apportionment, the only fair apportion is a direct taxation of income, the taxation and subsidization of articles of consumption has given Congress too much an influence over the private sector, and as result competition has suffered. This is not something I need make a further point to prove, it is self-evident to you as well as it is to myself or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is self-evident to me is, your love affair with taxing income has paved the way to our nations enslavement.
> 
> To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over Americas businesses and industries.
> 
> In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [thats your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.
> 
> During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying *An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.*44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording unearned wealth as distinguished from earned wages.
> 
> And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor:* As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.* 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
> 
> But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal governments manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working peoples *earned wage*s from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the *Temporary Victory Tax of 1942! *
> 
> Roosevelts class warfare tax expanded the income tax upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working peoples earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax unearned income, the temporary tax on working peoples earned wages was sold as a* patriotic necessity* in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelts class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!
> 
> 
> Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?
> 
> Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?
> 
> *The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money*
> 
> These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding fathers *ORIGINAL TAX PLAN* as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized Americas once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which Americas businesses and labor have produced.
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to Americas future Prosperity* ___ from Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan,no longer in print.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government services are not free.  .
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct.  All the free stuff people receive who are on the public dole is not really free, but is paid for by government confiscating the productive citizens paycheck and transferring it to the unproductive who sell their vote to politicians who remain in power by bribing the unproductive for their vote.


JWK



*If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Obamas Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is self-evident to me is, your love affair with taxing income has paved the way to our nations enslavement.
> 
> To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over Americas businesses and industries.
> 
> In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [thats your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.
> 
> During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying *An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.*44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording unearned wealth as distinguished from earned wages.
> 
> And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor:* As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.* 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
> 
> But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal governments manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working peoples *earned wage*s from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the *Temporary Victory Tax of 1942! *
> 
> Roosevelts class warfare tax expanded the income tax upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working peoples earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax unearned income, the temporary tax on working peoples earned wages was sold as a* patriotic necessity* in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelts class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!
> 
> 
> Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?
> 
> Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?
> 
> *The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money*
> 
> These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding fathers *ORIGINAL TAX PLAN* as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized Americas once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which Americas businesses and labor have produced.
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to Americas future Prosperity* ___ from Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan,no longer in print.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government services are not free.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.  All the free stuff people receive who are on the public dole is not really free, but is paid for by government confiscating the productive citizens paycheck and transferring it to the unproductive who sell their vote to politicians who remain in power by bribing the unproductive for their vote.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Obamas Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.
Click to expand...


Why don't we put them to work?


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government services are not free.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.  All the free stuff people receive who are on the public dole is not really free, but is paid for by government confiscating the productive citizens paycheck and transferring it to the unproductive who sell their vote to politicians who remain in power by bribing the unproductive for their vote.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Obamas Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't we put them to work?
Click to expand...


Our progressives in Congress do not want them to work and achieve financial independence because they would no longer have a dependent voting block to keep themselves in power.  We were warned about such dependence in Federalist No. 79:


*A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL* ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers


JWK


*The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream*


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct.  All the free stuff people receive who are on the public dole is not really free, but is paid for by government confiscating the productive citizens paycheck and transferring it to the unproductive who sell their vote to politicians who remain in power by bribing the unproductive for their vote.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Obamas Marxist Free Stuff Party, which is designed to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we put them to work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our progressives in Congress do not want them to work and achieve financial independence because they would no longer have a dependent voting block to keep themselves in power.  We were warned about such dependence in Federalist No. 79:
> 
> 
> *A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL* ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream*
Click to expand...


If business created jobs and hired them,  Congress would have no say in the matter.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we put them to work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our progressives in Congress do not want them to work and achieve financial independence because they would no longer have a dependent voting block to keep themselves in power.  We were warned about such dependence in Federalist No. 79:
> 
> 
> *A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL* ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If business created jobs and hired them,  Congress would have no say in the matter.
Click to expand...


What a creative deflection.


JWK


*Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.Margaret Thatcher
*


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our progressives in Congress do not want them to work and achieve financial independence because they would no longer have a dependent voting block to keep themselves in power.  We were warned about such dependence in Federalist No. 79:
> 
> 
> *A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL* ____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The liberty to fail or succeed at ones own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If business created jobs and hired them,  Congress would have no say in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a creative deflection.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.Margaret Thatcher
> *
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised that you mislabeled my post a "deflection". What it was is a solution. 

I've often wondered why conservatives avoid solutions so often.  Then it hit me.  Solutions replace whining. 

Can you even imagine conservatives not whining? It would be awful for them. They would be as frustrated as wealthy folks not being able to show off.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If business created jobs and hired them,  Congress would have no say in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a creative deflection.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.Margaret Thatcher
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised that you mislabeled my post a "deflection". What it was is a solution.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Your post was a deflection because you asked why "business" is not hiring these people when it is Congress who, unconstitutionally, sets the rules for hiring employees.  Under fascism, folks in government are responsible for who gets hired, fired, and who is a privileged class.  You ought to learn where to point your accusatory finger.


JWK


*"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person&#8217;s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obama&#8217;s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a creative deflection.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.Margaret Thatcher
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised that you mislabeled my post a "deflection". What it was is a solution.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post was a deflection because you asked why "business" is not hiring these people when it is Congress who, unconstitutionally, sets the rules for hiring employees.  Under fascism, folks in government are responsible for who gets hired, fired, and who is a privileged class.  You ought to learn where to point your accusatory finger.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working persons earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Click to expand...


What country are you posting from? 

Here,  companies are free to hire who they want.  At the moment they're too busy counting corporate profits to be bothered with growth and hiring,  but when we get the conservatives out of the board room and back into the bean counting room where they excell,  and replace them with liberal futurists,  growth will return.


----------



## ShawnChris13

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving your total and complete misunderstanding of what fascism is.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what fascism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism.  It is a right wing political movement, dipshit.
Click to expand...



Yes Mussolini taking control of the government, the businesses, the military, private daily activities, and the media are all right wing moves. I will refrain from pointless name calling.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't because they are already paying for the government product.  What I am asking for is to quit being forced to pay for the government product.  If consumers had a choice, there wouldn't be any government run fire departments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the way they feel about healthcare.  A majority of Americans wanted Medicare for all.  Of course the insurance companies made sure that never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whenever the public doesn't go along with the liberal agenda it's always because of some sinister corporate plot.
> 
> I'm not talking about people voting for some government program.  I'm talking about each consumer individually having the choice of whether to pay for and receive the government product or some other product, just like when they buy a car.  If they had such a choice, then government "services" would disappear.
Click to expand...


Ha!  I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team.  He was from Norway I think.  He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down.  And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours.  The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.

Then there's the postal system.  They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office.  They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.


----------



## JoeNormal

pmz said:


> 911, this is fred on main st.  My house is on fire.
> 
> You're in luck tonight fred there are three private  companies competing for your business.  Hold and they will in turn talk to you.
> 
> Hello fred,  this is the abc company and we're proud to announce our spring sale.  99 gallons of water on your fire for $99.99. A price that can't be beat.
> 
> But i don't  know if that will put out my fire.
> 
> Thats why we offer our extended warranty plan.  Whatever it takes to put out the fire will be applied for the bargain prices of $55,000.
> 
> Are you nuts?  Thats outrageous.
> 
> Fred,  your house is burning and you're negotiating.  Isn't that penny smart and pound foolish?
> 
> But maybe there's a better deal.
> 
> Well fred,  we can't just respond without a contract.  We just got a call from harry on aristocrat st and he's agreed to pay us more.  Sorry fred.
> 
> 
> The conservative improvement plan for america.



lmao!


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised that you mislabeled my post a "deflection". What it was is a solution.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post was a deflection because you asked why "business" is not hiring these people when it is Congress who, unconstitutionally, sets the rules for hiring employees.  Under fascism, folks in government are responsible for who gets hired, fired, and who is a privileged class.  You ought to learn where to point your accusatory finger.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working persons earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What country are you posting from?
> Here,  companies are free to hire who they want.
Click to expand...


Another creative deflection!  The truth is, business owners are only free to hire who they want if they comply with regulatory employment rules imposed upon them by a fascistic government.

JWK

*
They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
*


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> Nope.  Fascism is what the Democrat party endorses.  That's what they're talking about when they refer to "public/private" partnership.  And that's also what they are talking about when they say the want to ameliorate the so-called "evils" of capitalism with regulation.



I think I found a post I can partially agree with you on Bripat, tho I wouldn't go so far.

Public/Private partnerships ARE more susceptible to corruption than either apart, and should be avoided.  But they are certainly not just the province of the Democratic Party there are plenty of Republicans that promote them.


----------



## JoeNormal

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee BriPat, it sounds like you'd like to have the option to chose between public and private in this case.  You'd think that some enterprising individual would come along and propose just such a thing seeing how government cant do anything right and all.  Why do you think they don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't because they are already paying for the government product.  What I am asking for is to quit being forced to pay for the government product.  If consumers had a choice, there wouldn't be any government run fire departments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can imagine what a privatized court system would look like.  Or a privatized police department.  All run by the corporations.  Maybe Rupert Murdock can purchase the NYPD, and have Fox become their spokesperson.  God, you are dumb.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  There are already horror stories about the privatized incarceration system.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what fascism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism.  It is a right wing political movement, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Mussolini taking control of the government, the businesses, the military, private daily activities, and the media are all right wing moves. I will refrain from pointless name calling.
Click to expand...


Mussolini was a Republican? 

"taking control of the government, the businesses, the military, private daily activities, and the media are all right wing moves."

Sounds like a combination of Boehner,  McConnell,  Rove,  Norquist,  Trump,  the Koch brothers,  Limbaugh,  Beck,  and Ryan.


----------



## dcraelin

WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers. Some of the framers wanted a king....we dont have one. To pass the constitution they had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE....that alone makes us a Democracy/Republic...........


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers. Some of the framers wanted a king....we dont have one. To pass the constitution they had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE....that alone makes us a Democracy/Republic...........



Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution. 

A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.  

The old Confederacy too.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as capitalism in America. Capitalism is an economy free from state control. That does not exist in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits,*  I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.
Click to expand...


You think there is such a thing as too much profit?


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
Click to expand...


Your logic   Government prevent monopolies. 
Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools.  These are just several off the top of my head.
If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them. 
You are an idiot full of contradictions. 

Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's never existed anywhere. Ideologically capitalism would leave room for monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits,*  I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
Click to expand...


Consumers do.  They call it high prices.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic   Government prevent monopolies.
> Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools.  These are just several off the top of my head.
> If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
> You are an idiot full of contradictions.
> 
> Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Click to expand...


When the government "creates monopolies" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible.  In such a market capitalism will not work.  So,  the government owns the means and our control over that,  rather than as consumers in a competitive market,  is as voters in a democracy. 

As a typical conservative,  you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny,  and treat them the same.  Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits,*  I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
Click to expand...



Here I would agree. Foreign oil companies take in record profits every year due to artificially changing supply. When summer hits and road trips are on the rise so do gas prices. At the same time oil production is reduced too claim there is a shortage, which magically fixed itself every winter.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here I would agree. Foreign oil companies take in record profits every year due to artificially changing supply. When summer hits and road trips are on the rise so do gas prices. At the same time oil production is reduced too claim there is a shortage, which magically fixed itself every winter.
Click to expand...


I disagree only with the word "foreign".


----------



## ShawnChris13

pmz said:


> shawnchris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here i would agree. Foreign oil companies take in record profits every year due to artificially changing supply. When summer hits and road trips are on the rise so do gas prices. At the same time oil production is reduced too claim there is a shortage, which magically fixed itself every winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i disagree only with the word "foreign".
Click to expand...



opec


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shawnchris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here i would agree. Foreign oil companies take in record profits every year due to artificially changing supply. When summer hits and road trips are on the rise so do gas prices. At the same time oil production is reduced too claim there is a shortage, which magically fixed itself every winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i disagree only with the word "foreign".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> opec
Click to expand...


ExxonMobil.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits,*  I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
Click to expand...


No they don't. 
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  *Government prevents them.  At least in America*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic   Government prevent monopolies.
> Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools.  These are just several off the top of my head.
> If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
> You are an idiot full of contradictions.
> 
> Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When the government "creates monopolies*" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible.  In such a market capitalism will not work.  So,  the government owns the means and our control over that,  rather than as consumers in a competitive market,  is as voters in a democracy.
> 
> As a typical conservative,  you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny,  and treat them the same.  Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.
Click to expand...


Thank you for showing that you are an idiot full of contracdictions. You said Government prevents monopolies, yet you turn around and say that it also creates them. CONTRADICTION. 

I am not a typical conservative. I am not a republican (facist). I am not a democrat (socialist). I am a capitalist. I am more liberal than you or anyone here could ever imagine. Don't pretend that you know me.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
Click to expand...


Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic   Government prevent monopolies.
> Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools.  These are just several off the top of my head.
> If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
> You are an idiot full of contradictions.
> 
> Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When the government "creates monopolies*" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible.  In such a market capitalism will not work.  So,  the government owns the means and our control over that,  rather than as consumers in a competitive market,  is as voters in a democracy.
> 
> As a typical conservative,  you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny,  and treat them the same.  Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing that you are an idiot full of contracdictions. You said Government prevents monopolies, yet you turn around and say that it also creates them. CONTRADICTION.
> 
> I am not a typical conservative. I am not a republican (facist). I am not a democrat (socialist). I am a capitalist. I am more liberal than you or anyone here could ever imagine. Don't pretend that you know me.
Click to expand...


Why do you hang on to the complete false belief that they can't do both?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pmz said:
> 
> 
> 
> i disagree only with the word "foreign".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> opec
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ExxonMobil.
Click to expand...



True, yet Exxon doesn't raise the value of our currency as importantly when compared with countries like Oman. My cab driver in Oman filled up his car for less than $10 American.

(Also funny side note his car was running the entire time he filled up and we almost ran over kids playing kickball in some war torn neighborhood.)


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> *When the government "creates monopolies*" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible.  In such a market capitalism will not work.  So,  the government owns the means and our control over that,  rather than as consumers in a competitive market,  is as voters in a democracy.
> 
> As a typical conservative,  you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny,  and treat them the same.  Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for showing that you are an idiot full of contracdictions. You said Government prevents monopolies, yet you turn around and say that it also creates them. CONTRADICTION.
> 
> I am not a typical conservative. I am not a republican (facist). I am not a democrat (socialist). I am a capitalist. I am more liberal than you or anyone here could ever imagine. Don't pretend that you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hang on to the complete false belief that they can't do both?
Click to expand...


Because you said that Government prevent monopolies. If it prevents them, it cannot create them, because then you are breaking your first premise.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.
Click to expand...


How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers. Some of the framers wanted a king....we dont have one. To pass the constitution they had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE....that alone makes us a Democracy/Republic...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution.
> A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.
> The old Confederacy too.
Click to expand...

What "negotiated decision"?.....small states are a problem?....I dont think that was the problem


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers. Some of the framers wanted a king....we dont have one. To pass the constitution they had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE....that alone makes us a Democracy/Republic...........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution.
> A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.
> The old Confederacy too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "negotiated decision"?.....small states are a problem?....I dont think that was the problem
Click to expand...


I,  mistakenly obviously,  assumed that you had some knowledge of the Constitutional Convention. 

One of the biggest negotiation was between Federalists,  who wanted a strong country,  and those who distrusted other colonies who wanted to be free of their influence.  The European tradition of independent small countries as compared to a strong European Union,  for instance. 

Federalists won the debate and wrote it into the Constitution.


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.



Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they 



*have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu. 


JWK


*If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Our Washington Establishments Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.
Click to expand...


You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want.  Your financial success is in their hands.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".
> 
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> 
> 
> 
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*
> 
> And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*
> 
> 
> And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*
> 
> And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*
> 
> Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Our Washington Establishments Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.
Click to expand...


I've read every word many times. 

They did establish a republic.  That means no monarch,  and we've never had one, though many thought we should have followed the European tradition and not chosen a republican form over a monarch.  In fact many thought that George Washington should have been king. 

The Founders did not trust democracy and therefore established an aristocracy.  While they left voting qualifications up to the states,  generally wealthy white males were considered the aristocrats with voting privileges. 

That lasted until 1930 when the universal suffrage amendment established a full representative democracy.


----------



## johnwk

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"
> 
> I would say that this statement is completely wrong.  Capitalism strives for monopolies.  Government prevents them.  At least in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic   Government prevent monopolies.
> Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools.  These are just several off the top of my head.
> If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
> You are an idiot full of contradictions.
> 
> Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.&#8221;
Click to expand...




Under Maryland&#8217;s Declaration of Rights we are amply informed:

*&#8220;that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.&#8221;* 

And what is the most devastating, thieving and tyrannical monopoly created by our federal government in violation of the legislative intent of our Constitution?  The answer would be none other than the Federal Reserve System, and its notes being made a legal tender for all debts, public and private.

In regard to the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, Congress unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress to regulate the value of our nation&#8217;s currency and placed that power in the hands of private bankers.  But what few people realize is the very intention of the Act was to create a money monopoly for these private bankers, and this was done by making Federal Reserve Notes a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, in spite of our founders expressed intentions to forbid Notes of any kind to be made a legal tender. 


For those who are not familiar with our founder&#8217;s specifically stated intentions, here is what transpired during the convention with regard to bank notes being made a legal tender.  SEE *The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16* 


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion. 

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. 


____ cut _____



Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations. 


Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out 
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.  

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. 

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt,  and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any &#8220;note&#8221; a legal tender, which if allowed would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.  




As a matter of fact, one of the delegates to convention who helped frame our Constitution who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt. As one of the delegates to the Convention he was therefore quite influential in prohibiting our government to emit bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting folks in government making notes of any kind a legal tender in payment of debt! 

To lean how Roger Sherman was defrauded see his work titled:  *A Caveat Against Injustice* &#8230; An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange.  


And, the question is, how is it not a crime for our Treasure of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury to sign Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face &#8220;THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE&#8220;?  Should they not be charged with misfeasance and malfeasance in addition to complicity in an act of fraud?


JWK


*"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."*_____ Daniel  Webster.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".
> 
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> 
> 
> 
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*
> 
> And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*
> 
> 
> And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*
> 
> And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*
> 
> Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Our Washington Establishments Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read every word many times.
> 
> They did establish a republic.  .
Click to expand...


Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.  

 And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63 

*"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may: 

*exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*


Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?


JWK

*
 "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".
> 
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> 
> 
> 
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out* "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."*
> 
> And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: *" Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."*
> 
> 
> And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: *"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*
> 
> And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying * "A republic, if you can keep it."*
> 
> Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case].   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *If we can make 51 percent of Americas population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of Americas productive  population enslaved to pay the bills* ____ Our Washington Establishments Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read every word many times.
> 
> They did establish a republic.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.
> 
> And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63
> 
> *"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may:
> 
> *exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*
Click to expand...


Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact. 

Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name. 

As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.

Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Katzndogz

boedicca said:


> Nobody.  There were loopholes and the progressives always forget INFLATION.
> 
> Back in 1956, that 90% tax rate was on incomes over $2.5M in today's dollars.  That's a far cry from the Billionaire and Millionaires who make $250K today.



Back in the 50s it was just after the war.  Much of the world was destroyed.  Europe was a cinder, Japan a glowing hole in the ground, China was truly third world.  It's easy to have high taxes when there is only one functioning economy in the world and it's yours.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read every word many times.
> 
> They did establish a republic.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.
> 
> And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63
> 
> *"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may:
> 
> *exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. *Except in George Bush's case *which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


You are a retard for for babbling on about majority rule. There were more instances where a president was elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote, but you are a retard and cannot know that.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want.  Your financial success is in their hands.
Click to expand...


Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance.  Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law.  Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want.  Your financial success is in their hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance.  Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law.  Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.
Click to expand...


Not true. The ACA includes HDHP (High Deductible Health Plans).  There are limits on how high the deductible may be.  These are addressed on page 48 of the PPACA.



> ANNUAL LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLES FOR EMPLOYER SPONSORED
> PLANS.&#8212;
> (A) IN GENERAL.&#8212;In the case of a health plan offered in the small group market, the deductible under the plan shall not exceed&#8212;
> (i) $2,000 in the case of a plan covering a single individual; and
> (ii) $4,000 in the case of any other plan.
> The amounts under clauses (i) and (ii) may be increased by the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant under a flexible spending arrangement described in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without regard to any salary reduction arrangement).



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

A google search provides a wealth of info on high deductible health plans.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

For instance, wikipedia has this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-deductible_health_plan



> In the United States, participation in a qualifying HDHP is a requirement for health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged programs. As of 2012, HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 per year for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $6,050 for self-only coverage and $12,000 for self-and-family coverage. (However, according to the instructions for IRS form 8889, "this limit does not apply to deductibles and expenses for out-of-network services if the plan uses a network of providers. Instead, only deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for services within the network should be used to figure whether the limit is reached.") The Internal Revenue Service released the 2010 amounts on May 15, 2009,[3] which will be modified each year to reflect the change in cost of living.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.
> 
> And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63
> 
> *"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may:
> 
> *exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. *Except in George Bush's case *which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a retard for for babbling on about majority rule. There were more instances where a president was elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote, but you are a retard and cannot know that.
Click to expand...


The President is always elected by the Electoral College but they are required to vote in concert with the popular vote in their state. 

I believe that Bush was the only one that lost the popular national vote but got the office.  

Congress is elected by popular vote directly.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. *Except in George Bush's case *which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a retard for for babbling on about majority rule. There were more instances where a president was elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote, but you are a retard and cannot know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The President is always elected by the Electoral College but they are required to vote in concert with the popular vote in their state.
> 
> *I believe that Bush was the only one that lost the popular national vote but got the office*.
> 
> Congress is elected by popular vote directly.
Click to expand...


And that is why you are a retard. Look it up in history. Its happend 4 times.
John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election. 

You don't know about government, you dont know about histroy, you dont know about economics. YOU ARE A RETARD. PMZ=Pitiful Moronic Zombie


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want.  Your financial success is in their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance.  Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law.  Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. The ACA includes HDHP (High Deductible Health Plans).  There are limits on how high the deductible may be.  These are addressed on page 48 of the PPACA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANNUAL LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLES FOR EMPLOYER SPONSORED
> PLANS.&#8212;
> (A) IN GENERAL.&#8212;In the case of a health plan offered in the small group market, the deductible under the plan shall not exceed&#8212;
> (i) $2,000 in the case of a plan covering a single individual; and
> (ii) $4,000 in the case of any other plan.
> The amounts under clauses (i) and (ii) may be increased by the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant under a flexible spending arrangement described in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without regard to any salary reduction arrangement).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
> 
> A google search provides a wealth of info on high deductible health plans.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
> 
> For instance, wikipedia has this
> 
> High-deductible health plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the United States, participation in a qualifying HDHP is a requirement for health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged programs. As of 2012, HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 per year for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $6,050 for self-only coverage and $12,000 for self-and-family coverage. (However, according to the instructions for IRS form 8889, "this limit does not apply to deductibles and expenses for out-of-network services if the plan uses a network of providers. Instead, only deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for services within the network should be used to figure whether the limit is reached.") The Internal Revenue Service released the 2010 amounts on May 15, 2009,[3] which will be modified each year to reflect the change in cost of living.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is not a high deductible plan.  My plan was 5k individual 10k family with 350 premiums nothing shared up to the deductible and no out of pocket after meeting the deductible.   The Obama manadated plans for me are well over a thousand a month.  That's well over TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR that I have to spend even if I don't use it.  That is not a low premium high deductible plan.  Just goes to show that liberals will redefine everything given time, for no other reason than to screw us all out of our income.

Additionally, FSA is not HSA.  I would never use FSA, because you loose any money you don't use in FSA.  HSA is the way the go.  Is the best plan for healthy families.  Democrats know this and see it working, thus they decided to attack it.  The democrats have to BURN EVERY MOTHER LIVING THING THAT WORKS IN THIS COUNTRY.  Pigs.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read every word many times.
> 
> They did establish a republic.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.
> 
> And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63
> 
> *"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may:
> 
> *exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...



No.  You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:


*Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.*


Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.

Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?


*
State`s Pop.
__________  X  House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps 
Pop. of U.S. 



State`s Pop. 
__________   X   SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop. 
*


JWK





*The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution


----------



## orogenicman

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
Click to expand...


Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the way they feel about healthcare.  A majority of Americans wanted Medicare for all.  Of course the insurance companies made sure that never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever the public doesn't go along with the liberal agenda it's always because of some sinister corporate plot.
> 
> I'm not talking about people voting for some government program.  I'm talking about each consumer individually having the choice of whether to pay for and receive the government product or some other product, just like when they buy a car.  If they had such a choice, then government "services" would disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha!  I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team.  He was from Norway I think.  He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down.  And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours.  The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.
Click to expand...


The profit motive is what keeps costs down.  It doesn't "pump them up."  The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program.  "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine.  A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day.  For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit.   His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.



JoeNormal said:


> Then there's the postal system.  They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office.  They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.



By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail.  They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum.  There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance.  Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law.  Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The ACA includes HDHP (High Deductible Health Plans).  There are limits on how high the deductible may be.  These are addressed on page 48 of the PPACA.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
> 
> A google search provides a wealth of info on high deductible health plans.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
> 
> For instance, wikipedia has this
> 
> High-deductible health plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the United States, participation in a qualifying HDHP is a requirement for health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged programs. As of 2012, HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 per year for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $6,050 for self-only coverage and $12,000 for self-and-family coverage. (However, according to the instructions for IRS form 8889, "this limit does not apply to deductibles and expenses for out-of-network services if the plan uses a network of providers. Instead, only deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for services within the network should be used to figure whether the limit is reached.") The Internal Revenue Service released the 2010 amounts on May 15, 2009,[3] which will be modified each year to reflect the change in cost of living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a high deductible plan.  My plan was 5k individual 10k family with 350 premiums nothing shared up to the deductible and no out of pocket after meeting the deductible.   The Obama manadated plans for me are well over a thousand a month.  That's well over TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR that I have to spend even if I don't use it.  That is not a low premium high deductible plan.  Just goes to show that liberals will redefine everything given time, for no other reason than to screw us all out of our income.
> 
> Additionally, FSA is not HSA.  I would never use FSA, because you loose any money you don't use in FSA.  HSA is the way the go.  Is the best plan for healthy families.  Democrats know this and see it working, thus they decided to attack it.  The democrats have to BURN EVERY MOTHER LIVING THING THAT WORKS IN THIS COUNTRY.  Pigs.
Click to expand...


Obviously,  the only party worse are the Republicans.


----------



## orogenicman

So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.
> 
> And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63
> 
> *"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may:
> 
> *exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
> 
> 
> *Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.*
> 
> 
> Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
> 
> Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> *
> State`s Pop.
> __________  X  House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________   X   SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Click to expand...


Republics are countries not governed by monarchs.  The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
> 
> 
> *Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.*
> 
> 
> Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
> 
> Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> *
> State`s Pop.
> __________  X  House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________   X   SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republics are countries not governed by monarchs.  The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.
Click to expand...


You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I *"...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."*

Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?


JWK


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever the public doesn't go along with the liberal agenda it's always because of some sinister corporate plot.
> 
> I'm not talking about people voting for some government program.  I'm talking about each consumer individually having the choice of whether to pay for and receive the government product or some other product, just like when they buy a car.  If they had such a choice, then government "services" would disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!  I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team.  He was from Norway I think.  He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down.  And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours.  The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The profit motive is what keeps costs down.  It doesn't "pump them up."  The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program.  "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine.  A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day.  For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit.   His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the postal system.  They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office.  They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail.  They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum.  There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.
Click to expand...


" The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."

Can't wait to see the evidence of this.  Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?


----------



## Gadawg73

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
> 
> 
> *Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.*
> 
> 
> Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
> 
> Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> *
> State`s Pop.
> __________  X  House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________   X   SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republics are countries not governed by monarchs.  The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I *"...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."*
> 
> Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


The definition of the word "republic" in English is pretty clear.  You want to redefine it into a different definition. 

You can't do that.


----------



## orogenicman

Gadawg73 said:


> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.



The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.


----------



## uhkilleez

johnwk said:


> What is self-evident to me is, your love affair with taxing &#8220;income&#8221; has paved the way to our nation&#8217;s enslavement.



That's hardly the case, I am 24. I certainly didn't make any of the decisions which fucked this country up.



> To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over America&#8217;s businesses and industries.
> 
> In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [that&#8217;s your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their &#8220;fair share&#8221; in taxes.
> 
> During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying *&#8220;An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.&#8221;*44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording &#8220;unearned wealth&#8220; as distinguished from earned wages.
> 
> And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor:* As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.&#8221;* 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
> 
> But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government&#8217;s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people&#8217;s *earned wage*s from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the *Temporary Victory Tax of 1942! *
> 
> Roosevelt&#8217;s class warfare tax expanded the &#8220;income tax&#8221; upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent &#8220;temporary&#8221; tax upon working people&#8217;s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax &#8220;unearned income&#8221;, the temporary tax on working people&#8217;s earned wages was sold as a* patriotic necessity* in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelt&#8217;s class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!



This is only true, however, because of the multitude of other tax burdens the working class is forced to pay in addition to a taxation of income, not simply because their income is being taxed. In a fixed flat tax rate, everyone pays the exact same percentage of tax, and taxes of goods and services disappear entirely, resulting in a reduction of all prices across the board. If you don't want taxes to be raised on us like the frog in the frying pan, you must take away Congress' ability to raise taxes altogether, which is what I am proposing.

In order to be fair, the process of taxation must be simplistic and transparent in nature. The only way to have a transparent taxation is through direct taxation and an abolition of indirect taxes. No sales tax, no excise tax, and the use of tariffs only on imports to discourage *manufactured* products from coming into the country, however it is essentially important for there to be no taxation of imported raw materials.

Under such a system, prices on goods and services will drop drastically over night, strengthening the purchasing power of our hard earned wages. Taxation would be fair, it would be at a much lower rate than we currently pay, and the income of the government would be entirely dependent on the prosperity of the economy, and you would then see enactment of legislation which encourages employment and competition as opposed to the stifling of each respectively. Our tax code would go from being several volumes to a simple amendment. 



> Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?



I've already explained this; there is little competition in the media world thanks to government, and neither the media corporations nor the government want a well informed public.



> Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?
> 
> *The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money*
> 
> These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father&#8217;s *ORIGINAL TAX PLAN* as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized America&#8216;s once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress&#8217; current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America&#8217;s businesses and labor have produced.
> 
> JWK
> 
> *&#8220;Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America&#8217;s future Prosperity&#8220;* ___ from &#8220;Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan&#8221;,no longer in print.



The same would be true of an amendment which abolishes indirect taxation of articles of consumption, and locks a 10% rate of tax on income into the constitution. It would be straight forward and cheap, and taxes could only be raised by a vote to amend the constitution or constitutional convention. In either situation it would be easy to see that they are trying to raise taxes, and with such a straight forward system you run a lesser risk of "cunning con artists" tricking the people into paying a heavier burden.

The only problem with your suggestion is the complicated nature of consumption based taxes that open the door for unfair practice. The only problem with either suggestion is government's addiction to spending other people's money.


----------



## Gadawg73

orogenicman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
Click to expand...


Collecting is far different than imposing the amount.


----------



## uhkilleez

[youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]

This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.


----------



## orogenicman

Gadawg73 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Collecting is far different than imposing the amount.
Click to expand...


I take it that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.

Here it is for your perusal:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.



And what it has to do. 

What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government.  Other than that,  there aren't many limitations.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?
Click to expand...


Define "price gouge."


----------



## PMZ

uhkilleez said:


> [youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]
> 
> This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.



Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?


----------



## itfitzme

"Under such a system, prices on goods and services will drop drastically over night, strengthening the purchasing power of our hard earned wages."

No it wouldn't.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha!  I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team.  He was from Norway I think.  He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down.  And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours.  The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The profit motive is what keeps costs down.  It doesn't "pump them up."  The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program.  "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine.  A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day.  For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit.   His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the postal system.  They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office.  They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail.  They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum.  There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."
> 
> Can't wait to see the evidence of this.  Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?
Click to expand...


True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself.  Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering.  It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The profit motive is what keeps costs down.  It doesn't "pump them up."  The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program.  "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine.  A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day.  For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit.   His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.
> 
> 
> 
> By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail.  They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum.  There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."
> 
> Can't wait to see the evidence of this.  Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself.  Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering.  It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.
Click to expand...


That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical.  Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.


----------



## Gadawg73

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.



It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".
Click to expand...


It is amazing to me the number of windbags who say that the US is a Republic because the Consitution guarantees such. Then some even post article 4 which they have apparently not read. It guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. It says NOTHING about the federal government being one. READ.  

Now I do believe we are a Republic tho not a pure one. A pure one, as Jefferson in his day said, could only exist in a small area where all citizens could decide on laws.  



johnwk said:


> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *


Madison was inconsistent, later joining Jefferson in his opposition to the rest of the framer's federalists. Republicanism was actually a rallying point of those OPPOSED to the consitution such as PATRICK HENRY.  I notice you dont give the whole context either. Madison qualified his definition of Republic, winding up with a definition that no one else shared. You can sense the defensiveness. 



johnwk said:


> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*


NO one knows for sure what was said at the convention because members were sworn to secrecy. Madsion did later say that some wanted a king.....we didnt get one did we.

Read Federalist #9 to see what Hamilton thought of historys Republics, he equated them with Democracys, as did most of the peopulation of the day.

Franklin wanted a one house legislature and no president.

Democracys/Republics require knowing the will of the people, which requires voting. Mobs dont vote.  Some of the framers tho not all may have had an irrational fear of the comon man being involved in politics. They were wrong.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution.
> A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.
> The old Confederacy too.
> 
> 
> 
> What "negotiated decision"?.....small states are a problem?....I dont think that was the problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I,  mistakenly obviously,  assumed that you had some knowledge of the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> One of the biggest negotiation was between Federalists,  who wanted a strong country,  and those who distrusted other colonies who wanted to be free of their influence.  The European tradition of independent small countries as compared to a strong European Union,  for instance.
> 
> Federalists won the debate and wrote it into the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I do have some knowledge of the convention tho members were sworn to secrecy.  Most of the members could be classified as supportive of a national government i.e. federalists and the negotiation on that part was decidely one-sided.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
Click to expand...



My money is of, by, and for me and my family.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amazing to me the number of windbags who say that the US is a Republic because the Consitution guarantees such. Then some even post article 4 which they have apparently not read. It guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. It says NOTHING about the federal government being one. READ.
> 
> Now I do believe we are a Republic tho not a pure one. A pure one, as Jefferson in his day said, could only exist in a small area where all citizens could decide on laws.
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
> *have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Madison was inconsistent, later joining Jefferson in his opposition to the rest of the framer's federalists. Republicanism was actually a rallying pint of those OPPOSED to the consitution such as PATRICK HENRY.
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO one knows for sure what was said at the convention because members were sworn to secrecy. Madsion did later say that some wanted a king.....we didnt get one did we.
> 
> Read Federalist #9 to see what Hamilton thought of historys Republics, he equated them with Democracys, as did most of the peopulation of the day.
> 
> Franklin wanted a one house legislature and no president.
> 
> Democracys/Republics require knowing the will of the people, which requires voting. Mobs dont vote.  Some of the framers tho not all may have had an irrational fear of the comon man being involved in politics. They were wrong.
Click to expand...


Words have meaning.  The word republic is defined as a country not ruled by a monarch.  Exactly what the Constitution says when it guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. One without a monarch. 

The Founders,  following the fashion of their day,  did not trust the "common man",  and certainly not any women or any slaves. 

While they left voting qualifications up to each state,  they knew that states would create an aristocracy. 

It took 150 years approximately before we,  the people,  insisted on universal suffrage in the election of our representatives. Of course,  up to then,  Congress and the Supreme Court made decisions democratically,  but once we could all vote in elections we became indisputably a democracy.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
Click to expand...


Only if you and your family are not Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?



His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar.  Where do you think I got the photo?

Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.


----------



## dcraelin

Gadawg73 said:


> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.



You have used that word ignorant before and it boomeranged on you.  We know the constitution has a few words to say about one minority, something about being counted as 3/5ths of a person I believe.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
Click to expand...


The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes.  It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes.  It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...


Only if it spends money.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what it has to do.
> 
> What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government.  Other than that,  there aren't many limitations.
Click to expand...


That's wrong.  It's the opposite of what the Framers intended.  The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government.  What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited?  That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution.  The rest of it would be superfluous.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program."
> 
> Can't wait to see the evidence of this.  Can't wait to see even the evidence that the government is competing with business. In what market?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself.  Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering.  It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical.  Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  It hardly limits itself to that.  Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
Click to expand...


Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> *The profit motive is what keeps costs down.* It doesn't "pump them up." The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program. "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine. A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day. For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit. His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.
> 
> ....



Incorrect.  

The profit motive may increase prices just as much as it may reduce them.  That is the whole idea of profit maximization, isn't it?  It all depends on the details of the market. Then there are market imperfections, which all markets have, which results in market leverage and therefor profits.  

Saying "the profit motive is what keeps costs down" is rather absurd on the face of it.  Selling at cost is zero profit.  Up the supply chain, one markets cost is another markets prices.  Increasing price with respect to cost increases profit.  Down stream, that price is another companies costs.

And, prices are based on willingness to pay on the demand side, not on supply side costs.

Indeed, the very nature of profits demonstrates the market imperfections.  Perfectly competitive markets, the simple micro economic model, results in zero profits.  The reason is because where profits exists, competition comes in and drives down prices.   So, if there are profits, it indicates that it isn't the ideal model.

Economies of scale absolutely function in health care.  It is particularly at play with insurance companies.  It is at play in education of healthcare professionals.  It is at play in drugs and equipment manufacturing.  It is at play in information intensive processes, such as patient records.  

Service quantity also opens up the viability of alternative service structure.  It opens up the option of specialization that didn't previously exist.  Technicians and nurses pick up work that was previously restricted to the doctor.  Capital equipment, such as MRI machines, become fully utilized.  Reusable syringes make way to disposable syringes due to volume.

There is a reason that HMO's exist.  Kiaser and other health organizations are able to provide more care at less cost than the equivalent number of associated private practice doctors. There are all sorts of ways that economies of scale are in affect in medicine.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes.  It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if it spends money.
Click to expand...


Nope, it still isn't compelled to collect taxes.  The recent behavior of Congress should be sufficient proof of that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself.  Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering.  It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical.  Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  It hardly limits itself to that.  Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.
Click to expand...


Actually it does limit itself to that judged by centrist standards, but certainly not by extremist standards.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing to me the number of windbags who say that the US is a Republic because the Consitution guarantees such. Then some even post article 4 which they have apparently not read. It guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. It says NOTHING about the federal government being one. READ.
> Now I do believe we are a Republic tho not a pure one. A pure one, as Jefferson in his day said, could only exist in a small area where all citizens could decide on laws.
> Madison was inconsistent, later joining Jefferson in his opposition to the rest of the framer's federalists. Republicanism was actually a rallying pint of those OPPOSED to the consitution such as PATRICK HENRY.
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate *"the evils we experience,"* saying that those *"evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO one knows for sure what was said at the convention because members were sworn to secrecy. Madsion did later say that some wanted a king.....we didnt get one did we.
> Read Federalist #9 to see what Hamilton thought of historys Republics, he equated them with Democracys, as did most of the peopulation of the day.
> Franklin wanted a one house legislature and no president.
> Democracys/Republics require knowing the will of the people, which requires voting. Mobs dont vote.  Some of the framers tho not all may have had an irrational fear of the comon man being involved in politics. They were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Words have meaning.  The word republic is defined as a country not ruled by a monarch.  Exactly what the Constitution says when it guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. One without a monarch.
> 
> The Founders,  following the fashion of their day,  did not trust the "common man",  and certainly not any women or any slaves.
> 
> While they left voting qualifications up to each state,  they knew that states would create an aristocracy.
> 
> It took 150 years approximately before we,  the people,  insisted on universal suffrage in the election of our representatives. Of course,  up to then,  Congress and the Supreme Court made decisions democratically,  but once we could all vote in elections we became indisputably a democracy.
Click to expand...


Well I can live with that definition, and it is supported by the consitutions prohibition of Titles etc., tho I do think it implyed more 
as Jeffersons ideal shows.  

Some of the founders. People seems to forget they could have differing opinions.  I dont believe you are corrrect regarding aristocracy.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you and your family are not Americans.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  Other Americans are entitled to nothing I've earned.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what it has to do.
> 
> What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government.  Other than that,  there aren't many limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's wrong.  It's the opposite of what the Framers intended.  The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government.  What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited?  That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution.  The rest of it would be superfluous.
Click to expand...


What the founders intended was lost with them.  What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down.  And what are the bylaws of our government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical.  Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  It hardly limits itself to that.  Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it does limit itself to that judged by centrist standards, but certainly not by extremist standards.
Click to expand...


In your lingo, Joseph Stalin would qualify as a" centrist."  The federal government has its fingers in so many things that it's impossible to even list them all.  The number of federal agencies is in the thousands.  There are hundreds of programs solely devoted to provided housing.

You really are one totally deluded Obama fluffer, ya know it?


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what it has to do.
> 
> What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government.  Other than that,  there aren't many limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong.  It's the opposite of what the Framers intended.  The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government.  What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited?  That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution.  The rest of it would be superfluous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the founders intended was lost with them.  What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down.  And what are the bylaws of our government.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we here this a lot. "what the Framers intended." The very reason that we have a system of courts and judges is to determine what was intended by the law.  Oh, yeah, the "what the Framers intended" crowd just knows what was intended and doesn't like judges because they see it differently.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what it has to do.
> 
> What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government.  Other than that,  there aren't many limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong.  It's the opposite of what the Framers intended.  The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government.  What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited?  That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution.  The rest of it would be superfluous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the founders intended was lost with them.  What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down.  And what are the bylaws of our government.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, no.  You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended.  It's not lost.  That's how we know you're full of shit.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes.  It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in Neverland.  You can't get something for nothing.


----------



## Polk

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
> Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
> The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what it has to do.
> 
> What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government.  Other than that,  there aren't many limitations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's wrong.  It's the opposite of what the Framers intended.  The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government.  What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited?  That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution.  The rest of it would be superfluous.
Click to expand...


I actually agree with your argument on this one, but it's also an argument that proves nothing.


----------



## Polk

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong.  It's the opposite of what the Framers intended.  The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government.  What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited?  That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution.  The rest of it would be superfluous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the founders intended was lost with them.  What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down.  And what are the bylaws of our government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no.  You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended.  It's not lost.  That's how we know you're full of shit.
Click to expand...


He does not disagree with you on that point. What he is getting at is that language is not precise and we don't know James Madison sitting here telling us how he'd address new situations.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)
Click to expand...


All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned and that belongs to me.  The only difference is that some of the figures denote the money that the majority through its agent the federal government is stealing from me.

According to your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government.  Now, a Stalinist or an Obama fluffer might agree with that viewpoint, but most Americans don't.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar.  Where do you think I got the photo?
> 
> Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.
Click to expand...


So is a lot of child porn.  Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so?  Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes.  It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in Neverland.  You can't get something for nothing.
Click to expand...


That doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not compel the federal government to collect taxes.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  It hardly limits itself to that.  Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does limit itself to that judged by centrist standards, but certainly not by extremist standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your lingo, Joseph Stalin would qualify as a" centrist."  The federal government has its fingers in so many things that it's impossible to even list them all.  The number of federal agencies is in the thousands.  There are hundreds of programs solely devoted to provided housing.
> 
> You really are one totally deluded Obama fluffer, ya know it?
Click to expand...


And the number of businesses is in the tens of millions. And the number of individuals in the hundreds of millions.  And the number of automobiles is in hundreds of thousands.  And the number of occupations is in thousands.

And the number of ways that you can be wrong is innumerable.

So what is your point?


----------



## PMZ

Polk said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the founders intended was lost with them.  What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down.  And what are the bylaws of our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no.  You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended.  It's not lost.  That's how we know you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He does not disagree with you on that point. What he is getting at is that language is not precise and we don't know James Madison sitting here telling us how he'd address new situations.
Click to expand...


Plus the documents that he refers to have no standing in American law.  Interesting,  perhaps,  but as they describe as much the losing positions leading up to the negotiated Constitution as the winning positions,  they are not relevant to the rule of law.


----------



## Polk

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do.  Collecting taxes is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes.  It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in Neverland.  You can't get something for nothing.
Click to expand...


I think you're both dancing around each other. 
He's arguing that the government doesn't have to collect taxes (legally true, but practically irrelevant).
You're arguing that even borrowing is just a claim on future revenue (also true, but that doesn't force the government to collect the future revenue).


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar.  Where do you think I got the photo?
> 
> Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is a lot of child porn.  Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so?  Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?
Click to expand...


If you object, then report me.  Otherwise, fuck off.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.
Click to expand...


Fine. Stop using the roads.  Stop expecting others to die to protect you and your family.  Good luck trying to round up your own army.  If you aren't willing to pay your taxes, you have no cause to expect protection or services of any kind from the government.


----------



## Polk

PMZ said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, no.  You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended.  It's not lost.  That's how we know you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does not disagree with you on that point. What he is getting at is that language is not precise and we don't know James Madison sitting here telling us how he'd address new situations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus the documents that he refers to have no standing in American law.  Interesting,  perhaps,  but as they describe as much the losing positions leading up to the negotiated Constitution as the winning positions,  they are not relevant to the rule of law.
Click to expand...


Which documents are we referring to specifically? That seems to be an important point in the discussion. Correspondence? The Federalist Papers?


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar.  Where do you think I got the photo?
> 
> Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is a lot of child porn.  Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so?  Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you object, then report me.  Otherwise, fuck off.
Click to expand...


It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.


----------



## Polk

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.
Click to expand...


That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned and that belongs to me.  The only difference is that some of the figures denote the money that the majority through its agent the federal government is stealing from me.
> 
> According to your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government.  Now, a Stalinist or an Obama fluffer might agree with that viewpoint, but most Americans don't.
Click to expand...


"All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned"

You would be wrong there. 

And again with,

"your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government."

Your subjective opinions don't define anything.

Here is objective;







Does it have your name on it?  

It has no purpose except in use in an exchange.

I challenge you to keep all of "your money" this year, every last penny.  I bet you dollars to donuts that you will be giving it away just like you did last year.


----------



## uhkilleez

PMZ said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> [youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]
> 
> This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?
Click to expand...


People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.


----------



## orogenicman

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned and that belongs to me.  The only difference is that some of the figures denote the money that the majority through its agent the federal government is stealing from me.
> 
> According to your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government.  Now, a Stalinist or an Obama fluffer might agree with that viewpoint, but most Americans don't.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  You seem to think you live in a vacuum.  You don't.  Sorry if you didn't realize this.


----------



## PMZ

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine. Stop using the roads.  Stop expecting others to die to protect you and your family.  Good luck trying to round up your own army.  If you aren't willing to pay your taxes, you have no cause to expect protection or services of any kind from the government.
Click to expand...


It simply is incomprehensible that people who have no interest or stake in America continue to live here in these days and times of global freedom. 

The ultimate welfare.  Take everything that you can,  but insist it be free.


----------



## Polk

uhkilleez said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> [youtube]Ax-2i71bqGw[/youtube]
> 
> This is the vision government and media have of the American people. They want us all just like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.
Click to expand...


If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?


----------



## originalthought

orogenicman said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consumers do.  They call it high prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?
Click to expand...


First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.

With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit. 

Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?


----------



## Polk

The problem is that even "true capitalism" isn't true. It rests on a series of assumptions about the world that are plainly false.


----------



## uhkilleez

Polk said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?
Click to expand...


Obama phone.


----------



## orogenicman

originalthought said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.
> 
> With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.
> 
> Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?
Click to expand...


I don't agree that anyone has a right to gouge a consumer by imposing such an unreasonable profit.  It is unethical, to say the least.


----------



## uhkilleez

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is a lot of child porn.  Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so?  Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you object, then report me.  Otherwise, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.
Click to expand...


A middle finger is hardly abusive.


----------



## PMZ

Polk said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who would benefit if we were "just like this"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?
Click to expand...


It seems that many people do not recognize that fundamental to democracy is the desire to be and stay elected.  It's exactly like the fact that fundamental to capitalism is the desire for more materialism. 

If those desires were to vanish,  not that there is any danger of that,  democracy and capitalism would whither and die. 

So working for votes because constituents are satisfied with your contributions to a well run country is what politics is about.


----------



## Polk

uhkilleez said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama phone.
Click to expand...


But why "Obama phone"? If the goal was to create dependency, why wasn't there a "Bush phone" already? (Of course, we could get into the fact that the program you're complaining about already existed before 2009...)


----------



## Gadawg73

Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who use social programs to buy votes. Government feels much more secure when the people they rule are dumb and dependent. If we need government to eat, we are far less likely to overthrow when they overreach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems that many people do not recognize that fundamental to democracy is the desire to be and stay elected.  It's exactly like the fact that fundamental to capitalism is the desire for more materialism.
> 
> If those desires were to vanish,  not that there is any danger of that,  democracy and capitalism would whither and die.
> 
> So working for votes because constituents are satisfied with your contributions to a well run country is what politics is about.
Click to expand...


Pitiful Moron Zombie=PMZ
When you say the pledge of allegiance   , do u say to the democracy for which we stand, or for the republic for which we stand? Or do u say the pledge at all?

The desire in capitalism is not materialism. Who taught u that? The same person that taught u only George Bush lost the popular vote and still one the electoral college when it has happen several times throughout history?


----------



## itfitzme

originalthought said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
> Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.
> 
> With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.
> 
> Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?
Click to expand...


No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system.   Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them.  And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.

And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud.   The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace.  From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.

The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes.  The question is how to optimize things.

To begin with, monopolies are illegal.  The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.

We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply.  The reason is to optimize the utility of our money.  Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy.  Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.

Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits.  A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My money is of, by, and for me and my family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)
Click to expand...



Before taxes it is mine. After several people threatened me with prison and other penalties, I have it to them. People with guns get to make all the rules while at the same time telling me I don't need guns.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
> Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.



Your point that economic prosperity floats all boats is right on. It's the only way out of the Bush mess. 

The only influence government has over that is temporary floatation during recessions. 

I'm sure that if the American electorate were offered the choice between today's level of prosperity vs say,  Clintonomics,  but at the cost of eliminating all business regulation and taxes,  they would reject it out of hand.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Polk said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's money of,  by,  and for Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.
Click to expand...



Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.


----------



## Polk

ShawnChris13 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.
Click to expand...


But how are you able to provide that service? You would be hard-pressed to name a service that did not involve some amount of public investment in your ability to provide that service.


----------



## itfitzme

Gadawg73 said:


> Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
> Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.



The economy doesn't necessitate profit.

"Only in the short run can a firm in a perfectly competitive market make an economic profit"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money.  You played no part in earning it.  You're entitled to nothing from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.
Click to expand...


You can then exchange that effort for goods and services created by others.  One of those obligations is for the services that government provides.  

If they are not worth their cost to you,  you have an obligation to yourself and your family to find a better deal elsewhere.  

Just like you would do for all of the other costs in your life.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Polk said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all rests on the assumption that your money is something entirely of your creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how are you able to provide that service? You would be hard-pressed to name a service that did not involve some amount of public investment in your ability to provide that service.
Click to expand...



I could work for a farmer and it wouldn't be based on a public service. Just because the government has forced itself irresponsibly into economics does not mean that the government is responsible for all economic transactions.


----------



## originalthought

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.
> 
> With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.
> 
> Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system.   Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them.  And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.
> 
> And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud.   The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace.  From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.
> 
> The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes.  The question is how to optimize things.
> 
> To begin with, monopolies are illegal.  The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.
> 
> We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply.  The reason is to optimize the utility of our money.  Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy.  Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.
> 
> Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits.  A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.
Click to expand...


Wow, another retard alert!!! Why are you spouting off with social monetary system and standard of living. I didn't mention any of that, I asked a simple hypothetical, do u agree or disagree, and you respond with "No". No what? It's very easy to see how has the ability to use their brain. You can't even answer a question. 

You are the same as PMZ. Full of contradictions. You say monopolies are bad, and then shoot off talking about how good the Federal Reserve!!! LMAO! It's a monopoly. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US. Then U talk about how bad private banks are. Do u know who is controlling the Fed Res? The private Banks you moron!


----------



## Polk

Gadawg73 said:


> Just a few nights ago we had a discussion on "sharing the wealth" where I stated that economic growth where the pie to be shared grows is the best way to equally give the same opportunity to become wealthy to MORE people. One man stated how was that possible as the pie is only so big. He did not know that the economy grows and the money supply has been growing at 100 billion a month now for years, far above the economic growth. Plenty of money out there to be had for someone that has a strong work ethic and willing to risk their capital in a new business.
> Up and until government then regulates, taxes, mandates and inhibits in every way they can the ability of the new business to make that evil thing capitalists need: PROFIT.



While the pie grows over time, that growth is:
a) not widely distributed
b) not that rapid over time
c) nonexistant at any fixed point in time


----------



## PMZ

Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard". 

Where's that come from?


----------



## Polk

ShawnChris13 said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me receiving the money is for me providing a service. A company says I will pay you this much for this much work. It is money that I created. If they paid in gold coins it would make no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how are you able to provide that service? You would be hard-pressed to name a service that did not involve some amount of public investment in your ability to provide that service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could work for a farmer and it wouldn't be based on a public service. Just because the government has forced itself irresponsibly into economics does not mean that the government is responsible for all economic transactions.
Click to expand...


I never said the government is "responsible" for all economic transactions, but there is certainly a government role in all transactions. In the case of a farmer, you've got roads to transport the food to market and police and courts that prevent thieves/create a way to punish them. And that's before getting into farm subsidies and tariffs.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
> 
> 
> *Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.*
> 
> 
> Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
> 
> Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> *
> State`s Pop.
> __________  X  House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________   X   SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republics are countries not governed by monarchs.  The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I *"...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."*
> 
> Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


You tried to redefine "republic".


----------



## itfitzme

The fundamental misconception is the belief that lower taxes would necessarily result in increased standard of living and purchasing power.  That's is a ridiculous notion.  The only way that lower taxes results in a higher standard of living and purchasing power is if there is a disparity between taxes.  If I pay less taxes than you, then I can buy more. As soon as we both pay the same taxes, the tax level is meaningless.  Prices are always a percentage of the money supply available for purchasing.  In short, 

    &#931;((P/M)*Q)=1

It should be obvious that simply decreasing the tax rate across the board doesn't simply increase output. Output is the result of labor and efficiency of that labor.

Taxes simply "tag along" the flow.  They adjust in accordance with that flow, providing an excellent signal as to the need for additional public resources.


----------



## orogenicman

uhkilleez said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you object, then report me.  Otherwise, fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A middle finger is hardly abusive.
Click to expand...


It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.


----------



## Polk

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know how to read.  What they established is a "Republican Form of Government".  And it is so stated in our Constitution.
> 
> And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in  Federalist Paper No. 63
> 
> *"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."* __ see Federalist No. 10.  And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in *Federalist Paper No. 43* no state may:
> 
> *exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.*
> 
> 
> Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts.  Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *
> "In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
> 
> Look up republic in an English dictionary.  What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch.  Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
> 
> As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males.  Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too.  The concept of a democracy was founded by we,  the people,  and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
> 
> Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule.  And those that decide,  are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
> 
> 
> *Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.*
> 
> 
> Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
> 
> Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> *
> State`s Pop.
> __________  X  House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________   X   SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Click to expand...


The Constitution does not require "one dollar, one vote". Moreover, doing so would swallow whole the idea of "one man, one vote".


----------



## Indeependent

All political parties in the US ignore border security which inundates our nation with a cheap blue collar workforce and they submit to the mantra of Americans as being Stupid and Lazy and thus inundate our nation with business-visas.

The ignorant response of those driven to the bottom if "Fair share", whilst it SHOULD be "Get rid of the illegals and send the business visas home."


----------



## itfitzme

originalthought said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> First let me say that I do not believe in the current fascist system we live in where corporations are in bed with the government. Bit I am not going to respond to this current problem with an answer like socialism or communism or collectivism. We should respond with true capitalism.
> 
> With that being said, just because I am a consumer, it does not give me any right to demand your profit.
> 
> Example. If I make a skateboard for 5 bucks total, and sell it for $1000, as long as there is no fraud then you have no right to any of my profit. Do u agree or disagree with this principle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system.   Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them.  And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.
> 
> And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud.   The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace.  From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.
> 
> The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes.  The question is how to optimize things.
> 
> To begin with, monopolies are illegal.  The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.
> 
> We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply.  The reason is to optimize the utility of our money.  Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy.  Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.
> 
> Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits.  A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, another retard alert!!! Why are you spouting off with social monetary system and standard of living. I didn't mention any of that, I asked a simple hypothetical, do u agree or disagree, and you respond with "No". No what? It's very easy to see how has the ability to use their brain. You can't even answer a question.
> 
> You are the same as PMZ. Full of contradictions. You say monopolies are bad, and then shoot off talking about how good the Federal Reserve!!! LMAO! It's a monopoly. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US. Then U talk about how bad private banks are. Do u know who is controlling the Fed Res? The private Banks you moron!
Click to expand...


I explained it very clearly.  Your inability to grasp it is beyond my control.  I am sorry you are a moron.

Here, read about anti trust laws.  

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.  

Read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)



> Often, governments will try to intervene in uncompetitive markets to make them more competitive. Antitrust (US) or competition (elsewhere) laws were created to prevent powerful firms from using their economic power to artificially create the barriers to entry they need to protect their economic profits.





> If a government feels it is impractical to have a competitive market  such as in the case of a natural monopoly  it will sometimes try to regulate the existing uncompetitive market by controlling the price firms charge for their product



That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.


----------



## PMZ

Indeependent said:


> All political parties in the US ignore border security which inundates our nation with a cheap blue collar workforce and they submit to the mantra of Americans as being Stupid and Lazy and thus inundate our nation with business-visas.
> 
> The ignorant response of those driven to the bottom if "Fair share", whilst it SHOULD be "Get rid of the illegals and send the business visas home."



Businesses giving away American jobs takes many forms.  Recruiting cheap labor across the border is only one of them.   

Now that those efforts by business have created permanent unemployment here,  there is no longer benefit to the recruiting.  They have the American workforce by the short ones.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".
> 
> Where's that come from?



Well, when you have people [YOU] spouting off things like, "The only preaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".
> 
> Where's that come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you have people [YOU] spouting off things like, "The only preaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."
Click to expand...


PMZ is just a Troll.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".
> 
> Where's that come from?



It comes from debating retards like you.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".
> 
> Where's that come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.  

No,  it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> If a government feels it is impractical to have a competitive market  such as in the case of a natural monopoly  it will sometimes try to regulate the existing uncompetitive market by controlling the price firms charge for their product
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.
Click to expand...


Your belief that anti-trust laws actually prevent monopolies is comical.    What they really do is outlaw competition.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".
> 
> Where's that come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.
> 
> No,  it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".
Click to expand...


Troll.


----------



## originalthought

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy* is because of the economy and the social monetary system.   Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them.  And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.
> 
> And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud.   The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace.  From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.
> 
> The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes.  The question is how to optimize things.
> 
> To begin with, monopolies are illegal.  The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.
> 
> We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply.  The reason is to optimize the utility of our money.  Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy.  Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.
> 
> Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits.  A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another retard alert!!! Why are you spouting off with social monetary system and standard of living. I didn't mention any of that, I asked a simple hypothetical, do u agree or disagree, and you respond with "No". No what? It's very easy to see how has the ability to use their brain. You can't even answer a question.
> 
> You are the same as PMZ. Full of contradictions. You say monopolies are bad, and then shoot off talking about how good the Federal Reserve!!! LMAO! It's a monopoly. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US. Then U talk about how bad private banks are. Do u know who is controlling the Fed Res? The private Banks you moron!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it very clearly.  Your inability to grasp it is beyond my control.  I am sorry you are a moron.
> 
> Here, read about anti trust laws.
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.
> 
> Read this
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(economics)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Often, governments will try to intervene in uncompetitive markets to make them more competitive. Antitrust (US) or competition (elsewhere) laws were created to prevent powerful firms from using their economic power to artificially create the barriers to entry they need to protect their economic profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a government feels it is impractical to have a competitive market  such as in the case of a natural monopoly  it will sometimes try to regulate the existing uncompetitive market by controlling the price firms charge for their product
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.
Click to expand...

On, I want to have a rational debate with u, so let's back up, can we do that) what are you talking about the standard of living that I enjoy for? Why did u bring this into the discussion. Maybe I'm getting confused in what thread I am in, or maybe u are.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A middle finger is hardly abusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.
Click to expand...


I don't post it all over the internet.  And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> A middle finger is hardly abusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't post it all over the internet.  And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.
Click to expand...


It is in very poor taste.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the the most prevalent word in conservative posts is "retard".
> 
> Where's that come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.
> 
> No,  it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".
Click to expand...


It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind:  the ability to commit logic.


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post it all over the internet.  And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is in very poor taste.
Click to expand...


Its your opinion, not truth.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post it all over the internet.  And you posted it on the internet yourself, in case you don't recall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is in very poor taste.
Click to expand...


It illustrates my attitude about liberals perfectly.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when you have people spouting off things like, "The only oreaident to ever lose the popular vote and win the elctoral college was Bush," you should expect to be called a retard."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.
> 
> No,  it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind:  the ability to commit logic.
Click to expand...


So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call anyone a retard for a mistake like that.
> 
> No,  it's something inherent in the conservative "mind".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind:  the ability to commit logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?
Click to expand...


No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually something inherently lacking in the liberal mind:  the ability to commit logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.
Click to expand...


You're not really going to argue that conservatives are not self centered are you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So conservative self centeredness comes from liberal inability to "commit logic"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not really going to argue that conservatives are not self centered are you?
Click to expand...


Acting in your self-interest and being self-centered are two entirely separate things.  So, yes, I am arguing that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but calling conservatives "self-centered" does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not really going to argue that conservatives are not self centered are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acting in your self-interest and being self-centered are two entirely separate things.  So, yes, I am arguing that.
Click to expand...


How are acting in your self-interest,  and being self centered,  different?


----------



## ShawnChris13

So just over 3500 is how long it takes before the posts become: you're retarded! No, you're retarded!

The great minds of USMB.


----------



## uhkilleez

Polk said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true, why wouldn't both parties be racing to increase the bread and circuses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama phone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why "Obama phone"? If the goal was to create dependency, why wasn't there a "Bush phone" already? (Of course, we could get into the fact that the program you're complaining about already existed before 2009...)
Click to expand...


Nothing happens over night.


----------



## uhkilleez

orogenicman said:


> uhkilleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about reporting you. It is about you whining about morality while using an abusive image for your avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A middle finger is hardly abusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when someone takes a picture child giving the finger and then posting it all over the internet.
Click to expand...


Not really.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republics are countries not governed by monarchs.  The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I *"...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."*
> 
> Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tried to redefine "republic".
Click to expand...



Substantiate that claim.  Quote my words.  Additionally, the question remains if you object  to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?



State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps 
Pop. of U.S. 



State`s Pop. 
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop. 


JWK




*The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* __   George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution


----------



## originalthought

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, because the only reason that you are afforded the standard of living that you enjoy is because of the economy and the social monetary system*.   *Social systems exists because they improve the standard of living of all the individuals participating in them. * And, social systems require management and maintenance in order to continue to function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole
> There is no point in bringing in this point (which is not ture) because it had nothing to do with the question. I asked if you agree or disagree. Then you should pick one and logically explain why you either agree or disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason there is no fraud in your example is because we have a legal system that defines and enforces the illegality of fraud.   The reason you can purchase materials for 5 bucks is, in part, due to the enforced social systems including highways and airspace.  From the outset, your example demonstrates why taxes exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again-Hyperbole
> You act like in the absence of government, there could be no courts, no consumer protections. This is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't whether the government should collect taxes.  The question is how to optimize things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am questioning government collecting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, monopolies are illegal.  The reason they are illegal is because they have such market leverage as to be able to control prices that otherwise would be controlled by the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you bringing up monopolies? Did I say anything about monopolies? Are you just rambling? Did you lose all ability to think rationally? You are so incoherent i think you maybe drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Federal Reserve that manages the money supply.  The reason is to optimize the utility of our money.  Left to it's own devices, the private banking system would kill the economy.  Even regulated as they are, they still manage to injure the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you for or against monopolies, because the Federal Reserve is a monopoly? And do you know who sits on the board and runs the Federal Reserve. The private (fascist) banks. You are one big contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, according to the principles of micro economics that wingnuts continuously espouse, you shouldn't have any profits.  A functioning free market results in no profits because where there are profits, new competition enters the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it very clearly.  Your inability to grasp it is beyond my control.  I am sorry you are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly did you explain? What were you trying to explain? You strated rambling off about things I never brought up with you. Can you please focus on the conversation at hand?
> 
> Here, read about anti trust laws.
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.
> 
> That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
Click to expand...


----------



## johnwk

originalthought said:


> [Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me





Under Maryland&#8217;s Declaration of Rights we are informed:

*&#8220;that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.&#8221;* 

Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.

During the 1890s there were a number of  &#8220;trusts&#8221; which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.

But in the mid 1940&#8217;s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *&#8220;the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'&#8220;* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress&#8217;s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the *&#8220; business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.&#8221;* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce). 

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States. 

Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress&#8217;s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to &#8220;legally&#8221; engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N . 

And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.

Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.

The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America&#8217;s labor, businesses and investors.


*P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a &#8220;capitalist&#8221; system.  The term &#8220;capitalism&#8221; was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  &#8220;free enterprise&#8221; and &#8220;free market&#8221;  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*

JWK

*I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson


----------



## originalthought

johnwk said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Marylands Declaration of Rights we are informed:
> 
> *that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.*
> 
> Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.
> 
> During the 1890s there were a number of  trusts which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.
> 
> But in the mid 1940s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congresss regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944
> 
> Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the * business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).
> 
> The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congresss behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to legally engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .
> 
> And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.
> 
> Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.
> 
> The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by Americas labor, businesses and investors.
> 
> 
> *P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system.  The term capitalism was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> *I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...


Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I *"...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."*
> 
> Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to redefine "republic".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Substantiate that claim.  Quote my words.  Additionally, the question remains if you object  to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* __   George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Click to expand...


I think that your tax issue is with someone else.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Marylands Declaration of Rights we are informed:
> 
> *that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.*
> 
> Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.
> 
> During the 1890s there were a number of  trusts which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.
> 
> But in the mid 1940s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congresss regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944
> 
> Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the * business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).
> 
> The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congresss behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to legally engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .
> 
> And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.
> 
> Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.
> 
> The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by Americas labor, businesses and investors.
> 
> 
> *P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system.  The term capitalism was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> *I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.
Click to expand...


Fascism is not an economic system. Capitalism is.


----------



## johnwk

originalthought said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Marylands Declaration of Rights we are informed:
> 
> *that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.*
> 
> Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.
> 
> During the 1890s there were a number of  trusts which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.
> 
> But in the mid 1940s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congresss regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944
> 
> Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the * business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).
> 
> The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congresss behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to legally engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .
> 
> And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.
> 
> Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.
> 
> The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by Americas labor, businesses and investors.
> 
> 
> *P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system.  The term capitalism was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> *I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.
Click to expand...



We agree on the term "fascist"!  I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution.  Many "conservative" media personalities, including Rush Limbaugh, use the word "capitalism" to describe our system and by doing so they remove the inference of a system based upon freedom: free enterprise, free market, and free trade which are self-explanatory!  Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!


JWK


 _*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


----------



## originalthought

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Marylands Declaration of Rights we are informed:
> 
> *that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.*
> 
> Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.
> 
> During the 1890s there were a number of  trusts which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.
> 
> But in the mid 1940s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congresss regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944
> 
> Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the * business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).
> 
> The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congresss behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to legally engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .
> 
> And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.
> 
> Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.
> 
> The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by Americas labor, businesses and investors.
> 
> 
> *P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system.  The term capitalism was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> *I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fascism is not an economic system. Capitalism is.
Click to expand...


I have already shown you to be a moron many times in my short time here in this community. Capitalism is more than an economic system. The fact that you cannot understand that shows the Pitiful Moronic Zombie that you are. And fascisim is an economic system, along with a political and social system. 


As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism...(Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty)


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> Fascism is not an economic system. Capitalism is.






Your personal opinion, regardless of how irrelevant it is, is noted.

JWK

*He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washingtons existing political plum job Empire) , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance *___Declaration of Independence


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to redefine "republic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Substantiate that claim.  Quote my words.  Additionally, the question remains if you object  to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
> Pop. of U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> State`s Pop.
> __________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
> U.S. Pop.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&#8220;The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil&#8221;**3 Elliot&#8217;s, 243*,*&#8220;Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax&#8221;* *3 Elliot&#8217;s, 244* __   George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that your tax issue is with someone else.
Click to expand...



Have you read the title of the thread?  And where have I tried to redefine "republic" as you have charged?

JWK


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Marylands Declaration of Rights we are informed:
> 
> *that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.*
> 
> Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.
> 
> During the 1890s there were a number of  trusts which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.
> 
> But in the mid 1940s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congresss regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944
> 
> Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the * business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).
> 
> The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congresss behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to legally engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .
> 
> And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.
> 
> Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.
> 
> The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by Americas labor, businesses and investors.
> 
> 
> *P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system.  The term capitalism was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> *I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agree on the term "fascist"!  I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution.  Many "conservative" media personalities, including Rush Limbaugh, use the word "capitalism" to describe our system and by doing so they remove the inference of a system based upon freedom: free enterprise, free market, and free trade which are self-explanatory!  Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> _*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Click to expand...


" Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!"

Classic propaganda.  Speak for the scapegoats that any propaganda needs to create. 

I go through every day doing exactly what I want.  I virtually never am prevented from doing that by the law. 

But apparently conservatives have a great deal of pent up criminality.  They whine constantly they what is legal is not enough.  In order to be free,  they must break the law or eliminate it. 

My experience is when laws are broken someone's imposing on others what's good for the imposer on those that are imposed upon. 

This is the Republican Dream for America.  More people imposing on us,  what's good for them.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under Marylands Declaration of Rights we are informed:
> 
> *that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.*
> 
> Let us now review some history to establish how health insurance costs have become so high and who the actors are behind this problem.
> 
> During the 1890s there were a number of  trusts which engaged in price fixing, monopolization, restraint of trade among the states and various other acts stifling our free market system.  The Sherman Antitrust Act, of 1890, was passed by Congress allegedly to deal with this problem, but in all likelihood was passed to calm the people down who were suffering under the heavy hand of trusts.
> 
> But in the mid 1940s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because *the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'* But the Supreme Court asserted that insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congresss regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944
> 
> Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress conspires with big business and passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the * business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.* In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States to insure free trade among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. However, by neglecting its constitutionally assigned duty it allows the various State Legislatures to engage in the very practices which the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (and Clayton Acts) were designed to prohibit, and allows the various State Legislatures to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).
> 
> The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). A South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to embrace and enforce free trade among the States.
> 
> Now, keep in mind that the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congresss behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to legally engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N .
> 
> And who is the victim in all this? The American people are because competition among the states has been stifled and instate insurance monopolies have been created.
> 
> Bottom line is, if Obama really cared about the American People and high insurance rates he would demand Congress to immediately repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act and allow competition across state lines in the insurance industry.  But Obama, who is nothing more than an inner city hustler who manipulates the poor to get their vote and has raked in millions upon millions in campaign dollars from the insurance industry, has decided to create a federal government insurance monopoly, engage in health insurance price fixing, restraint of trade among the states, and various other acts stifling our free market system and competition which the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prohibit.
> 
> The only other federal monopoly I know of which is bigger than the Obamacare monopoly is the Federal Reserve Monopoly which manipulates interest rates on the lending of its Federal Reserve Notes [worthless script] in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by Americas labor, businesses and investors.
> 
> 
> *P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system.  The term capitalism was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which does not appear during our founders era.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> *I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.*__ Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for providing evidence in support of "free markets." I agree that the current system is not capitalism. No where in any of my posts in this blog will you find that I have call the current economic system in America capitalist. I call it fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We agree on the term "fascist"!  I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution.  Many "conservative" media personalities, including Rush Limbaugh, use the word "capitalism" to describe our system and by doing so they remove the inference of a system based upon freedom: free enterprise, free market, and free trade which are self-explanatory!  Our domestic enemies hate a system where the people are free to conduct their own business!
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> _*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Click to expand...


" I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."

As many times as I've read the Constitution,  I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.


----------



## originalthought

johnwk said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system*.  The term capitalism *was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which _*does not appear during our founders era*_*.*
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...




PMZ said:


> As many times as I've read the Constitution,  I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.



Now i am calling your reading skills into question!  You can't even read what JWK said correctly. He never said capitalism was in the constituion, he actually said the oppisite. But you can't read in context, which explains your lack of ability to understand the philosophy of capitalism and freedom.

Pitiful Moronic Zombie so sad


----------



## itfitzme

originalthought said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole
> There is no point in bringing in this point (which is not ture) because it had nothing to do with the question. I asked if you agree or disagree. Then you should pick one and logically explain why you either agree or disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again-Hyperbole
> You act like in the absence of government, there could be no courts, no consumer protections. This is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am questioning government collecting taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you bringing up monopolies? Did I say anything about monopolies? Are you just rambling? Did you lose all ability to think rationally? You are so incoherent i think you maybe drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you for or against monopolies, because the Federal Reserve is a monopoly? And do you know who sits on the board and runs the Federal Reserve. The private (fascist) banks. You are one big contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did you explain? What were you trying to explain? You strated rambling off about things I never brought up with you. Can you please focus on the conversation at hand?
> 
> 
> 
> Here, read about anti trust laws.
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.
> 
> That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
Click to expand...


Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  What is legal and illegal is by government definition.  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.

Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.

Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.


----------



## originalthought

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, read about anti trust laws.
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.
> 
> That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  W*hat is legal and illegal is by government definition.*  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
Click to expand...


How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies. 

According to you and PMZ...
 Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
Monopolies are illegal 

The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.

But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal. 
Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.



The Federal reserve is a monopoly that has been authorized by our government. They manage/organize/create themselves.  Government merely gets a report of their activities and assigns folks who are supposed to be running it.

Our government has the power to break up monopolies that have not been authorized by the government, and take away authorized monopolies.  They don't do this as often as they should.  Arguably they don't break up monopolies because various political factions claim the monopolies are necessary evils even if unauthorized and/or are to big to fail. Well that and the government stopped doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Your statement "the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false" has no basis.  Monopolies are created by the free market all the time. That's why the government is supposed to be breaking them up.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system*.  The term capitalism *was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which _*does not appear during our founders era*_*.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As many times as I've read the Constitution,  I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now i am calling your reading skills into question!  You can't even read what JWK said correctly. He never said capitalism was in the constituion, he actually said the oppisite. But you can't read in context, which explains your lack of ability to understand the philosophy of capitalism and freedom.
> 
> Pitiful Moronic Zombie so sad
Click to expand...


" I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."

What economic system do you recall in the Constitution that "our founder sought to protect"?


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, read about anti trust laws.
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The fact that there are government sanctioned monopolies doesn't change the fact that there are anti trust laws and that monopolies are illegal.
> 
> That you see some fundamental contradiction in there is simply because you are intentionally stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  What is legal and illegal is by government definition.  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
Click to expand...


The goal of every capitalist business is to create a monopoly in their market by putting their competition out of business.  Than it's clear,  high profit sailing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?



Has anyone ever kicked you in the nuts repeatedly, until you collapsed into a heap and passed out?

If not, why not?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever kicked you in the nuts repeatedly, until you collapsed into a heap and passed out?
> 
> If not, why not?
Click to expand...


I can't wait to find out the meaning behind this post.


----------



## itfitzme

originalthought said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  W*hat is legal and illegal is by government definition.*  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.
> 
> According to you and PMZ...
> Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
> Monopolies are illegal
> 
> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.
Click to expand...


Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting.   That, and you embellish other peoples presentation.  And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you.  I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field.  I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist.  Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.

No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies.  I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law.  And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other.  Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out.  Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue.  This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal.  That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.  

By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.  

Yes, monopolies are created by the free market.  You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so.  How you manage this is beyond me. 

That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information.  One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business.   That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.

The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place.  The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks.  It is called  "outside money".  The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc.  It is called "inside money".  Inside and outside money don't mix.  The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve.  The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars.  The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars.  Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.

The specific ratio is shown here;







It is M1/Mb.  M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.

Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply.  All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system.  The private banks then creates money based on demand.  It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is.  It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so.  It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system.  If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.

 The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.

This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion.  Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly.  And there in lies the point.  Money has no purpose except in exchange.  It is far more a public good than anything else.

There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and".  Governments *AND* the free market creates monopolies.  Governments sanction *AND* suppress monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law *AND* health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws. 

Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.

Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information


Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM


----------



## itfitzme

Here is how monopolies are defined in micro economics.



> Monopoly. A monopoly is a single supplier to a market. This firm may choose to produce at any point on the market demand curve.
> 
> The reason a monopoly exists is that other firms find it unprofitable or impossible to enter the market. Barriers to entry are therefore the source of all monopoly power. If other firms could enter a market then the firm would, by definition, no longer be a monopoly. There are two general types of barriers to entry: technical barriers *and* legal barriers.
> 
> A primary technical barrier is that the production of the good in question may exhibit decreasing marginal (and average) costs over a wide range of output levels. The technology of production is such that relatively large-scale firms are low-cost producers. In this situation (which is sometimes referred to as natural monopoly), one firm may find it profitable to drive others out of the industry by cutting prices.
> 
> Many pure monopolies are created as a matter of law rather than as a matter of economic conditions. One important example of a government-granted monopoly position is in the legal protection of a product by a patent or copyright. Prescription drugs, computer chips, and Disney animated movies are examples of profitable products that are shielded (for a time) from direct competition by potential imitators.
> 
> Although some barriers to entry may be independent of the monopolists own activities, other barriers may result directly from those activities. For example, firms may develop unique products or technologies and take extraordinary steps to keep these from being copied by competitors. Or firms may buy up unique resources to prevent potential entry.



http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~ebayrak/teaching/500F12/XYZ.pdf


----------



## originalthought

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  W*hat is legal and illegal is by government definition.*  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.
> 
> According to you and PMZ...
> Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
> Monopolies are illegal
> 
> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting.   That, and you embellish other peoples presentation.  And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you.  I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field.  I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist.  Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.
> 
> No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies.  I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law.  And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other.  *Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out*.  Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue.  This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal.  That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.
> 
> *By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.*
> 
> Yes, monopolies are created by the free market.  You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so.  How you manage this is beyond me.
> 
> That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information.  One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business.   That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.
> 
> The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place.  The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks.  It is called  "outside money".  The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc.  It is called "inside money".  Inside and outside money don't mix.  The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve.  The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars.  The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars.  Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.
> 
> The specific ratio is shown here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is M1/Mb.  M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply.  All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system.  The private banks then creates money based on demand.  It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is.  It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so.  It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system.  If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.
> 
> The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.
> 
> This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion.  Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly.  And there in lies the point.  Money has no purpose except in exchange.  It is far more a public good than anything else.
> 
> There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and".  Governments *AND* the free market creates monopolies.  Governments sanction *AND* suppress monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law *AND* health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.
> 
> Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.
> 
> Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information
> 
> 
> Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM
Click to expand...


The basis of your beleif system is not based on logic and reason. So everything else that comes from you is Bull Shit.

PMZ stated that Government prevents monopolies (which is bullshit, look at communism. i dont care if he wants to say "american government")
You tend to agree and said that monopolies are illegale

Federal Reserve=monopoly=created by the government=legal
Therefore it is false that Government prevents monopolies and they are illegal

Its simple logic. Explain how it is incorrect.

I will argue you seatbelt explanation. 
No one has ever claimed that seat belts prevent injury in car accidents. 
People do claim that Seat Belts reduce the risk of injury.

If either of you want to retract the statement that government prevents monopolies, we can move on to another point.

I hope someone else has the time to take you to school on the Federal Reserve, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. They are the ones who caused this mess.


----------



## Indeependent

originalthought said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.
> 
> According to you and PMZ...
> Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
> Monopolies are illegal
> 
> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting.   That, and you embellish other peoples presentation.  And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you.  I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field.  I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist.  Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.
> 
> No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies.  I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law.  And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other.  *Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out*.  Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue.  This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal.  That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.
> 
> *By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.*
> 
> Yes, monopolies are created by the free market.  You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so.  How you manage this is beyond me.
> 
> That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information.  One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business.   That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.
> 
> The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place.  The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks.  It is called  "outside money".  The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc.  It is called "inside money".  Inside and outside money don't mix.  The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve.  The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars.  The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars.  Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.
> 
> The specific ratio is shown here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is M1/Mb.  M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply.  All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system.  The private banks then creates money based on demand.  It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is.  It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so.  It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system.  If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.
> 
> The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.
> 
> This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion.  Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly.  And there in lies the point.  Money has no purpose except in exchange.  It is far more a public good than anything else.
> 
> There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and".  Governments *AND* the free market creates monopolies.  Governments sanction *AND* suppress monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law *AND* health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.
> 
> Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.
> 
> Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information
> 
> 
> Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of your beleif system is not based on logic and reason. So everything else that comes from you is Bull Shit.
> 
> PMZ stated that Government prevents monopolies (which is bullshit, look at communism. i dont care if he wants to say "american government")
> You tend to agree and said that monopolies are illegale
> 
> Federal Reserve=monopoly=created by the government=legal
> Therefore it is false that Government prevents monopolies and they are illegal
> 
> Its simple logic. Explain how it is incorrect.
> 
> I will argue you seatbelt explanation.
> No one has ever claimed that seat belts prevent injury in car accidents.
> People do claim that Seat Belts reduce the risk of injury.
> 
> If either of you want to retract the statement that government prevents monopolies, we can move on to another point.
> 
> I hope someone else has the time to take you to school on the Federal Reserve, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. They are the ones who caused this mess.
Click to expand...


Fair Share is a nonsense meme.
The US has no borders thus driving down wages.
US entities that effectively are NOT US entities receive taxes from the middle class to pay for a military that protects them worldwide and for global patent protecttion.

Illegals, thanks to Reagan's COBRA, receive tax payer medical care.

Both sides of the fence..insane.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  W*hat is legal and illegal is by government definition.*  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.
> 
> According to you and PMZ...
> Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
> Monopolies are illegal
> 
> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.
Click to expand...


You have so,  so much to learn. The anti monopoly laws in the US are defined as actions in restraint of trade. Market by market.  If you are in such a market,  and you compromise competition,  you will be dealt with by the Justice Department. 

There are other markets where competition is either impossible or impractical. The typical way to solve that problem is to satisfy the market with socialism. Means of production owned by all of us.  

In some cases there is a middle ground called a regulated monopoly.  Privately owned companies but so regulated that they can't benefit unilaterally from their monopoly. Many energy companies are like that. 

So is the Federal Reserve.  It's assets,  means of production,  are owned by member banks.  It's responsibilities require it to be a monopoly.  It's managed by a board appointed by government. It is highly regulated. 

If you think that you have a better idea go back to school at get a PhD in macroeconomics,  spend 30 or 40 years in the banking business and become among the best in the country at your job. 

There's a chance then that someone will listen to your ideas.


----------



## itfitzme

originalthought said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.
> 
> According to you and PMZ...
> Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
> Monopolies are illegal
> 
> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting.   That, and you embellish other peoples presentation.  And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you.  I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field.  I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist.  Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.
> 
> No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies.  I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law.  And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other.  *Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out*.  Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue.  This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal.  That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.
> 
> *By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.*
> 
> Yes, monopolies are created by the free market.  You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so.  How you manage this is beyond me.
> 
> That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information.  One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business.   That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.
> 
> The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place.  The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks.  It is called  "outside money".  The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc.  It is called "inside money".  Inside and outside money don't mix.  The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve.  The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars.  The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars.  Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.
> 
> The specific ratio is shown here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is M1/Mb.  M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply.  All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system.  The private banks then creates money based on demand.  It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is.  It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, while it does print and mint, that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so.  It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system.  If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.
> 
> The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.
> 
> This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion.  Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly.  And there in lies the point.  Money has no purpose except in exchange.  It is far more a public good than anything else.
> 
> There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and".  Governments *AND* the free market creates monopolies.  Governments sanction *AND* suppress monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law *AND* health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.
> 
> Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.
> 
> Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information
> 
> 
> Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis of your beleif system is not based on logic and reason. So everything else that comes from you is Bull Shit.
> 
> PMZ stated that Government prevents monopolies (which is bullshit, look at communism. i dont care if he wants to say "american government")
> You tend to agree and said that monopolies are illegale
> 
> Federal Reserve=monopoly=created by the government=legal
> Therefore it is false that Government prevents monopolies and they are illegal
> 
> Its simple logic. Explain how it is incorrect.
> 
> I will argue you seatbelt explanation.
> No one has ever claimed that seat belts prevent injury in car accidents.
> People do claim that Seat Belts reduce the risk of injury.
> 
> If either of you want to retract the statement that government prevents monopolies, we can move on to another point.
> 
> I hope someone else has the time to take you to school on the Federal Reserve, because that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. They are the ones who caused this mess.
Click to expand...


By all means, do present evidence that my Federal Reserve information is incorrect.

I did. You didn't read it. 

That is it, really, you just make things up yourself with no basis in reality. 

 I gave you both a micro economics text book and link to the pragmatic capitalist that describes the banking system.

You apparently don't know what bullshit is.  Bullshit is unsupported and unsubstantiated statement, what you do.


----------



## Uncensored2008

I see fitz is still going for the "baffle em with bullshit" option....


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  I suggest you do not refer to our system as being a capitalist system*.  The term capitalism *was popularized by Marx to attack the phrases "free trade",  free enterprise and free market  which our founders often used, but never used the term capitalism, which _*does not appear during our founders era*_*.*
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As many times as I've read the Constitution,  I just don't recall the Article on economic systems that said anything about capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now i am calling your reading skills into question!  You can't even read what JWK said correctly. He never said capitalism was in the constituion, he actually said the oppisite. But you can't read in context, which explains your lack of ability to understand the philosophy of capitalism and freedom.
> 
> Pitiful Moronic Zombie so sad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."
> 
> What economic system do you recall in the Constitution that "our founder sought to protect"?
Click to expand...


I realize you don't know this, but the 5th Amendment protects the institution of private property, which is the basis of capitalism.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Monopolies are illegal. (ok)
> The Federal Reserve is a Monopoly.
> Therefore the Fed Res is illegal
> 
> I stand by my earlier statement that monopolies come into existance with the support of governemnt, not in a capitalist society.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  What is legal and illegal is by government definition.  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal of every capitalist business is to create a monopoly in their market by putting their competition out of business.  Than it's clear,  high profit sailing.
Click to expand...


The goal of everyone who buys a lottery ticket is to win the big prize.  However, we all understand the reality of the odds. 

Regardless of the goals of businessmen, the market economy makes it impossible to achieve a monopoly.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet?  Do you abuse your own children in this way?  Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone ever kicked you in the nuts repeatedly, until you collapsed into a heap and passed out?
> 
> If not, why not?
Click to expand...


Orogenicman is just trying to get my goat.  It isn't working.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> I see fitz is still going for the "baffle em with bullshit" option....



Yes, he pumps out a mountain of the stuff.  He claims its "economics."  Looks like the ole statist propaganda to me.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now i am calling your reading skills into question!  You can't even read what JWK said correctly. He never said capitalism was in the constituion, he actually said the oppisite. But you can't read in context, which explains your lack of ability to understand the philosophy of capitalism and freedom.
> 
> Pitiful Moronic Zombie so sad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."
> 
> What economic system do you recall in the Constitution that "our founder sought to protect"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you don't know this, but the 5th Amendment protects the institution of private property, which is the basis of capitalism.
Click to expand...


That's certainly the big stretch of the day.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  What is legal and illegal is by government definition.  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of every capitalist business is to create a monopoly in their market by putting their competition out of business.  Than it's clear,  high profit sailing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal of everyone who buys a lottery ticket is to win the big prize.  However, we all understand the reality of the odds.
> 
> Regardless of the goals of businessmen, the market economy makes it impossible to achieve a monopoly.
Click to expand...


The Justice Dept begs to differ with you. That's why there are at least a few M&As every year judged to be  in restraint of free trade that they don't approve.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " I was just cautioning against using the phrase "capitalism" to describe what our founder sought to protect with a written constitution."
> 
> What economic system do you recall in the Constitution that "our founder sought to protect"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you don't know this, but the 5th Amendment protects the institution of private property, which is the basis of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's certainly the big stretch of the day.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The institution of private property is the sum total of capitalism.  To abolish capitalism, you have to abolish the institution of private property.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you don't know this, but the 5th Amendment protects the institution of private property, which is the basis of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly the big stretch of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The institution of private property is the sum total of capitalism.  To abolish capitalism, you have to abolish the institution of private property.
Click to expand...


Too late; we have publicly owned Parks and Libraries.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of every capitalist business is to create a monopoly in their market by putting their competition out of business.  Than it's clear,  high profit sailing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of everyone who buys a lottery ticket is to win the big prize.  However, we all understand the reality of the odds.
> 
> Regardless of the goals of businessmen, the market economy makes it impossible to achieve a monopoly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Justice Dept begs to differ with you. That's why there are at least a few M&As every year judged to be  in restraint of free trade that they don't approve.
Click to expand...


The justice department has goals other than the truth: the primary one being prosecuting enemies of the Administration. 

What the heck is an "M&A?"  Regardless, the Justice department prosecutes corporations because they pissed off the administration or some Congressman, not because of any objective evidence that they engaged in "restraint of trade."


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you don't know this, but the 5th Amendment protects the institution of private property, which is the basis of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly the big stretch of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The institution of private property is the sum total of capitalism.  To abolish capitalism, you have to abolish the institution of private property.
Click to expand...


Nobody wants to abolish capitalism or private property.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The goal of everyone who buys a lottery ticket is to win the big prize.  However, we all understand the reality of the odds.
> 
> Regardless of the goals of businessmen, the market economy makes it impossible to achieve a monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Justice Dept begs to differ with you. That's why there are at least a few M&As every year judged to be  in restraint of free trade that they don't approve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The justice department has goals other than the truth: the primary one being prosecuting enemies of the Administration.
> 
> What the heck is an "M&A?"  Regardless, the Justice department prosecutes corporations because they pissed off the administration or some Congressman, not because of any objective evidence that they engaged in "restraint of trade."
Click to expand...


Mergers and acquisitions.

Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.

They really don't work anymore.


----------



## Gadawg73

People come here from African nations and find work immediately, feed and clothe their families and do not expect anything other than opportunity. The woman from Ghana that works at the hospice my sister died at today earns $15 a hour as a CNA. 
They do not cry like whiny 5 year olds. They come here because there are people that can become wealthy here. Wealth grows the economy from the demand for that wealth.
Incredible anyone would be so naive and gullible to believe otherwise. People come here and find work and the majority on entitlement programs are there because of a lack of work ethic or an acceptance of sitting the bench while others pass them by.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> People come here from African nations and find work immediately, feed and clothe their families and do not expect anything other than opportunity. The woman from Ghana that works at the hospice my sister died at today earns $15 a hour as a CNA.
> They do not cry like whiny 5 year olds. They come here because there are people that can become wealthy here. Wealth grows the economy from the demand for that wealth.
> Incredible anyone would be so naive and gullible to believe otherwise. People come here and find work and the majority on entitlement programs are there because of a lack of work ethic or an acceptance of sitting the bench while others pass them by.



So, you believe that US unemployment is at zero and corporations are fighting to find workers?

That means that in 5 years President Obama has completely turned around the Great Recession and restored the country to Clintonomics.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly the big stretch of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The institution of private property is the sum total of capitalism.  To abolish capitalism, you have to abolish the institution of private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to abolish capitalism or private property.
Click to expand...


You're sure doing a good job of convincing us otherwise.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The institution of private property is the sum total of capitalism.  To abolish capitalism, you have to abolish the institution of private property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to abolish capitalism or private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sure doing a good job of convincing us otherwise.
Click to expand...


No, that's you trying to make true what you want to be.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Justice Dept begs to differ with you. That's why there are at least a few M&As every year judged to be  in restraint of free trade that they don't approve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The justice department has goals other than the truth: the primary one being prosecuting enemies of the Administration.
> 
> What the heck is an "M&A?"  Regardless, the Justice department prosecutes corporations because they pissed off the administration or some Congressman, not because of any objective evidence that they engaged in "restraint of trade."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mergers and acquisitions.
> 
> Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.
> 
> They really don't work anymore.
Click to expand...


Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible.  There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade.  It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.

If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to abolish capitalism or private property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're sure doing a good job of convincing us otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's you trying to make true what you want to be.
Click to expand...


I believe things because they are true, not the other way around like you.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The justice department has goals other than the truth: the primary one being prosecuting enemies of the Administration.
> 
> What the heck is an "M&A?"  Regardless, the Justice department prosecutes corporations because they pissed off the administration or some Congressman, not because of any objective evidence that they engaged in "restraint of trade."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mergers and acquisitions.
> 
> Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.
> 
> They really don't work anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible.  There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade.  It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.
> 
> If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.
Click to expand...


You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.

You have a conservative sized ego.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're sure doing a good job of convincing us otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's you trying to make true what you want to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe things because they are true, not the other way around like you.
Click to expand...


No evidence of that being true.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mergers and acquisitions.
> 
> Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.
> 
> They really don't work anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible.  There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade.  It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.
> 
> If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.
> 
> You have a conservative sized ego.
Click to expand...


You're a king sized jackass, PMS.  The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.

If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.


----------



## originalthought

itfitzme said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "logic", if we can call it that, is absurd.  W*hat is legal and illegal is by government definition.*  By govt definition, monopolies are illegal and the history of US economics includes the history of anti trust suits.  By definition, by law, the Federal Reserve is not an illegal monopoly.  By law, until recently, health insurance companies were exempt from Federal anti trust laws making them not monopoly.
> 
> Natural monopolies come about naturally as a result of the free market. Economies of scale is the typical process.
> 
> Your refusal to learn just relegates yourself to being an idiot.  You haven't "proven" anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I the idiot? I am going to lump you and PMZ in together. The other poster gave you FACTS about how the government laws actually created monopolies.
> 
> According to you and PMZ...
> Government prevents monopilies (which is false but i will play)
> Monopolies are illegal
> 
> The Federal reserve is a monoply. They are the only ones allowed to create currency in the US.
> 
> But the Federal Reserve was created by the government, AND is legal.
> Therefore the premise that Governments prevent monopolies is flase.
> Therefore the premise that Monopolies are created by the free market is also false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting.   That, and you embellish other peoples presentation.  *And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you.*  I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field.  I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist.  Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.
> 
> *No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies.*  I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law.  And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other.  *Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out.*  Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue.  This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal.  That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.
> 
> By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.
> 
> Yes, monopolies are created by the free market.  You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so.  How you manage this is beyond me.
> 
> *That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information.*  One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business.   That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.
> 
> The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place.  The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks.  It is called  "outside money".  *The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc.  It is called "inside money".  Inside and outside money don't mix.*  The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve.  The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars.  The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars.  Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.
> 
> The specific ratio is shown here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is M1/Mb.  M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> *Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply.*  All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system.  The private banks then creates money based on demand.  It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is.  It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, *while it does print and mint, *that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so.  It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system.  If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.
> 
> *The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.*This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion.  *Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly.  And there in lies the point.*  Money has no purpose except in exchange.  It is far more a public good than anything else.
> 
> There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and".  Governments *AND* the free market creates monopolies.  Governments sanction *AND* suppress monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law *AND* health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.
> 
> Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.
> 
> Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information
> 
> 
> Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM
Click to expand...


First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it. 

The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.

The money we use is not created by the banks, it's created by the Treasury Department. They are the ones who print the money. And it is the Federsal Reserve that determines the money supply. If you want to throw in the banks too, ok then this is a Cartel not a monopoly, but they practice the same way. 

The biggest crock you spwed as though it were facts is this one, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." Well then what the hell is going on????? What a crock! Look at the value of the dollar when the federal reserve was created and look at the value of the dollar now. Since the Fed Res was created the dollar has lost nearly all it's value, and the Fed Res monetary policy is directly realted to the great depression and the rescent depression. There have been over 10 recession since the creation of the Fed Res. in 1913. I dont think a recession every 10 years is good enough to say that, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." it seems pretty repeatedly when you look at the facts.  The value of the dollar has decreased as the supply of money has increased greatly, far greater than the increase of the GDP. Sorry, but it seeems that you are the one who is living outside of reality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. *I think the State should stay out of economics.* My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.
> 
> The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. *Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.
> *



IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.  Edited to add bold emphasis.


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are attempting to define things that are defined by law, economics science, and business accounting.   That, and you embellish other peoples presentation.  *And you are refusing to accept the reality which has been determined by others smarter than you.*  I detect a certain lack of allowing feedback, acknowledging the determination of definitions by the experts in the field.  I am pretty sure you are neither a lawyer or an economist.  Rejecting what has already been defined is a mental issue, in part the Dunn-Kruger effect.
> 
> *No where did anyone say that the government prevents all monopolies.*  I simply pointed out the fact that they are illegal by US Law.  And, the legality, the enforcement, sanctioning, and the creation of monopolies by the US government aren't at odds with each other.  *Surely you realize that the government can and does allow for patent rights which create monopolies until the patent runs out.*  Then, if conditions are right, as for Alcoa, a natural monopoly may ensue.  This gets tried in court under anti-trust law, establishing the monopoly to be at odds with the law and therefore illegal.  That the government creates monopolies doesn't mean that they also determine monopolies to be illegal.
> 
> By your reasoning, seat belts in automobiles don't prevent injuries because injuries occur while people are wearing a seat belt.
> 
> Yes, monopolies are created by the free market.  You seem to be starting with the premise that the free market can't create monopolies and then attempting to force some false logic to make it so.  How you manage this is beyond me.
> 
> *That monopolies are created in the free market is well established and a simple search for description of monopolies will yield this information.*  One has to intentionally ignore the information presented by economists, the US government, and business.   That the Federal Reserve might be considered a monopoly doesn't negate that the free market creates monopolies naturally or that the Supreme Court has found companies in violation of anti-trust laws on multiple occasions.
> 
> The Federal Reserve doesn't create the US currency that is used in the private economy and market place.  The Federal Reserve creates money in the reserve accounts of reserve banks.  It is called  "outside money".  *The money we use is created by private banks as business loans, consumer loans, etc.  It is called "inside money".  Inside and outside money don't mix.*  The money supply created by private banks, outside money, is larger than the money supply created by the Federal Reserve.  The last measure of M2 is 10,947.7 Billions of Dollars.  The last measure of the monetary base is 3,682.285 Billions of Dollars.  Historically, M1, the money used for purchases of goods and services, has been 1.5 to 3 times the monetary base.
> 
> The specific ratio is shown here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is M1/Mb.  M1, the inside money used in exchanges, the money in circulation, is always more than Mb. And as the Federal Reserve only creates outside money, Mb, at the very least we can say that the difference, (M1-Mb), is clearly not created by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> *Still, it is certainly incorrect to say that the Federal Reserve creates US currency when they create far less than the functioning money supply.*  All the Federal Reserve does is make outside money available through the reserve banking system.  The private banks then creates money based on demand.  It is correct to say that the money supply is created by the private banking system because, in fact, it is.  It would be incorrect to say that the Treasury Department creates money in the US economy because, *while it does print and mint, *that money only becomes inside money when a private bank decides to do so.  It may be better said that money creation is done by the combined behavior of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the private banking system.  If we have to pick one to speak of as being the major source, it would be the private banking system. As M1 is inside money and Mb is outside money, the Federal Reserve doesn't actually create the money inside the economy.
> 
> *The Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply.*This fact, that the Federal Reserve's role is to stabilize the money supply goes right back to the central point brought about this discussion.  *Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly.  And there in lies the point.*  Money has no purpose except in exchange.  It is far more a public good than anything else.
> 
> There is one concept that is clearly missing from your considerations, the concept of "and".  Governments *AND* the free market creates monopolies.  Governments sanction *AND* suppress monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in the US by Federal law *AND* health insurance companies were exempt from anti trust laws.
> 
> Private banks AND the Federal Reserve create money. The government AND the free market create monopolies.  Monopolies are illegal in Federal law AND some monopolies are not illegal.
> 
> Whatever you have come to believe is simply wrong. And you have created false logic based on false or a lack of information
> 
> 
> Understanding Inside Money and Outside Money | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.
> 
> The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.
> 
> The money we use is not created by the banks, it's created by the Treasury Department. They are the ones who print the money. And it is the Federsal Reserve that determines the money supply. If you want to throw in the banks too, ok then this is a Cartel not a monopoly, but they practice the same way.
> 
> The biggest crock you spwed as though it were facts is this one, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." Well then what the hell is going on????? What a crock! Look at the value of the dollar when the federal reserve was created and look at the value of the dollar now. Since the Fed Res was created the dollar has lost nearly all it's value, and the Fed Res monetary policy is directly realted to the great depression and the rescent depression. There have been over 10 recession since the creation of the Fed Res. in 1913. I dont think a recession every 10 years is good enough to say that, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." it seems pretty repeatedly when you look at the facts.  The value of the dollar has decreased as the supply of money has increased greatly, far greater than the increase of the GDP. Sorry, but it seeems that you are the one who is living outside of reality.
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mergers and acquisitions.
> 
> Your boogeyman story is merely another monster in the Republican closet.
> 
> They really don't work anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible.  There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade.  It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.
> 
> If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.
> 
> You have a conservative sized ego.
Click to expand...


You can't even make up new _ad hominems_.  You just keep recycling the old ones.  That's why you're a jackass.


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. I think the State should stay out of economics. My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.
> 
> The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.
> 
> The money we use is not created by the banks, it's created by the Treasury Department. They are the ones who print the money. And it is the Federsal Reserve that determines the money supply. If you want to throw in the banks too, ok then this is a Cartel not a monopoly, but they practice the same way.
> 
> The biggest crock you spwed as though it were facts is this one, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." Well then what the hell is going on????? What a crock! Look at the value of the dollar when the federal reserve was created and look at the value of the dollar now. Since the Fed Res was created the dollar has lost nearly all it's value, and the Fed Res monetary policy is directly realted to the great depression and the rescent depression. There have been over 10 recession since the creation of the Fed Res. in 1913. I dont think a recession every 10 years is good enough to say that, "Lacking the government and Federal Reserve's role in stabilizing the money supply, the economy would go to shit repeatedly." it seems pretty repeatedly when you look at the facts.  The value of the dollar has decreased as the supply of money has increased greatly, far greater than the increase of the GDP. Sorry, but it seeems that you are the one who is living outside of reality.
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.
Click to expand...


Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy.  Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.

You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.


----------



## dcraelin

Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations

The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy.  Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.
> 
> You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.
Click to expand...


Backed up the claim that patents are property?  Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights?  HUH?  

Separation of state and what?  First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.

Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.


----------



## originalthought

dcraelin said:


> Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations
> 
> The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names



"US corporations dont pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%.  The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or sonot the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or sonot the 20% average theyll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate.  And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades.  And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the Obama Recoverywhile their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007.  Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"

I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?


----------



## RKMBrown

dcraelin said:


> Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations
> 
> The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names



The problem with corporate taxes is the way they are collected. They encourage the corporation to move their production elsewhere.  We should move corporate taxes to the products and services sold here.  Thus taxing them whether they are here or in China.  Thus taking away a large % of the benefit of producing product in china then selling here. Thus encouraging production here for the higher profit items.


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How hard are you gonna work for the rest of us when there are no property rights and we can take everything you create.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy.  Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.
> 
> You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Backed up the claim that patents are property?  Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights?  HUH?
> 
> Separation of state and what?  First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.
> 
> Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.
Click to expand...


Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mergers "restrain trade" only in the imaginations of the gullible.  There is no objective criteria that defines when a company is guilty of restraining trade.  It's purely up to the arbitrary prejudices of the judge presiding on the case.
> 
> If Congress passed a law saying that the number pie = 3.5, numbskulls like you would insist that was indeed the value of pie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.
> 
> You have a conservative sized ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a king sized jackass, PMS.  The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.
> 
> If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.
Click to expand...


The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.  

Typical ranting about what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ

Some property is owned by some,  or one,  of us.  Some property is owned by all of us. 

In a typical condo,  for instance,  there are individually owned and jointly owned assets.  

It's plain common sense.


----------



## PMZ

originalthought said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations
> 
> The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "US corporations dont pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%.  The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or sonot the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or sonot the 20% average theyll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate.  And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades.  And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the Obama Recoverywhile their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007.  Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"
> 
> I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?
Click to expand...


Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa. Who says patent rights equate to property rights? I recenlty changed my view on this, because I beleive in seperation of the State and the Economy.  Can we debate this rather than you calling my an idiot.
> 
> You have only stated that patent rights are individual propert rights, you have not backed up this claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backed up the claim that patents are property?  Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights?  HUH?
> 
> Separation of state and what?  First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.
> 
> Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.
Click to expand...


I went back and added bold emphasis to your stated lack of support of rights to property.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations
> 
> The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "US corporations dont pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%.  The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or sonot the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or sonot the 20% average theyll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate.  And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades.  And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the Obama Recoverywhile their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007.  Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"
> 
> I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.
Click to expand...

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> "US corporations dont pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%.  The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or sonot the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or sonot the 20% average theyll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate.  And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades.  And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the Obama Recoverywhile their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007.  Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"
> 
> I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?
Click to expand...


That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what M&As are, but you are an expert in them.
> 
> You have a conservative sized ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a king sized jackass, PMS.  The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.
> 
> If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.
> 
> Typical ranting about what you wish was true.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter who invented it.  Only a jackass without any facts or logic would make an issue of it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country.  When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a king sized jackass, PMS.  The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.
> 
> If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.
> 
> Typical ranting about what you wish was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who invented it.  Only a jackass without any facts or logic would make an issue of it.
Click to expand...


I agree.  That's why I called you for making an issue of it.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country.  When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?
Click to expand...


I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.  

Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole.  She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then your response to me not hiring you is your demand for free health care.  ROFL Hire me or I'll drive you to bankruptcy.  ROFL  dude eventually I will leave or start shooting the criminals who take my property from my family.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.
> 
> Typical ranting about what you wish was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who invented it.  Only a jackass without any facts or logic would make an issue of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I called you for making an issue of it.
Click to expand...


You made an issue of it, jackass.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country.  When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.
> 
> Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole.  She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.
Click to expand...


The word "optimize" is meaningless babble.   Government doesn't "optimize" anything.  Neither do corporations.  The former taxes you and then doles out the money to its favored cronies, while the later produces products and services in exchange for your money.

Furthermore, conservative government never fails.  Of course, we've haven't had a real conservative government since Calvin Coolidge, who actually managed to cut government spending by 25%.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care.  ROFL
Click to expand...


My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.  

Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.

We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us. 

If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. 

Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country.  When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.
> 
> Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole.  She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "optimize" is meaningless babble.   Government doesn't "optimize" anything.  Neither do corporations.  The former taxes you and then doles out the money to its favored cronies, while the later produces products and services in exchange for your money.
> 
> Furthermore, conservative government never fails.  Of course, we've haven't had a real conservative government since Calvin Coolidge, who actually managed to cut government spending by 25%.
Click to expand...


Words have meaning.  They have the prescribed meaning to us even if you would prefer a different meaning.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care.  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.
> 
> Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.
> 
> We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.
> 
> If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. .
Click to expand...


What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose?  That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism.  The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.



PMZ said:


> [Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.



More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.
> 
> Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole.  She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "optimize" is meaningless babble.   Government doesn't "optimize" anything.  Neither do corporations.  The former taxes you and then doles out the money to its favored cronies, while the later produces products and services in exchange for your money.
> 
> Furthermore, conservative government never fails.  Of course, we've haven't had a real conservative government since Calvin Coolidge, who actually managed to cut government spending by 25%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meaning.  They have the prescribed meaning to us even if you would prefer a different meaning.
Click to expand...


You never use the correct words because you're basically illiterate.  "Optimize" is meaningless in terms of business or government.  First you would have to determine what the "optimum" is, and no one agrees on that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care.  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.
> 
> Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.
> 
> We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.
> 
> If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose?  That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism.  The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?
Click to expand...


Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country.  That is Constitutionally unsupportable.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.
> 
> Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.
> 
> We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.
> 
> If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose?  That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism.  The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country.  That is Constitutionally unsupportable.
Click to expand...


You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.

I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse."  Of course you don't want to explain that.  Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose?  That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism.  The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.
> 
> 
> 
> More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country.  That is Constitutionally unsupportable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.
> 
> I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse."  Of course you don't want to explain that.  Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.
Click to expand...


I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we,  the people. 

It is our country to run. 

I explained our recourse.  What we buy,  and whom we vote for.


----------



## lakeview

35% is fair, since you asked.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country.  That is Constitutionally unsupportable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.
> 
> I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse."  Of course you don't want to explain that.  Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we,  the people.
> 
> It is our country to run.
> 
> I explained our recourse.  What we buy,  and whom we vote for.
Click to expand...


You're weaseling, as usual.  What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.

We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?  

Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses.  Government and business are two separate things.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.
> 
> I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse."  Of course you don't want to explain that.  Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we,  the people.
> 
> It is our country to run.
> 
> I explained our recourse.  What we buy,  and whom we vote for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're weaseling, as usual.  What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.
> 
> We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?
> 
> Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses.  Government and business are two separate things.
Click to expand...


Customers have always determined how businesses are run.   Capitalism 101.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care.  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.
> 
> Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.
> 
> We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.
> 
> If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it.
> 
> Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.
Click to expand...


Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together. Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine. 

Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country.  Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life.

Servicing you?  Now you want free blow __s? Not enough you want my money now you want me on my knees at your pants? WTF?


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Backed up the claim that patents are property?  Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights?  HUH?
> 
> Separation of state and what?  *First you say you are against property rights*, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.
> 
> Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went back and added bold emphasis to your stated lack of support of rights to property.
Click to expand...


Where? Make it very simple for me to see. Tell me which post number, and quote where i said i am against property rights. The only bold part here is what you said I said, but have never said that? Are you a lier? Please quote me... Where did I say i am against property rights?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we,  the people.
> 
> It is our country to run.
> 
> I explained our recourse.  What we buy,  and whom we vote for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're weaseling, as usual.  What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.
> 
> We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?
> 
> Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses.  Government and business are two separate things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Customers have always determined how businesses are run.   Capitalism 101.
Click to expand...


You obviously aren't talking about customers choosing where to spend their dollars.  Someone tried to pin you down on your dishonest use of language, so now you're weaseling.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country.  In the case of unemployment,  those perspectives are mutually exclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then your response to me not hiring you is your demand for free health care.  ROFL Hire me or I'll drive you to bankruptcy.  ROFL  dude eventually I will leave or start shooting the criminals who take my property from my family.
Click to expand...


Meaningless.  There is no such thing as "punishment" in taxing.  The only place this exists is in your subjective mind.  At the very foundation, your reasoning is faulty.

There also is no "socialism" except in your own fantacy perception.


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went back and added bold emphasis to your stated lack of support of rights to property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? Make it very simple for me to see. Tell me which post number, and quote where i said i am against property rights. The only bold part here is what you said I said, but have never said that? Are you a lier? Please quote me... Where did I say i am against property rights?
Click to expand...


LOL you don't know how to look back one page? ROFL  Sure fine I'll quote it again for you.


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went back and added bold emphasis to your stated lack of support of rights to property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Make it very simple for me to see. Tell me which post number, and quote where i said i am against property rights. The only bold part here is what you said I said, but have never said that? Are you a lier? Please quote me... Where did I say i am against property rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know how to look back one page? ROFL  Sure fine I'll quote it again for you.
Click to expand...


Really, you may think I am being ridiculous, but if I said I am against private property, then I need to clean up what I said. The post where you said you added bold emphasis, there was nothing in bold.


----------



## Indeependent

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we,  the people.
> 
> It is our country to run.
> 
> I explained our recourse.  What we buy,  and whom we vote for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're weaseling, as usual.  What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.
> 
> We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?
> 
> Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses.  Government and business are two separate things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Customers have always determined how businesses are run.   Capitalism 101.
Click to expand...


Customers have an effect to a point.
Apple or Microsoft may determine goals internally as opposed to what the majority of their customers want.
Certainly AT&T and Verizon are slowly reactive to providing the service quality their customers demand for their money, especially when their 4G networks can't handle data loads.
Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the reason socialism does not work.  You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it.  Then you wonder why I would not hire you.  Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care.  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.
> 
> Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.
> 
> We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.
> 
> If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it.
> 
> Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together. Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine.
> 
> Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country.  Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life.
Click to expand...


"Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together."

Absolutely.  The vast majority of them workers/voters/consumers. The ones for whom this country exists,  according to our Constitution. 

" Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine."

Holding them accountable for their impact on the big picture is not punishing them.  Not holding them accountable is punishing we,  the people. 

" Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country."

Absolutely. 

" Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life". 

Republican propaganda.  There is no way for an individual to take over the country unless he is nearly infinitely wealthy. 

While there are undoubtedly people looking for a free ride,  you appear to be one of them,  they are a small minority. Most people would settle for a job that paid the bills and conferred a little self respect. 

Jobs are the business of business.  At the moment they are doing a lousy job at that.  

Or,  in other words,  as we did with Bush,  we the people are failing at our job of running the country.


----------



## RKMBrown

Here you go... 


RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. *I think the State should stay out of economics.* My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.
> 
> The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. *Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.  Edited to add bold emphasis.
Click to expand...


originalthought... lol funny name given you don't support the protections for intellectual property rights. Is your tag supposed to be ironic or something?


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> Here you go...
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all PMZ did say that government prevents monopolies. Then you said they are illegal, except when the government allows, as in the case of the Federal Reserve. I get that you are a Statist, and that whatever the State says, you're ok with that. If the State says that this monopoly is illegal, that's ok with you, and if the state says this monopoly is legal, you are ok with that too. I am not. *I think the State should stay out of economics.* My point was to show you the contradiction, but you are too blinded to beleive only the State, youcannot see it.
> 
> The free market does not allow for monopolies, all monopolies that have existed, existed with the help of some kind of government law (protcetions, tarifss, etc). I can find a number of economist to support me, just as you can find a number of economist to support yourself. But that doesn't mean both of us, and the economist we use, are corect. *Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct. This is protectionism.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.  Edited to add bold emphasis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> originalthought... lol funny name given you don't support the protections for intellectual property rights. Is your tag supposed to be ironic or something?
Click to expand...


Where did I say I am against private property rights? ROFL. OMG you are an idiot. You said I said I am against private property and you qutoed this?? ROFL LMAO at you. LOL Please next time you say I said something, please do not lie


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're weaseling, as usual.  What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.
> 
> We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?
> 
> Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses.  Government and business are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Customers have always determined how businesses are run.   Capitalism 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously aren't talking about customers choosing where to spend their dollars.  Someone tried to pin you down on your dishonest use of language, so now you're weaseling.
Click to expand...


More of what you wish was true.  I'm beginning to think that you feel entitled to that.


----------



## PMZ

Indeependent said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're weaseling, as usual.  What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.
> 
> We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?
> 
> Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses.  Government and business are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Customers have always determined how businesses are run.   Capitalism 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Customers have an effect to a point.
> Apple or Microsoft may determine goals internally as opposed to what the majority of their customers want.
> Certainly AT&T and Verizon are slowly reactive to providing the service quality their customers demand for their money, especially when their 4G networks can't handle data loads.
> Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please.
Click to expand...


" Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please."

This is all that I would challenge in your post.  

In my experience utilities are highly regulated,  necessarily so,  in what they charge.


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Customers have always determined how businesses are run.   Capitalism 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Customers have an effect to a point.
> Apple or Microsoft may determine goals internally as opposed to what the majority of their customers want.
> Certainly AT&T and Verizon are slowly reactive to providing the service quality their customers demand for their money, especially when their 4G networks can't handle data loads.
> Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please."
> 
> This is all that I would challenge in your post.
> 
> In my experience utilities are highly regulated,  necessarily so,  in what they charge.
Click to expand...


And because they are natural monopolies.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is not what you wish it was.  It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is.  We control government by voting and business by buying.
> 
> Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.
> 
> We,  the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.
> 
> If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country,  we,  the people,  then we ought to,  and do,  have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it.
> 
> Of course,  one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together. Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine.
> 
> Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country.  Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together."
> 
> Absolutely.  The vast majority of them workers/voters/consumers. The ones for whom this country exists,  according to our Constitution.
> 
> " Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine."
> 
> Holding them accountable for their impact on the big picture is not punishing them.  Not holding them accountable is punishing we,  the people.
> 
> " Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> " Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life".
> 
> Republican propaganda.  There is no way for an individual to take over the country unless he is nearly infinitely wealthy.
> 
> While there are undoubtedly people looking for a free ride,  you appear to be one of them,  they are a small minority. Most people would settle for a job that paid the bills and conferred a little self respect.
> 
> Jobs are the business of business.  At the moment they are doing a lousy job at that.
> 
> Or,  in other words,  as we did with Bush,  we the people are failing at our job of running the country.
Click to expand...


And there we go again... completely off the rails with retarded Bush OCD statements, retarded it's all propaganda statements, and 3rd grade playground I know you are but what am I come backs, ...

Demanding that people not be allowed to profit from their labors, demanding that the business of business be jobs over profit, demanding we pay for the free rides, demanding workers be held accountable for people not working and/or who refuse to work, demanding basically we enact a Marxist state. 

People would settle? WTF is wrong with you? Why the hell should people be treated like cattle and forced to settle for your vile despicable ideas for enacting HELL on EARTH?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together. Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine.
> 
> Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country.  Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together."
> 
> Absolutely.  The vast majority of them workers/voters/consumers. The ones for whom this country exists,  according to our Constitution.
> 
> " Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine."
> 
> Holding them accountable for their impact on the big picture is not punishing them.  Not holding them accountable is punishing we,  the people.
> 
> " Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> " Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life".
> 
> Republican propaganda.  There is no way for an individual to take over the country unless he is nearly infinitely wealthy.
> 
> While there are undoubtedly people looking for a free ride,  you appear to be one of them,  they are a small minority. Most people would settle for a job that paid the bills and conferred a little self respect.
> 
> Jobs are the business of business.  At the moment they are doing a lousy job at that.
> 
> Or,  in other words,  as we did with Bush,  we the people are failing at our job of running the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we go again... completely off the rails with retarded Bush OCD statements, retarded it's all propaganda statements, and 3rd grade playground I know you are but what am I come backs, ...
> 
> Demanding that people not be allowed to profit from their labors, demanding that the business of business be jobs over profit, demanding we pay for the free rides, demanding workers be held accountable for people not working and/or who refuse to work, demanding basically we enact a Marxist state.
> 
> People would settle? WTF is wrong with you? Why the hell should people be treated like cattle and forced to settle for your vile despicable ideas for enacting HELL on EARTH?
Click to expand...


Typical conservative reaction to the realization that you are not masters of the universe. 

You are not.


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> IOW you are against property rights of individuals. You are a bigger idiot than he is.  Edited to add bold emphasis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought... lol funny name given you don't support the protections for intellectual property rights. Is your tag supposed to be ironic or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say I am against private property rights? ROFL. OMG you are an idiot. You said I said I am against private property and you qutoed this?? ROFL LMAO at you. LOL Please next time you say I said something, please do not lie
Click to expand...


So you deny patents are personal property?  You deny patent rights are property rights? 

I find your blather amusing.  You think you can say stupid shit like "the State should stay out of economics" and "Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct." Then emphasize that "[t]his is protectionism,"  and have your statements ignored completely? 

If you did not mean by "[e]ven though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct," that government should not allow patent rights, rewrite your sentence. 

If you did not mean by "the State should stay out of economics," that the government should not protect property rights, the cornerstone of economics, then rewrite your sentence.

If you did not mean by "[t]his is protectionism" that patent rights, which are property, should not be protected, then rewrite your sentence.

How did you think your sentences should be read?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together. Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine.
> 
> Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country.  Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together."
> 
> Absolutely.  The vast majority of them workers/voters/consumers. The ones for whom this country exists,  according to our Constitution.
> 
> " Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine."
> 
> Holding them accountable for their impact on the big picture is not punishing them.  Not holding them accountable is punishing we,  the people.
> 
> " Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> " Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life".
> 
> Republican propaganda.  There is no way for an individual to take over the country unless he is nearly infinitely wealthy.
> 
> While there are undoubtedly people looking for a free ride,  you appear to be one of them,  they are a small minority. Most people would settle for a job that paid the bills and conferred a little self respect.
> 
> Jobs are the business of business.  At the moment they are doing a lousy job at that.
> 
> Or,  in other words,  as we did with Bush,  we the people are failing at our job of running the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there we go again... completely off the rails with retarded Bush OCD statements, retarded it's all propaganda statements, and 3rd grade playground I know you are but what am I come backs, ...
> 
> Demanding that people not be allowed to profit from their labors, demanding that the business of business be jobs over profit, demanding we pay for the free rides, demanding workers be held accountable for people not working and/or who refuse to work, demanding basically we enact a Marxist state.
> 
> People would settle? WTF is wrong with you? Why the hell should people be treated like cattle and forced to settle for your vile despicable ideas for enacting HELL on EARTH?
Click to expand...


" Demanding that people not be allowed to profit from their labors"

Actually, I'm demanding that people BE allowed to profit from their labors.  All those who create wealth. 

I'm also demanding that those who decided that their bonuses and profits were more important than our joint success be held accountable  for it.  

You don't need to agree.  It's a job for the people that you feel superior to.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together."
> 
> Absolutely.  The vast majority of them workers/voters/consumers. The ones for whom this country exists,  according to our Constitution.
> 
> " Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine."
> 
> Holding them accountable for their impact on the big picture is not punishing them.  Not holding them accountable is punishing we,  the people.
> 
> " Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> " Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life".
> 
> Republican propaganda.  There is no way for an individual to take over the country unless he is nearly infinitely wealthy.
> 
> While there are undoubtedly people looking for a free ride,  you appear to be one of them,  they are a small minority. Most people would settle for a job that paid the bills and conferred a little self respect.
> 
> Jobs are the business of business.  At the moment they are doing a lousy job at that.
> 
> Or,  in other words,  as we did with Bush,  we the people are failing at our job of running the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there we go again... completely off the rails with retarded Bush OCD statements, retarded it's all propaganda statements, and 3rd grade playground I know you are but what am I come backs, ...
> 
> Demanding that people not be allowed to profit from their labors, demanding that the business of business be jobs over profit, demanding we pay for the free rides, demanding workers be held accountable for people not working and/or who refuse to work, demanding basically we enact a Marxist state.
> 
> People would settle? WTF is wrong with you? Why the hell should people be treated like cattle and forced to settle for your vile despicable ideas for enacting HELL on EARTH?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical conservative reaction to the realization that you are not masters of the universe.
> 
> You are not.
Click to expand...


I don't ask to be master of the universe, just master of my own space in it.  You are the one demanding to be my master.  I am not your slave you POS.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> I'm also demanding that those who decided that their bonuses and profits were more important than our joint success be held accountable  for it.



And there it is, demanding Marxism be the law of the land.


----------



## originalthought

RKMBrown said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> 
> originalthought... lol funny name given you don't support the protections for intellectual property rights. Is your tag supposed to be ironic or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I am against private property rights? ROFL. OMG you are an idiot. You said I said I am against private property and you qutoed this?? ROFL LMAO at you. LOL Please next time you say I said something, please do not lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So you deny patents are personal property?*  You deny patent rights are property rights?
> 
> I find your blather amusing.  You think you can say stupid shit like "the State should stay out of economics" and "Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct." Then emphasize that "[t]his is protectionism,"  and have your statements ignored completely?
> 
> If you did not mean by "[e]ven though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct," that government should not allow patent rights, rewrite your sentence.
> 
> If you did not mean by "the State should stay out of economics," that the government should not protect property rights, the cornerstone of economics, then rewrite your sentence.
> 
> If you did not mean by "[t]his is protectionism" that patent rights, which are property, should not be protected, then rewrite your sentence.
> 
> How did you think your sentences should be read?
Click to expand...


No i meant all the things I said. But you are putting a meaning on them that is incorrect. I just started and New Thread- Capitalism and Patent Rights. Is it a contracdiction. Please come and debate it there.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there we go again... completely off the rails with retarded Bush OCD statements, retarded it's all propaganda statements, and 3rd grade playground I know you are but what am I come backs, ...
> 
> Demanding that people not be allowed to profit from their labors, demanding that the business of business be jobs over profit, demanding we pay for the free rides, demanding workers be held accountable for people not working and/or who refuse to work, demanding basically we enact a Marxist state.
> 
> People would settle? WTF is wrong with you? Why the hell should people be treated like cattle and forced to settle for your vile despicable ideas for enacting HELL on EARTH?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative reaction to the realization that you are not masters of the universe.
> 
> You are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ask to be master of the universe, just master of my own space in it.  You are the one demanding to be my master.  I am not your slave you POS.
Click to expand...


"I don't ask to be master of the universe"

No.  You believe that you are entitled to it because you work hard.  You neglect the fact that almost everyone else does too,  because if that were true,  you'd have no claim to master of the universe. 

I'm still waiting for the list of things that you feel entitled to do,  that are now illegal,  and therefore dents in your "liberty".  In fact,  I'd settle for a workable definition of "liberty".


----------



## itfitzme

This mindless belief that there is "socialism" in the US is one of the fundamental fantacies of the rightwing nuts where every instance of cooperation and commom standards is erroneously thrown in this fantacy.  And I have yet to see any actual proof or detailed examples of this "socialism" that they have created as an enemy to fight against.  

It takes little effort for them to go outside, walk to the store, and count the number of examples of real "socialism" and real free market.  This is an excercise that will go unattempted as it would yield no "socialism" in reality.

They do though regularly use "punishment" in interacting with others.  If there is any fundamental source of punishing behavior, it comes from right wing nuts who are their own example.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical conservative reaction to the realization that you are not masters of the universe.
> 
> You are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask to be master of the universe, just master of my own space in it.  You are the one demanding to be my master.  I am not your slave you POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I don't ask to be master of the universe"
> 
> No.  You believe that you are entitled to it because you work hard.  You neglect the fact that almost everyone else does too,  because if that were true,  you'd have no claim to master of the universe.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the list of things that you feel entitled to do,  that are now illegal,  and therefore dents in your "liberty".  In fact,  I'd settle for a workable definition of "liberty".
Click to expand...


When did you ever, EVER BEFORE, ask me for a list of things that I feel I'm entitled to?

Here's my list: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Life includes my labor. You touch the income I get from my labor without my permission, I consider that a violation against my Life. A personal threat.  A stab in the back.  Taking food from my family.  Crossing my property line to take my assets.  Trespassers will be fed to the dogs then shot.  Do I make my self clear yet Karl?


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Customers have an effect to a point.
> Apple or Microsoft may determine goals internally as opposed to what the majority of their customers want.
> Certainly AT&T and Verizon are slowly reactive to providing the service quality their customers demand for their money, especially when their 4G networks can't handle data loads.
> Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please."
> 
> This is all that I would challenge in your post.
> 
> In my experience utilities are highly regulated,  necessarily so,  in what they charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And because they are natural monopolies.
Click to expand...


Then why do they need government to protect their monopoly?


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> This mindless belief that there is "socialism" in the US is one of the fundamental fantacies of the rightwing nuts where every instance of cooperation and commom standards is erroneously thrown in this fantacy.  And I have yet to see any actual proof or detailed examples of this "socialism" that they have created as an enemy to fight against.
> 
> It takes little effort for them to go outside, walk to the store, and count the number of examples of real "socialism" and real free market.  This is an excercise that will go unattempted as it would yield no "socialism" in reality.
> 
> They do though regularly use "punishment" in interacting with others.  If there is any fundamental source of punishing behavior, it comes from right wing nuts who are their own example.



real socialism, real free market?  Is this some sort of adjective game?


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> And because they are natural monopolies.



Utilities?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Maybe when building a damn was the only means of electricity production, but in the era of solar panels it's a ridiculous claim.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> This mindless belief that there is "socialism" in the US is one of the fundamental fantacies of the rightwing nuts where every instance of cooperation and commom standards is erroneously thrown in this fantacy.  And I have yet to see any actual proof or detailed examples of this "socialism" that they have created as an enemy to fight against.
> 
> It takes little effort for them to go outside, walk to the store, and count the number of examples of real "socialism" and real free market.  This is an excercise that will go unattempted as it would yield no "socialism" in reality.
> 
> They do though regularly use "punishment" in interacting with others.  If there is any fundamental source of punishing behavior, it comes from right wing nuts who are their own example.



Government uses compulsion.  It doesn't "cooperate."  So-called "common standards" are government imposed standards.  You are deliberately defining socialism so narrowly that nothing qualifies.  That's a classic socialist tactic.  

There are two ways to run an economy:  private control or government control.  The later method is what we call "socialism."  As for the rest of your blather, it's meaningless gibberish.


----------



## RKMBrown

originalthought said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I am against private property rights? ROFL. OMG you are an idiot. You said I said I am against private property and you qutoed this?? ROFL LMAO at you. LOL Please next time you say I said something, please do not lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So you deny patents are personal property?*  You deny patent rights are property rights?
> 
> I find your blather amusing.  You think you can say stupid shit like "the State should stay out of economics" and "Even though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct." Then emphasize that "[t]his is protectionism,"  and have your statements ignored completely?
> 
> If you did not mean by "[e]ven though the government allows for patent rights, doesn't make it correct," that government should not allow patent rights, rewrite your sentence.
> 
> If you did not mean by "the State should stay out of economics," that the government should not protect property rights, the cornerstone of economics, then rewrite your sentence.
> 
> If you did not mean by "[t]his is protectionism" that patent rights, which are property, should not be protected, then rewrite your sentence.
> 
> How did you think your sentences should be read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No i meant all the things I said. But you are putting a meaning on them that is incorrect. I just started and New Thread- Capitalism and Patent Rights. Is it a contracdiction. Please come and debate it there.
Click to expand...


The meanings I placed on the words are the book definitions of the terms.  If you mean, you meant something else other than what you said, then I recommend you rewrite your sentence.  You called me a liar and an idiot for reading your sentences in plain English, now you want me to debate the contradistinctions of protecting property while also ensuring said property is not given UN-due leverage to monopolize to large a portion of the entire economy?  IMO this is what you two were discussing.  That of granted and protected monopolies vs. splitting up monopolies as being fair in the context of the OP.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask to be master of the universe, just master of my own space in it.  You are the one demanding to be my master.  I am not your slave you POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't ask to be master of the universe"
> 
> No.  You believe that you are entitled to it because you work hard.  You neglect the fact that almost everyone else does too,  because if that were true,  you'd have no claim to master of the universe.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the list of things that you feel entitled to do,  that are now illegal,  and therefore dents in your "liberty".  In fact,  I'd settle for a workable definition of "liberty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you ever, EVER BEFORE, ask me for a list of things that I feel I'm entitled to?
> 
> Here's my list: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Life includes my labor. You touch the income I get from my labor without my permission, I consider that a violation against my Life. A personal threat.  A stab in the back.  Taking food from my family.  Crossing my property line to take my assets.  Trespassers will be fed to the dogs then shot.  Do I make my self clear yet Karl?
Click to expand...


And yet you continue to use and rely on the services and organizations afforded you by a democratic-republic, including the free market, and individual rights that allow you to maximize your pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  You are dedicated to this fantacy that you deserve, are entitled to what, in fact, you are not.  And it is accomplished by usive vague references to abstract notions while avoiding any real content or examples.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't ask to be master of the universe"
> 
> No.  You believe that you are entitled to it because you work hard.  You neglect the fact that almost everyone else does too,  because if that were true,  you'd have no claim to master of the universe.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the list of things that you feel entitled to do,  that are now illegal,  and therefore dents in your "liberty".  In fact,  I'd settle for a workable definition of "liberty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you ever, EVER BEFORE, ask me for a list of things that I feel I'm entitled to?
> 
> Here's my list: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Life includes my labor. You touch the income I get from my labor without my permission, I consider that a violation against my Life. A personal threat.  A stab in the back.  Taking food from my family.  Crossing my property line to take my assets.  Trespassers will be fed to the dogs then shot.  Do I make my self clear yet Karl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you continue to use and rely on the services and organizations afforded you by a democratic-republic, including the free market, and individual rights that allow you to maximize your pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  You are dedicated to this fantacy that you deserve, are entitled to what, in fact, you are not.  And it is accomplished by usive vague references to abstract notions while avoiding any real content or examples.
Click to expand...

There is no "yet" in that.  I gratefully volunteer to pay for said services. I do not recognize individual welfare through wealth distribution as a service, that is a bastardization of the term.  

Yes, I am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?  Have you forfeited your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  For what?  Some token amount of security?

You are the one using vagaries.  I've been quite explicit.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also demanding that those who decided that their bonuses and profits were more important than our joint success be held accountable  for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, demanding Marxism be the law of the land.
Click to expand...


If you're not able to distinguish between capitalism and Communism,  you probably should remove yourself from economic discussions.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ask to be master of the universe, just master of my own space in it.  You are the one demanding to be my master.  I am not your slave you POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't ask to be master of the universe"
> 
> No.  You believe that you are entitled to it because you work hard.  You neglect the fact that almost everyone else does too,  because if that were true,  you'd have no claim to master of the universe.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the list of things that you feel entitled to do,  that are now illegal,  and therefore dents in your "liberty".  In fact,  I'd settle for a workable definition of "liberty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you ever, EVER BEFORE, ask me for a list of things that I feel I'm entitled to?
> 
> Here's my list: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Life includes my labor. You touch the income I get from my labor without my permission, I consider that a violation against my Life. A personal threat.  A stab in the back.  Taking food from my family.  Crossing my property line to take my assets.  Trespassers will be fed to the dogs then shot.  Do I make my self clear yet Karl?
Click to expand...


I asked for the things that you feel entitled to that are now illegal.  As evidence for this loss of liberty that you constantly whine about. 

The rest of your post is more of your demanding a free ride.  More whining.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also demanding that those who decided that their bonuses and profits were more important than our joint success be held accountable  for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, demanding Marxism be the law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not able to distinguish between capitalism and Communism,  you probably should remove yourself from economic discussions.
Click to expand...


Yeah cause capitalism is "demanding that those who decided that their bonuses and profits were more important than our joint success be held accountable  for it."


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Most utilities are monopolies and can charge as they please."
> 
> This is all that I would challenge in your post.
> 
> In my experience utilities are highly regulated,  necessarily so,  in what they charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because they are natural monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do they need government to protect their monopoly?
Click to expand...


What does the term "natural monopoly" mean to you?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't ask to be master of the universe"
> 
> No.  You believe that you are entitled to it because you work hard.  You neglect the fact that almost everyone else does too,  because if that were true,  you'd have no claim to master of the universe.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the list of things that you feel entitled to do,  that are now illegal,  and therefore dents in your "liberty".  In fact,  I'd settle for a workable definition of "liberty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you ever, EVER BEFORE, ask me for a list of things that I feel I'm entitled to?
> 
> Here's my list: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Life includes my labor. You touch the income I get from my labor without my permission, I consider that a violation against my Life. A personal threat.  A stab in the back.  Taking food from my family.  Crossing my property line to take my assets.  Trespassers will be fed to the dogs then shot.  Do I make my self clear yet Karl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for the things that you feel entitled to that are now illegal.  As evidence for this loss of liberty that you constantly whine about.
> 
> The rest of your post is more of your demanding a free ride.  More whining.
Click to expand...


No you didn't you lying POS.  As to the laws limiting life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness... my god man the effin list is in the millions.  Are you not aware of the number of laws enacted by the state that limit our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?  WTH is wrong with you?


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you ever, EVER BEFORE, ask me for a list of things that I feel I'm entitled to?
> 
> Here's my list: Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Life includes my labor. You touch the income I get from my labor without my permission, I consider that a violation against my Life. A personal threat.  A stab in the back.  Taking food from my family.  Crossing my property line to take my assets.  Trespassers will be fed to the dogs then shot.  Do I make my self clear yet Karl?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you continue to use and rely on the services and organizations afforded you by a democratic-republic, including the free market, and individual rights that allow you to maximize your pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  You are dedicated to this fantacy that you deserve, are entitled to what, in fact, you are not.  And it is accomplished by usive vague references to abstract notions while avoiding any real content or examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "yet" in that.  I gratefully volunteer to pay for said services. I do not recognize individual welfare through wealth distribution as a service, that is a bastardization of the term.
> 
> Yes, I am entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?  Have you forfeited your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  For what?  Some token amount of security?
> 
> You are the one using vagaries.  I've been quite explicit.
Click to expand...


Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.

That you "do not recognize individual welfare through wealth distribution as a service" is meaningless.  Society doesn't run on your personal opinion.  In fact, it must run with complete lack of recognition of your personal opinion.

And you still can't answer the question of what this so called "socialism" is by presenting actual examples from your real life.  There is zero in your real life and the misconceptions that you have of government welfare programs are meaningless. 

The simple facts are

1) You are afforded certain rights by the governed.
2) The taxes that are collected based on your employment have zero effect on your spending power.
3) You cannot provide any examples of this "socialism"
4) By your own personality, you are not even entitled to the inalienable rights afforded us by the Constitution.
5) These welfare payments, you whine about, are for the purpose of maintaining a functioning economy.
6) There is no such thing as "wealth distribution" as you perceive it. The reality is that the economy is about the redistribution of goods and services

It all comes down to this; like so many emotionally stunted individuals, you are simply saying "others cannot tell me what to do".  The reality is, "yes they can." The very fact that you hold the position that you do means you have absolutely no right to consideration of your opinion.  You don't like others opinions, no one need be concerned with yours.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because they are natural monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they need government to protect their monopoly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the term "natural monopoly" mean to you?
Click to expand...


Utility monopolies are protected from competition by the government.  It's against the law to setup a competing utility in the same service area.  There is no "natural" about it.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they need government to protect their monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the term "natural monopoly" mean to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utility monopolies are protected from competition by the government.  It's against the law to setup a competing utility in the same service area.  There is no "natural" about it.
Click to expand...


They are protected BECAUSE they are regulated BECAUSE they are natural monopolies.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.



When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government? 

Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.

The rest of your post is nothing more than a straw-man argument that we are all slaves to the state and we should be thankful.  I reject your reality and insert my own.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
Click to expand...


They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.  

You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
Click to expand...


It's sad how few Americans understand their own Constitution.  High School civics failed you, my friend.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad how few Americans understand their own Constitution.  High School civics failed you, my friend.
Click to expand...


They are looking for some almighty authority that they can use to get what they want without regard for others. And they have this mistaken co-mingling of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution.  They think the Declaration of Independence is a legal document for running our country.  It isn't, it is a message to everyone else, the rest of the world.



> The Declaration of Independence:
> 
> *We hold *these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*



Even then, it plainly clarifies where the authority rests, "from the consent of the governed".  "God", "the government", and "the people" are all the same thing.

They ignore the bold parts and the obvious fact that there really is no such thing as "endowed by their Creator".  That is an agreed to definition.  I love the Declaration of Independence and Constitution because they are so cleverly self-referencing as making for final authority.

So what have you got besides vague and unsubstantiated statements of opinion?  Clearly you haven't understood the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> They are protected BECAUSE they are regulated BECAUSE they are natural monopolies.



If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.

If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.

Keeping utilities under the dominion of government hacks greatly adds to the power of the state. The compelling interest is power. Competition in the market keeps the state from having a boot on the throat of vital commodities such as power and water, thus the state prohibits competition in favor of a single, well connected concern that will unquestioningly do the bidding of the state.

Rather than a "natural monopoly," this is a classical trust, inclusive of contrived shortages to solidify the stranglehold on the captive customer base.


----------



## PMZ

DKSuddeth said:


> _Originally posted by Jason M _
> *Thanks for the interpretation of each word !!!!  However, by demoralizing civilization ( how about the fall of the Roman empire???) or expressing ones choice ( freedom of choice ) to gratify it's self without accountability is a fall waiting to happen. It's not a self righteousness comment ( as one might think ) , but it's a lack of knowledge between right and wrong. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where is there no accountability?
Click to expand...


Nothing that is important to me to do is illegal.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> This mindless belief that there is "socialism" in the US is one of the fundamental fantacies of the rightwing nuts where every instance of cooperation and commom standards is erroneously thrown in this fantacy.  And I have yet to see any actual proof or detailed examples of this "socialism" that they have created as an enemy to fight against.
> 
> It takes little effort for them to go outside, walk to the store, and count the number of examples of real "socialism" and real free market.  This is an excercise that will go unattempted as it would yield no "socialism" in reality.
> 
> They do though regularly use "punishment" in interacting with others.  If there is any fundamental source of punishing behavior, it comes from right wing nuts who are their own example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government uses compulsion.  It doesn't "cooperate."  So-called "common standards" are government imposed standards.  You are deliberately defining socialism so narrowly that nothing qualifies.  That's a classic socialist tactic.
> 
> There are two ways to run an economy:  private control or government control.  The later method is what we call "socialism."  As for the rest of your blather, it's meaningless gibberish.
Click to expand...


" There are two ways to run an economy:  private control or government control.  The later method is what we call "socialism." 

The difference between the two is whether the means are owned by all of us,  or some of us.  Almost every country in today's world employs some of each.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they need government to protect their monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does the term "natural monopoly" mean to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utility monopolies are protected from competition by the government.  It's against the law to setup a competing utility in the same service area.  There is no "natural" about it.
Click to expand...


What's natural about it is the utter stupidity of allowing multiple companies to erect power poles or run pipes up and down the same street.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> The rest of your post is nothing more than a straw-man argument that we are all slaves to the state and we should be thankful.  I reject your reality and insert my own.
Click to expand...


Again I ask.  Why do you choose to live here?  How about a straight answer this time.


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
Click to expand...


" You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above."

Copy that.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad how few Americans understand their own Constitution.  High School civics failed you, my friend.
Click to expand...


Truer words were never said.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are protected BECAUSE they are regulated BECAUSE they are natural monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.
> 
> If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.
> 
> Keeping utilities under the dominion of government hacks greatly adds to the power of the state. The compelling interest is power. Competition in the market keeps the state from having a boot on the throat of vital commodities such as power and water, thus the state prohibits competition in favor of a single, well connected concern that will unquestioningly do the bidding of the state.
> 
> Rather than a "natural monopoly," this is a classical trust, inclusive of contrived shortages to solidify the stranglehold on the captive customer base.
Click to expand...


Good news.  You can live off grid.  Please consider it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Good news.  You can live off grid.  Please consider it.



Bad news; you do poorly off your meds. Please resume taking them.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are protected BECAUSE they are regulated BECAUSE they are natural monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.
> 
> If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.
> 
> Keeping utilities under the dominion of government hacks greatly adds to the power of the state. The compelling interest is power. Competition in the market keeps the state from having a boot on the throat of vital commodities such as power and water, thus the state prohibits competition in favor of a single, well connected concern that will unquestioningly do the bidding of the state.
> 
> Rather than a "natural monopoly," this is a classical trust, inclusive of contrived shortages to solidify the stranglehold on the captive customer base.
Click to expand...


Except none of this is actually true.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good news.  You can live off grid.  Please consider it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad news; you do poorly off your meds. Please resume taking them.
Click to expand...


Is this really your best effort?  Pathetic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> Except none of this is actually true.



ROFL

The shit you post, fitz....


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are protected BECAUSE they are regulated BECAUSE they are natural monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.
> 
> If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.
> 
> Keeping utilities under the dominion of government hacks greatly adds to the power of the state. The compelling interest is power. Competition in the market keeps the state from having a boot on the throat of vital commodities such as power and water, thus the state prohibits competition in favor of a single, well connected concern that will unquestioningly do the bidding of the state.
> 
> Rather than a "natural monopoly," this is a classical trust, inclusive of contrived shortages to solidify the stranglehold on the captive customer base.
Click to expand...


Here is an example of a real utility company.

https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm

None of your fantasy applies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.



That's nice.

In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."

But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are protected BECAUSE they are regulated BECAUSE they are natural monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.
> 
> If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.
> 
> Keeping utilities under the dominion of government hacks greatly adds to the power of the state. The compelling interest is power. Competition in the market keeps the state from having a boot on the throat of vital commodities such as power and water, thus the state prohibits competition in favor of a single, well connected concern that will unquestioningly do the bidding of the state.
> 
> Rather than a "natural monopoly," this is a classical trust, inclusive of contrived shortages to solidify the stranglehold on the captive customer base.
Click to expand...


Here is a list of publicly owned utilities.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sb1/pou_reports/Publicly_Owned_Utility_Company_Programs.pdf

None of your fantasy applies.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
Click to expand...


Natural monopolies are well established in economics.  They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.

I've backed up everything I have ever posted.  

You are just making up your own shit.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
Click to expand...


Here is another publicly owned utility company.  It demonstrates your fantasy to be complete bullshit.

http://siliconvalleypower.com/index.aspx?page=1806


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural monopolies are well established in economics.  They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> I've backed up everything I have ever posted.
> 
> You are just making up your own shit.
Click to expand...


Which specific "natural monopolies" are you referring to?  I read back a ways and I never saw any description more specific than "utilities" which is somewhat vague.

Limited resources, like land, airwave and water management are certainly easier to justify as "natural" monopolies.


----------



## itfitzme

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
Click to expand...


Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States found Standard Oil guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry through a series of abusive and anticompetitive actions.

Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Example abound.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
Click to expand...


The natural monopoly thing is common sense.  It's not surprising that you don't see it.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> They are looking for some almighty authority that they can use to get what they want without regard for others. And they have this mistaken co-mingling of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution



Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights.  We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them.  And we limit government to protect our rights from government.  The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on.  If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back.  With interest.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural monopolies are well established in economics.  They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> I've backed up everything I have ever posted.
> 
> You are just making up your own shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which specific "natural monopolies" are you referring to?  I read back a ways and I never saw any description more specific than "utilities" which is somewhat vague.
> 
> Limited resources, like land, airwave and water management are certainly easier to justify as "natural" monopolies.
Click to expand...


And here

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example of a real utility company.
> 
> https://www.smud.org/en/about-smud/company-information/power-sources.htm
> 
> None of your fantasy applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The natural monopoly thing is common sense.  It's not surprising that you don't see it.
Click to expand...


Did you seriously not grasp his point?  Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example.  How did you not get that?  He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly.  But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.

So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies?  That is the real question here.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural monopolies are well established in economics.  They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> I've backed up everything I have ever posted.
> 
> You are just making up your own shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific "natural monopolies" are you referring to?  I read back a ways and I never saw any description more specific than "utilities" which is somewhat vague.
> 
> Limited resources, like land, airwave and water management are certainly easier to justify as "natural" monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I asked you what you consider natural monopolies.  This isn't an answer to that question.  I know what anti-trust laws are.  And they are about anti-competitive practices, not natural monopolies.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural monopoly thing is common sense.  It's not surprising that you don't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you seriously not grasp his point?  Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example.  How did you not get that?  He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly.  But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.
> 
> So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies?  That is the real question here.
Click to expand...


He is denying the existence of a natural monopoly.  That there are natural monopolies doesn't mean there are not government produced monopolies.

You apparently don't grasp anyone's point.


----------



## itfitzme

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which specific "natural monopolies" are you referring to?  I read back a ways and I never saw any description more specific than "utilities" which is somewhat vague.
> 
> Limited resources, like land, airwave and water management are certainly easier to justify as "natural" monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what you consider natural monopolies.  This isn't an answer to that question.  I know what anti-trust laws are.  And they are about anti-competitive practices, not natural monopolies.
Click to expand...


You aren't very bright, are you?  Monopolies are what anti-trust lawsuits are about.

For instance, "Cisco Accused Of *Monopoly* In *Antitrust* Lawsuit - CRN.com"


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> originalthought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good article on the propaganda about the high taxes paid by US corporations
> 
> The Great Corporate Tax Shift » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "US corporations dont pay the nominal corporate tax rate of 35% today; they pay an effective (i.e. actual) rate of only 12%.  The additional effective state-wide corporate income tax they pay amounts to only a 2% or sonot the 10% they claim. And the effective corporate tax on offshore earnings is only another 2.2% or sonot the 20% average theyll complain. So the total US tax for US corporations is barely 16%not the 35% plus 10% (state) plus 20% (offshore) nominal tax rate.  And however you cut it, the story is the same: US corporations share of total federal tax revenues have been in freefall for decades. The share of corporate taxes as a percent of GDP and national income has halved over the decades.  And corporations since 2008 have realized record level profits during the Obama Recoverywhile their taxes as a percent of profits since 2008 is half that of the average paid as recently as 1987-2007.  Okay, more detail on all that in parts 2 and 3 to follow"
> 
> I'm not saying true or false, but where are the sources to back up those claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.
Click to expand...


In regard to sources, there is alink to the author and his website at the article

Corporations should be investing more in America. Perhaps returning to the days of the founders when imports generally faced a higher tariff might help.


----------



## Uncensored2008

itfitzme said:


> Natural monopolies are well established in economics.



Cats are well established in biology, yet a pig still is not a cat,



> They are also well established in the history of Supreme Court rulings.
> 
> I've backed up everything I have ever posted.
> 
> You are just making up your own shit.



Unrelated links fails to "support" your contention. 

In economics, a "natural monopoly" is exactly as I described, the situation where the rarity of a commodity renders the market non-existent. 

Naming the granting of a monopoly to resources that are common to a singly, well connected looter, is a political act.


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you seriously not grasp his point?  Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example.  How did you not get that?  He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly.  But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.
> 
> So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies?  That is the real question here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is denying the existence of a natural monopoly.  That there are natural monopolies doesn't mean there are not government produced monopolies.
> 
> You apparently don't grasp anyone's point.
Click to expand...


Is that right?



Uncensored2008 said:


> If I have the only well in a town with no springs or rivers, I have a natural monopoly.
> 
> If I am the only one allowed to sell water in a town with a dozen springs and a large river, there is nothing "natural" about the monopoly, it is simply a trust enforced by state.



I'm reading the discussion you're having better than you are...


----------



## kaz

itfitzme said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here
> 
> United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what you consider natural monopolies.  This isn't an answer to that question.  I know what anti-trust laws are.  And they are about anti-competitive practices, not natural monopolies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't very bright, are you?  Monopolies are what anti-trust lawsuits are about.
> 
> For instance, "Cisco Accused Of *Monopoly* In *Antitrust* Lawsuit - CRN.com"
Click to expand...


Dude, NAME the natural monopolies you are referring to.  And you say "I" am not bright?


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> In economics, a "natural monopoly" is exactly as I described, the situation where the rarity of a commodity renders the market non-existent



I would use the term "limited resources" instead of "rarity" to be more precise.  There is only so much land, there are only so many airwaves, that sort of thing, someone has to arbitrate it.  And if that isn't arbitrated by one end entity, there is chaos.  For example, two people trying to build a home on the same land or two companies broadcasting on the same frequency.

However, there is one more area, which is distribution.  There were hundreds of phone companies, and they were trying to wire the same streets, it was chaos.  Electricity, water, cable fit this issue.  Over time, it changes.  For example, phones are no longer a natural monopoly.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are looking for some almighty authority that they can use to get what they want without regard for others. And they have this mistaken co-mingling of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights.  We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them.  And we limit government to protect our rights from government.  The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on.  If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back.  With interest.
Click to expand...


The bylaws of our government,  clearly stated in our Constitution,  are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within.  The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution. 

That's the whole story.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are looking for some almighty authority that they can use to get what they want without regard for others. And they have this mistaken co-mingling of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights.  We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them.  And we limit government to protect our rights from government.  The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on.  If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back.  With interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bylaws of our government,  clearly stated in our Constitution,  are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within.  The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.
> 
> That's the whole story.
Click to expand...


Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights.  And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about.  My bad.

You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?



Please God, may the answer I just made up be right?  I promise to study next time, I really do...


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither says that government "afforded" us our rights.  We have a government to protect our rights, not supply us with them.  And we limit government to protect our rights from government.  The idea that government provides us with our rights is a complete abomination of the concept our country was founded on.  If you ever paid anyone for your education, you should get your money back.  With interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bylaws of our government,  clearly stated in our Constitution,  are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within.  The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.
> 
> That's the whole story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights.  And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about.  My bad.
> 
> You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Please God, may the answer I just made up be right?  I promise to study next time, I really do...
Click to expand...


" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states. 

If you disagree,  post some evidence.


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.



OK:

10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Check and mate.  So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK:
> 
> 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
> 
> 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> Check and mate.  So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?
Click to expand...


Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights. 

The 10th is exactly what I said. 

The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people" 

Can you specify what specifically they are? 

Your " Check and mate."  is like Bush's "mission accomplished".


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> Corporations should be investing more in America. Perhaps returning to the days of the founders when imports generally faced a higher tariff might help.



You are absolutely correct in your thinking and it was part of our Constitution&#8217;s original tax plan.

In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to ignore America&#8217;s best interests to personally profit in the process!  When these members of Congress talk about &#8220;free trade&#8221;, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America&#8217;s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury not to mention oppressive regulations it imposes which have helped to destroy America&#8217;s manufacturing base and encouraged many important industries to leave America.  That is what our Republican &#8220;free trade&#8221; crowd means when they talk about &#8220;free trade&#8221; ___ capitulating and selling out to international corporate giants who have no allegiance to American or any nation &#8230; their bottom line is what is important and not America&#8217;s best interests!


By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water&#8217;s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil!  What a novel idea &#8230; an America first policy!

Madison sums up our trade policy as follows during the creation of our *Nation&#8216;s first revenue raising Act*

*&#8220;&#8230;a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.&#8221;*

The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man&#8217;s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world!  It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America&#8217;s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury. 

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships: 

*"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof."* see: *An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789*

This patriotic use of taxing at our water&#8217;s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America&#8217;s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international &#8220;free trade crowd&#8221; and the sellout of America&#8217;s sovereignty by Congress to the highest international bidders. 

Bottom line is, taxing at our water&#8217;s edge as our Founding Fathers practiced paved the way for America to become the economic powerhouse of the world, and part of  the proof is, by the year1835 America, still in its adolescent years, was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. 

And tell me, is there one &#8220;conservative&#8221; talk show host personality [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] who dares to even discuss our Constitution&#8217;s original tax plan?


JWK


*
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.
*


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bylaws of our government,  clearly stated in our Constitution,  are the areas of life that the government is prohibited from legislating within.  The Bill of Rights amended to the original Constitution.
> 
> That's the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights.  And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about.  My bad.
> 
> You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Please God, may the answer I just made up be right?  I promise to study next time, I really do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.
Click to expand...


You forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment  that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."*  I suggest you read what Chief Justice Marshall stated in regard to your absurdity.

*

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. 

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. 

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____  MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) *


JWK


*  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights.  And I thought you didn't know what you were talking about.  My bad.
> 
> You were a religious girl on test days, weren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Please God, may the answer I just made up be right?  I promise to study next time, I really do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment  that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."*  I suggest you read what Chief Justice Marshall stated in regard to your absurdity.
> 
> *
> 
> The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
> 
> Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
> 
> If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
> 
> Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____  MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Click to expand...


The law is written.  There are as many opinions about things as people. 

That's why law is not left up to quotes without context,  but by very carefully chosen words. 

And why the Constitution implies that what you and I think is not what it means.  Only what the Supreme Court decides and writes down is what it means.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> The rest of your post is nothing more than a straw-man argument that we are all slaves to the state and we should be thankful.  I reject your reality and insert my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I ask.  Why do you choose to live here?  How about a straight answer this time.
Click to expand...


I'm a hunter, I'm just sitting here waiting for you to come get what you think is yours.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove this entitlement to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  When you do, you will find that is a right afforded you by the government by the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
Click to expand...


Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees?  WTF is wrong with you libtards?


----------



## kaz

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK:
> 
> 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
> 
> 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> Check and mate.  So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The 10th is exactly what I said.
> 
> The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"
> 
> Can you specify what specifically they are?
> 
> Your " Check and mate."  is like Bush's "mission accomplished".
Click to expand...


Mission accomplished


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment  that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."*  I suggest you read what Chief Justice Marshall stated in regard to your absurdity.
> 
> *
> 
> The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.
> 
> Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
> 
> If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
> 
> Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____  MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) *
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law is written.  There are as many opinions about things as people.
> 
> That's why law is not left up to quotes without context,  but by very carefully chosen words.
> 
> And why the Constitution implies that what you and I think is not what it means.  Only what the Supreme Court decides and writes down is what it means.
Click to expand...


You still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that* ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* Where on earth do you find support for that conclusion in our written Constitution?





JWK



*"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People come here from African nations and find work immediately, feed and clothe their families and do not expect anything other than opportunity. The woman from Ghana that works at the hospice my sister died at today earns $15 a hour as a CNA.
> They do not cry like whiny 5 year olds. They come here because there are people that can become wealthy here. Wealth grows the economy from the demand for that wealth.
> Incredible anyone would be so naive and gullible to believe otherwise. People come here and find work and the majority on entitlement programs are there because of a lack of work ethic or an acceptance of sitting the bench while others pass them by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe that US unemployment is at zero and corporations are fighting to find workers?
> 
> That means that in 5 years President Obama has completely turned around the Great Recession and restored the country to Clintonomics.
Click to expand...


Corporations are fighting to find people with a work ethic.
Your team has left us with the lowest Labor Participation Rate in 50 years.
Women come from Africa, find work, educate themselves to the demands of the market and do well.
And you hate them for it because it disputes everything you state.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> Pretty much.  In addition,  there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.
> 
> If you disagree,  post some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK:
> 
> 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
> 
> 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> Check and mate.  So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The 10th is exactly what I said.
> 
> The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"
> 
> Can you specify what specifically they are?
> 
> Your " Check and mate."  is like Bush's "mission accomplished".
Click to expand...



From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted.  Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.


With regard to the Bill of Rights [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the *Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789* 

*THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .*


And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect federalism our Constitutions plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:


*It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism* ___See :*Madison,  June 8th, 1789,  Amendments to the Constitution* 

So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:



*The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. 

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. *__ Federalist Paper No. 45 

Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal governments nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!




JWK


*
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
*


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?
> 
> Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees?  WTF is wrong with you libtards?
Click to expand...


We follow the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.
> 
> In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."
> 
> But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The natural monopoly thing is common sense.  It's not surprising that you don't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you seriously not grasp his point?  Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example.  How did you not get that?  He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly.  But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.
> 
> So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies?  That is the real question here.
Click to expand...


You and he are the arbiters of the English language?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The natural monopoly thing is common sense.  It's not surprising that you don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you seriously not grasp his point?  Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example.  How did you not get that?  He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly.  But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.
> 
> So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies?  That is the real question here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and he are the arbiters of the English language?
Click to expand...



There appear to be several on USMB.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK:
> 
> 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
> 
> 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> Check and mate.  So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The 10th is exactly what I said.
> 
> The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"
> 
> Can you specify what specifically they are?
> 
> Your " Check and mate."  is like Bush's "mission accomplished".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted.  Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Bill of Rights [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the *Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789*
> 
> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .*
> 
> 
> And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect federalism our Constitutions plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:
> 
> 
> *It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism* ___See :*Madison,  June 8th, 1789,  Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.
> 
> 
> Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> *The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. *__ Federalist Paper No. 45
> 
> Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal governments nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
> *
Click to expand...


You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law.  Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion.  What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.

So if we are debating law,  the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People come here from African nations and find work immediately, feed and clothe their families and do not expect anything other than opportunity. The woman from Ghana that works at the hospice my sister died at today earns $15 a hour as a CNA.
> They do not cry like whiny 5 year olds. They come here because there are people that can become wealthy here. Wealth grows the economy from the demand for that wealth.
> Incredible anyone would be so naive and gullible to believe otherwise. People come here and find work and the majority on entitlement programs are there because of a lack of work ethic or an acceptance of sitting the bench while others pass them by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe that US unemployment is at zero and corporations are fighting to find workers?
> 
> That means that in 5 years President Obama has completely turned around the Great Recession and restored the country to Clintonomics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations are fighting to find people with a work ethic.
> Your team has left us with the lowest Labor Participation Rate in 50 years.
> Women come from Africa, find work, educate themselves to the demands of the market and do well.
> And you hate them for it because it disputes everything you state.
Click to expand...


What you wish was true.  

The truth is that we have 7% or so unemployment.  That means 7% of the people who want to work can't find jobs.  That means that 7% of the workforce is idle,  thanks to business, and have to be supported by the 93% who have jobs.  Reality. 

Those people aren't going to lay down and starve.  They will continue to be a burden until business creates more jobs. 

The only relevant question is what happened to the business leaders who knew how to achieve growth.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The 10th is exactly what I said.
> 
> The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"
> 
> Can you specify what specifically they are?
> 
> Your " Check and mate."  is like Bush's "mission accomplished".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted.  Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Bill of Rights [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the *Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789*
> 
> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .*
> 
> 
> And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect federalism our Constitutions plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:
> 
> 
> *It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism* ___See :*Madison,  June 8th, 1789,  Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.
> 
> 
> Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> *The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. *__ Federalist Paper No. 45
> 
> Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal governments nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law.  Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion.  What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.
> 
> So if we are debating law,  the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.
Click to expand...



We are not talking about my opinions.  We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?

Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion  in our Constitution?  Please feel free to point to those words.


JWK


*
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
*


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted.  Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.
> 
> 
> With regard to the Bill of Rights [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the *Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789*
> 
> *THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .*
> 
> 
> And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect federalism our Constitutions plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:
> 
> 
> *It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism* ___See :*Madison,  June 8th, 1789,  Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.
> 
> 
> Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> *The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. *__ Federalist Paper No. 45
> 
> Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal governments nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law.  Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion.  What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.
> 
> So if we are debating law,  the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not talking about my opinions.  We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.
> 
> Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?
> 
> Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion  in our Constitution?  Please feel free to point to those words.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
> *
Click to expand...


The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.  Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law.  No opinions. 

I stated my opinion.  The Constitution contains our bylaws for federal government. They say that the Bill of Rights prescribes areas in which federal legislation is prohibited.  

The Constitution also contains some areas reserved for state legislation only.  Other than that there are not many restrictions on what the federal government can do. 

If you disagree post the specific words in the Constitution that specify those limitations.


----------



## Chris

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.


----------



## RKMBrown

Chris said:


> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.
> 
> 8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.
> 
> Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.



Epic fail. Who told you this clap trap?  They should be shot. And you should be embarrassed that you believed them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> They always have been right afforded you by the government.   I can prove it.  You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.
> 
> You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above.  When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees?  WTF is wrong with you libtards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We follow the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Chris said:


> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> *Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.
> *
> 8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.
> 
> Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.



Say what now? Who taught you that nonsense? 

First of all you contradicted yourself in the first two lines. How is a vote equal if it's supposedly 40 times more powerful in one state than in another?

Perhaps you don't grasp the concept of the Democratic process. People deserve to be represented as a population and not based on simple geography. The beauty of elections is that the people's mood is unpredictable, you can't simply generalize people and pigeonhole them into certain categories.

What you suggest is dismantling the Legislative branch.

Please be quiet, Chris.


----------



## orogenicman

Chris said:


> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful *in the U.S. Senate* than a vote in California.
> 
> 8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.
> 
> Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.



Erm, every state has exactly two Senators.  You didn't know this?  Huh.  And none of those (U.S. Senate) votes occur in either Alaska or California.  You didn't know this, either?  Huh.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law.  Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion.  What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.
> 
> So if we are debating law,  the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not talking about my opinions.  We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.
> 
> Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?
> 
> Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion  in our Constitution?  Please feel free to point to those words.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.  Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law.  No opinions.
Click to expand...


You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, Rules of Construction, Generally

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

* Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.* (numerous citations omitted )

Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

*Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.* (numerous citations omitted )

So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning. 

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

JWK

*The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


----------



## bripat9643

orogenicman said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful *in the U.S. Senate* than a vote in California.
> 
> 8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.
> 
> Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, every state has exactly two Senators.  You didn't know this?  Huh.  And none of those (U.S. Senate) votes occur in either Alaska or California.  You didn't know this, either?  Huh.
Click to expand...


The idea that all votes should count equally is idiotic.  That's how we got to be in the horrendous mess we are currently in.


----------



## johnwk

Chris said:


> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> Everyone's vote should count equally.



Would you also apply your above opinion to paying taxes, and that whenever Congress lays a direct tax upon the people everyone pays an equal share as required by our *Constitutions fair share formula?*

*
States pop.
-----------------------   X    AMOUNT TO BE RAISED = STATES SHARE
Total U.S. PoP.
*

The rule of apportionment boils down to one man one vote, and, one vote one dollar whenever a direct tax is laid directly upon the people of the United States.

Do you agree in enforcing this equal tax?

JWK


*The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244*  Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution


----------



## PMZ

TemplarKormac said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees?  WTF is wrong with you libtards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We follow the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?
Click to expand...


So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We follow the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?
Click to expand...


No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod.  Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.


----------



## kaz

Chris said:


> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.
> 
> 8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.
> 
> Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.



It's not "flawed" their objective was different than yours. They wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod.  Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.
Click to expand...


You are taking advantage of the services every day.  What we're talking about is you paying your bills.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod.  Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of the services every day.  What we're talking about is you paying your bills.
Click to expand...


No, I don't "take advantage of" any services.  I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod.  Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of the services every day.  What we're talking about is you paying your bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't "take advantage of" any services.  I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.
Click to expand...


Don't pay your taxes then.  Simple solution for you.  Stay in control of your life rather then constantly whining.

Even if you never leave your Lazy boy,  the fact that you don't see any foreign armies in your front yard is a service that you consume every day.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of the services every day.  What we're talking about is you paying your bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't "take advantage of" any services.  I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't pay your taxes then.  Simple solution for you.  Stay in control of your life rather then constantly whining.
Click to expand...


The only thing you're proving is that you're a jackass.  We all know what happens when you don't pay your taxes.  

Why don't you quit whining about businesses not employing more people or paying them a "living wage?"  Move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking.



PMZ said:


> Even if you never leave your Lazy boy,  the fact that you don't see any foreign armies in your front yard is a service that you consume every day.



As I said, legally I'm not obligated to pay for services I haven't agreed to pay for, so your attempt to compare government with normal rules of the market is a complete failure.  Government is compulsion.  I haven't agree to anything it does. It doesn't provide "services" in the market sense.  It simply compels me to pay for whatever it does.


----------



## PMZ

kaz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is deeply flawed.
> 
> Everyone's vote should count equally.
> 
> A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.
> 
> 8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.
> 
> Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not "flawed" their objective was different than yours. They wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority
Click to expand...


And replace it with tyranny of a minority.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't "take advantage of" any services.  I don't have any legitimate bills for stuff I haven't agreed to pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't pay your taxes then.  Simple solution for you.  Stay in control of your life rather then constantly whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you're proving is that you're a jackass.  We all know what happens when you don't pay your taxes.
> 
> Why don't you quit whining about businesses not employing more people or paying them a "living wage?"  Move to Cuba where the government is more to your liking.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if you never leave your Lazy boy,  the fact that you don't see any foreign armies in your front yard is a service that you consume every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, legally I'm not obligated to pay for services I haven't agreed to pay for, so your attempt to compare government with normal rules of the market is a complete failure.  Government is compulsion.  I haven't agree to anything it does. It doesn't provide "services" in the market sense.  It simply compels me to pay for whatever it does.
Click to expand...


" As I said, legally I'm not obligated to pay for services I haven't agreed to pay for"

So you pay your taxes even though you believe that you have no legal obligation to????? 

What a coward.  Why don't you stand up for your rights?


----------



## dcraelin

kaz said:


> It's not "flawed" their objective was different than yours. They wanted to prevent tyranny of the majority



thats why they counted black slaves as 3/5ths of a person


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod.  Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of the services every day.  What we're talking about is you paying your bills.
Click to expand...


I'm really tired of this leftist meme.  Let's talk about some of the things our federal government spends tax money on, and whether or not we are "taking advantage of the services every day", and they are, in fact, "our bills", shall we?

*International Affairs*

The International Coffee Organization
The International Copper Study Group
The International Cotton Advisory Committee
The International Grains Council
The International Lead and Zinc Study Group
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation
The Export-Import Bank

*Agriculture*

The Market Access Program
The Foreign Agricultural Service

*Transportation*

The New Starts Transit Program
Intercity Rail Subsidies

*Labor*

Job Corps
Corporation for National and Community Service

*Health*

Title X Family Planning Grants

*Administration of Justice*

The Legal Services Corporation

And that's not even counting things like Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, Social Security, Medicare - none of which I receive anything from.  So please tell me which "services" I'm "taking advantage of" from anything listed here, and how they constitute me "paying my bill".

- Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for the list


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod.  Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking advantage of the services every day.  What we're talking about is you paying your bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm really tired of this leftist meme.  Let's talk about some of the things our federal government spends tax money on, and whether or not we are "taking advantage of the services every day", and they are, in fact, "our bills", shall we?
> 
> *International Affairs*
> 
> The International Coffee Organization
> The International Copper Study Group
> The International Cotton Advisory Committee
> The International Grains Council
> The International Lead and Zinc Study Group
> The Overseas Private Investment Corporation
> The Export-Import Bank
> 
> *Agriculture*
> 
> The Market Access Program
> The Foreign Agricultural Service
> 
> *Transportation*
> 
> The New Starts Transit Program
> Intercity Rail Subsidies
> 
> *Labor*
> 
> Job Corps
> Corporation for National and Community Service
> 
> *Health*
> 
> Title X Family Planning Grants
> 
> *Administration of Justice*
> 
> The Legal Services Corporation
> 
> And that's not even counting things like Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, Social Security, Medicare - none of which I receive anything from.  So please tell me which "services" I'm "taking advantage of" from anything listed here, and how they constitute me "paying my bill".
> 
> - Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for the list
Click to expand...


We could all save a dollar or two every year if they were  eliminated.


----------



## johnwk

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not talking about my opinions.  We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.
> 
> Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?
> 
> Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion  in our Constitution?  Please feel free to point to those words.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *
> If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.  Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law.  No opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
> 
> 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, Rules of Construction, Generally
> 
> par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
> 
> * Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
> 
> *Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
> 
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Click to expand...



Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


JWK

*"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.  Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law.  No opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
> 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, &#8220;Rules of Construction, Generally&#8221;
> par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
> *&#8220; Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.&#8221;* (numerous citations omitted )
> Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
> *&#8220;Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.&#8221;* (numerous citations omitted )
> So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
> JWK
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution&#8217;s framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Click to expand...


"and of the people adopting it."  ---This is the key.....The Framers had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE .....There is evidence quite a few of the framers wanted a king but the people at large would not have it.........If the opinions of the people at large at the time of ratification were known that would have to be the deciding point on questions of interpretation......except for the amendments which are more focused and more clearly represent the will of the people.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.  Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law.  No opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
> 
> 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, Rules of Construction, Generally
> 
> par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
> 
> * Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
> 
> *Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
> 
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Click to expand...


Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation. 

In the case of the words governing the government,  their bylaws,  our Constitution,  the same applies. 

It's only the words of the law that apply. 

The intentions of some or one of the founders,  as evidenced by what they left behind,  were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion,  not the finished product enshrined in DC.


----------



## PMZ

Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty. 

They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power. 

But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention. 

Therefore we are fully and forever a republic.  And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
> 
> 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, &#8220;Rules of Construction, Generally&#8221;
> 
> par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
> 
> *&#8220; Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.&#8221;* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
> 
> *&#8220;Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.&#8221;* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
> 
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution&#8217;s framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
> 
> In the case of the words governing the government,  their bylaws,  our Constitution,  the same applies.
> 
> It's only the words of the law that apply.
> 
> The intentions of some or one of the founders,  as evidenced by what they left behind,  were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion,  not the finished product enshrined in DC.
Click to expand...


Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with &#8220;the rule of law&#8221; as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing &#8220;legislative intent&#8221;  even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce *&#8220;the rules of the common law&#8221;*.

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette,  July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

*But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body?  Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*


Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK

*Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to &#8220;interpret&#8221; the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
> 
> In the case of the words governing the government,  their bylaws,  our Constitution,  the same applies.
> 
> It's only the words of the law that apply.
> 
> The intentions of some or one of the founders,  as evidenced by what they left behind,  were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion,  not the finished product enshrined in DC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with the rule of law as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing legislative intent  even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce *the rules of the common law*.
> 
> In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette,  July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*
> 
> And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
> 
> *But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body?  Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
> 
> "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*
> 
> 
> Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law. 

You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law. 

What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.  

Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
> 
> 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, Rules of Construction, Generally
> par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
> 
> * Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> 
> Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
> 
> *Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> 
> So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
> 
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "and of the people adopting it."  ---This is the key.....The Framers had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE .....There is evidence quite a few of the framers wanted a king but the people at large would not have it.........If the opinions of the people at large at the time of ratification were known that would have to be the deciding point on questions of interpretation......except for the amendments which are more focused and more clearly represent the will of the people.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct about *and of the people adopting it.*  That is one of the reasons I often quote from Elliots Debates which are the State Ratification debates of our Constitution.  Other sources to determine legislative intent would be Madisons notes, the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers, all of which documents the evils our founders sought to correct with a written constitution which defines and limits the powers granted to our federal government.


JWK


*
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.*_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> "and of the people adopting it."  ---This is the key.....The Framers had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE .....There is evidence quite a few of the framers wanted a king but the people at large would not have it.........If the opinions of the people at large at the time of ratification were known that would have to be the deciding point on questions of interpretation......except for the amendments which are more focused and more clearly represent the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct about *and of the people adopting it.*  That is one of the reasons I often quote from Elliots Debates which are the State Ratification debates of our Constitution.  Other sources to determine legislative intent would be Madisons notes, the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers, all of which documents the evils our founders sought to correct with a written constitution which defines and limits the powers granted to our federal government.
> JWK
Click to expand...

Well in a way I guess we agree but I don't place much importance on the Federalist papers, they were not widely read at the time and probably had next to no influence on ratification. ...Our first federal government was the Articles of Confederation and their inadequacy was hugely overblown.....There are some good things in the AOC such as a way to appoint judges that takes a lot of the politics out of it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assert above that *The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law.*  But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.
> 
> 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, Rules of Construction, Generally
> 
> par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings
> 
> * Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.
> 
> *Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.* (numerous citations omitted )
> 
> So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.
> 
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that *' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."* What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
Click to expand...


So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law?  What about laws that conflict with the Constitution?  What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens?   Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents?  How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
> 
> In the case of the words governing the government,  their bylaws,  our Constitution,  the same applies.
> 
> It's only the words of the law that apply.
> 
> The intentions of some or one of the founders,  as evidenced by what they left behind,  were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion,  not the finished product enshrined in DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with the rule of law as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing legislative intent  even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce *the rules of the common law*.
> 
> In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette,  July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*
> 
> And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
> 
> *But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body?  Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
> 
> "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*
> 
> 
> Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.
> 
> You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law.
> 
> What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.
> 
> Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?
Click to expand...


So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well PMZ?  You assert above that *"The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law."* But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion.  How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."*--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law?  What about laws that conflict with the Constitution?  What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens?   Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents?  How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?
Click to expand...


If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional,  they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court.  Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare? 
And SCOTUS ruled that it was. 

Do you realize that Germany is a different country than the US and Hitler a different time? It's completely irrelevant to here and now. 

If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional,  take it to court.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with the rule of law as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing legislative intent  even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce *the rules of the common law*.
> 
> In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette,  July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*
> 
> And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
> 
> *But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body?  Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
> 
> "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*
> 
> 
> Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.
> 
> You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law.
> 
> What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.
> 
> Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?
Click to expand...


I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you. 

To me,  it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law. 

You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional,  the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.
> 
> You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law.
> 
> What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.
> 
> Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.
> 
> To me,  it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.
Click to expand...


And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?"  What makes a law "properly enacted?"  So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.  According to your theory the people of Athens did nothing wrong when they forced Socrates to drink Hemlock.



PMZ said:


> You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional,  the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.



ROLF!  Wrong.  What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.
> 
> To me,  it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?"  What makes a law "properly enacted?"  So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional,  the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROLF!  Wrong.  What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?
Click to expand...


I don't know where you're going with this particular whine and rant. 

This country has been very successful for 250 years using the vision of the founders.  We aren't going to change that for any minority's experiment. 

If anarchy is your thing,  get out.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law?  What about laws that conflict with the Constitution?  What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens?   Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents?  How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional,  they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court.  Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
> And SCOTUS ruled that it was.
Click to expand...


And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter?  Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor?  It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.



PMZ said:


> Do you realize that Germany is a different country than the US and Hitler a different time? It's completely irrelevant to here and now.



I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question.  Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't.  So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.



PMZ said:


> If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional,  take it to court.



I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law?  What about laws that conflict with the Constitution?  What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens?   Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents?  How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional,  they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court.  Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
> And SCOTUS ruled that it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter?  Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor?  It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Germany is a different country than the US and Hitler a different time? It's completely irrelevant to here and now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question.  Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't.  So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional,  take it to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.
Click to expand...


I believe that our founders and we,  the people,  are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.  

We tried many of your ideas.  They were a egregious failure.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.
> 
> They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.
> 
> But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> Therefore we are fully and forever a republic.  And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.



True but the main influence behind that opinion then that our new country "would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth of royalty" was religion.
Every European state at that time was run by strong religious influences and in most all cases the church itself. They led by the power of the monarch being anointed by God to have that power AND the pomp, circumstance and wealth that God dictates the monarchy must have.
And the Founders ran like hell from that and wanted NO religious influences in our laws and system of government which at that time was a radical change from the powerful monarchies of Europe which had dominated the world for centuries based on religion and the corrupt power that always brings. 
During the revolution the Torries were dominated by the religious colonists who believed God, and not the individual having rights protected by the law, dictated the rights man should have through the King. Our Founders said BULL SHIT to that and defined this nation in the Constitution as a nation OF THE LAW and not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
After the revolution over 100,000 colonists left here to Canada and back to England over the Constitution being the law and not the religious influences of the church through the monarchy.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.
> 
> They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.
> 
> But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> Therefore we are fully and forever a republic.  And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True but the main influence behind that opinion then that our new country "would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth of royalty" was religion.
> Every European state at that time was run by strong religious influences and in most all cases the church itself. They led by the power of the monarch being anointed by God to have that power AND the pomp, circumstance and wealth that God dictates the monarchy must have.
> And the Founders ran like hell from that and wanted NO religious influences in our laws and system of government which at that time was a radical change from the powerful monarchies of Europe which had dominated the world for centuries based on religion and the corrupt power that always brings.
> During the revolution the Torries were dominated by the religious colonists who believed God, and not the individual having rights protected by the law, dictated the rights man should have through the King. Our Founders said BULL SHIT to that and defined this nation in the Constitution as a nation OF THE LAW and not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
> After the revolution over 100,000 colonists left here to Canada and back to England over the Constitution being the law and not the religious influences of the church through the monarchy.
Click to expand...


I think that there is a legitimate chicken and egg thing between religion and royalty.  I side more with the idea that royalty used religion to stay in power than religion used royalty.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.
> 
> They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.
> 
> But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> Therefore we are fully and forever a republic.  And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True but the main influence behind that opinion then that our new country "would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth of royalty" was religion.
> Every European state at that time was run by strong religious influences and in most all cases the church itself. They led by the power of the monarch being anointed by God to have that power AND the pomp, circumstance and wealth that God dictates the monarchy must have.
> And the Founders ran like hell from that and wanted NO religious influences in our laws and system of government which at that time was a radical change from the powerful monarchies of Europe which had dominated the world for centuries based on religion and the corrupt power that always brings.
> During the revolution the Torries were dominated by the religious colonists who believed God, and not the individual having rights protected by the law, dictated the rights man should have through the King. Our Founders said BULL SHIT to that and defined this nation in the Constitution as a nation OF THE LAW and not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
> After the revolution over 100,000 colonists left here to Canada and back to England over the Constitution being the law and not the religious influences of the church through the monarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that there is a legitimate chicken and egg thing between religion and royalty.  I side more with the idea that royalty used religion to stay in power than religion used royalty.
Click to expand...


LOL, well I happen to agree with that 100% as when dealing with gaining and maintaining power religion is often used now and most always then.
Many of the Founders attempted to have Christianity as the national religion and funds for religious schools as well as numerous other religious stances in law but were out voted.


----------



## Gadawg73

When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional,  they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court.  Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
> And SCOTUS ruled that it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter?  Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor?  It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question.  Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't.  So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional,  take it to court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that our founders and we,  the people,  are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.
> 
> We tried many of your ideas.  They were a egregious failure.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel.  Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.
> 
> To me,  it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?"  What makes a law "properly enacted?"  So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional,  the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROLF!  Wrong.  What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you're going with this particular whine and rant.
> 
> This country has been very successful for 250 years using the vision of the founders.  We aren't going to change that for any minority's experiment.
> 
> If anarchy is your thing,  get out.
Click to expand...


Sorry, turd, but you don't make the rules.  Since you like the government of Cuba so much, you get out.

Whenever you can't answer the questions put to you, this is the line of argument you take.  In other words, you start weaseling.


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.




Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter?  Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor?  It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question.  Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't.  So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our founders and we,  the people,  are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.
> 
> We tried many of your ideas.  They were a egregious failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel.  Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.
Click to expand...


You're the one with an inordinate interest in Nazi Germany.  And apparently an inability to recognize the difference between democracy and fascism.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.
Click to expand...


At the moment,  I'm under-represented in Congress because a  family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me. 

Like tea party values,  those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that our founders and we,  the people,  are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.
> 
> We tried many of your ideas.  They were a egregious failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel.  Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one with an inordinate interest in Nazi Germany.  And apparently an inability to recognize the difference between democracy and fascism.
Click to expand...


The difference between democracy and fascism isn't at issue here.  Don't imagine that your continual weaseling isn't noticed by all.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the moment,  I'm under-represented in Congress because a  family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.
> 
> Like tea party values,  those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS.  the less your views are represented, the better.


----------



## SuMar

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.





Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?"  What makes a law "properly enacted?"  So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.
> 
> 
> 
> ROLF!  Wrong.  What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you're going with this particular whine and rant.
> 
> This country has been very successful for 250 years using the vision of the founders.  We aren't going to change that for any minority's experiment.
> 
> If anarchy is your thing,  get out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but you don't make the rules.  Since you like the government of Cuba so much, you get out.
> 
> Whenever you can't answer the questions put to you, this is the line of argument you take.  In other words, you start weaseling.
Click to expand...


America has dealt with anarchists before.  

What I'm hoping for is that anarchists,  libertarians,  dixiecrats,  and other American Taliban,  stop whining and act.  Vacuum out their RINO counterparts from the GOP and start a new party. 

Everyone would benefit.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel.  Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one with an inordinate interest in Nazi Germany.  And apparently an inability to recognize the difference between democracy and fascism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between democracy and fascism isn't at issue here.  Don't imagine that your continual weaseling isn't noticed by all.
Click to expand...


Incoming:

Fascism was in a place far away,  and a time long ago.  Democracy is here and now.  Why you try to marry them is beyond,  beyond.


----------



## PMZ

SuMar said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
Click to expand...


I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives. 

First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position? 

The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them. 

If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment,  I'm under-represented in Congress because a  family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.
> 
> Like tea party values,  those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS.  the less your views are represented, the better.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] 

Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply.  I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is.  In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the moment,  I'm under-represented in Congress because a  family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.
> 
> Like tea party values,  those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS.  the less your views are represented, the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]
> 
> Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply.  I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is.  In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.
Click to expand...


"Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."

Bizarre choice of words.  What did he expose my post as being?  Words? 

The rest of your post I fully agree with.  It's the strength of democracy.  You can't fool all of the people any of the time.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS.  the less your views are represented, the better.
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]
> 
> Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply.  I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is.  In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."
> 
> Bizarre choice of words.  What did he expose my post as being?  Words?
> 
> The rest of your post I fully agree with.  It's the strength of democracy.  You can't fool all of the people any of the time.
Click to expand...


I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]
> 
> Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply.  I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is.  In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."
> 
> Bizarre choice of words.  What did he expose my post as being?  Words?
> 
> The rest of your post I fully agree with.  It's the strength of democracy.  You can't fool all of the people any of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.
Click to expand...


"anti-liberty pro-marxist"

As far as "anti-liberty"  is concerned,  I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake. 

Until that gets cleared up I will continue to treat libertarianism as a fringe whacko cognitive dysfunction. 

I have no interest in Marxism.  Nobody does. It would appear to me that Kim Jong Un is the only Marxist left in the world. It's only application in today's world is as a conservative boogeyman. One of many. 

I choose to be working towards a vision,  over running from a boogeyman.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## PMZ

mudwhistle said:


>



Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers,  every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.


----------



## mudwhistle

PMZ said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers,  every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.
Click to expand...


That is, of course, a phony stereotype. 

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.


----------



## PMZ

mudwhistle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers,  every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, of course, a phony stereotype.
> 
> What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.
Click to expand...


I'm saying what I said.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."
> 
> Bizarre choice of words.  What did he expose my post as being?  Words?
> 
> The rest of your post I fully agree with.  It's the strength of democracy.  You can't fool all of the people any of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "anti-liberty pro-marxist"
> 
> As far as "anti-liberty"  is concerned,  I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.
> 
> Until that gets cleared up I will continue to treat libertarianism as a fringe whacko cognitive dysfunction.
> 
> I have no interest in Marxism.  Nobody does. It would appear to me that Kim Jong Un is the only Marxist left in the world. It's only application in today's world is as a conservative boogeyman. One of many.
> 
> I choose to be working towards a vision,  over running from a boogeyman.
Click to expand...


You mean this vision right?


> Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology combining the scientific socialist concepts theorized by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, collectively known as Marxism, with the theoretical expansions developed by Vladimir Lenin, collectively known as Leninism, which consist of anti-imperialism, democratic centralism, and the necessity of a vanguard party of class conscious cadres to coordinate the social revolution and the construction of socialism.[1] Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the Communist International (1919 - 1943), making it the guiding ideology of the world communist movement. As such, in popular discourse, the term "Communism" is often understood in the Marxist-Leninist sense.
> 
> The core object of Marxism-Leninism is the creation of a socialist state - and ultimately a worldwide communist society - through the leadership of a vanguard party composed of "professional" revolutionaries, under the justification that a highly organized group of revolutionaries is necessary for the success and safeguarding of the revolution - which itself represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat".[2]
> 
> Marxism-Leninism rejects political pluralism, in favor of democratic centralism and single-party control in order to provide a unified base of leadership for the working class and the revolution. In Marxist-Leninist states, the ruling Communist party acts as the supreme political institution and the prime force of societal organization.[3] The model of socialism as practised in Marxist-Leninist states is typically associated with centrally-planned economies,[4] while in recent decades, Marxist-Leninist states have incorporated market methods of exchange and expanded the role played by the non-state sector in developing the national economy, such as the People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[5]
> 
> The phrase "Marxism-Leninism" was introduced by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. Marxism-Leninism has different variations, the most notable being Stalinism (which is based on the theory of Socialism in One Country) and Maoism (which is based on peasant-based revolution in underdeveloped countries).


If no compare and contrast your stated desires for forced societal organization over this one.



PMZ said:


> As far as "anti-liberty"  is concerned,  I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.


You still don't know what liberty is?  How many thousands of times are you gonna ask? Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimers?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "anti-liberty pro-marxist"
> 
> As far as "anti-liberty"  is concerned,  I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.
> 
> Until that gets cleared up I will continue to treat libertarianism as a fringe whacko cognitive dysfunction.
> 
> I have no interest in Marxism.  Nobody does. It would appear to me that Kim Jong Un is the only Marxist left in the world. It's only application in today's world is as a conservative boogeyman. One of many.
> 
> I choose to be working towards a vision,  over running from a boogeyman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean this vision right?
> 
> 
> 
> Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology combining the scientific socialist concepts theorized by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, collectively known as Marxism, with the theoretical expansions developed by Vladimir Lenin, collectively known as Leninism, which consist of anti-imperialism, democratic centralism, and the necessity of a vanguard party of class conscious cadres to coordinate the social revolution and the construction of socialism.[1] Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the Communist International (1919 - 1943), making it the guiding ideology of the world communist movement. As such, in popular discourse, the term "Communism" is often understood in the Marxist-Leninist sense.
> 
> The core object of Marxism-Leninism is the creation of a socialist state - and ultimately a worldwide communist society - through the leadership of a vanguard party composed of "professional" revolutionaries, under the justification that a highly organized group of revolutionaries is necessary for the success and safeguarding of the revolution - which itself represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat".[2]
> 
> Marxism-Leninism rejects political pluralism, in favor of democratic centralism and single-party control in order to provide a unified base of leadership for the working class and the revolution. In Marxist-Leninist states, the ruling Communist party acts as the supreme political institution and the prime force of societal organization.[3] The model of socialism as practised in Marxist-Leninist states is typically associated with centrally-planned economies,[4] while in recent decades, Marxist-Leninist states have incorporated market methods of exchange and expanded the role played by the non-state sector in developing the national economy, such as the People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[5]
> 
> The phrase "Marxism-Leninism" was introduced by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. Marxism-Leninism has different variations, the most notable being Stalinism (which is based on the theory of Socialism in One Country) and Maoism (which is based on peasant-based revolution in underdeveloped countries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If no compare and contrast your stated desires for forced societal organization over this one.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "anti-liberty"  is concerned,  I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don't know what liberty is?  How many thousands of times are you gonna ask? Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimers?
Click to expand...


Funny.  You can precisely define what you wish I believed in,  but not what you believe in. 

Every government in  the world practices socialism in some markets.  As far as I know North Korea is the last remaining fully Marxist government. 

Yet you equate socialism with Marxism. 

Why? 

It's the only argument for Libertarianism. 

BTW,  I agree that the Marxist boogeyman is the only reason to embrace the Libertarian brand of anarchy.


----------



## RKMBrown

mudwhistle said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers,  every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is, of course, a phony stereotype.
> 
> What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.

As to the stereotype.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits.  Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.


----------



## mudwhistle

PMZ said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers,  every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is, of course, a phony stereotype.
> 
> What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying what I said.
Click to expand...


No shit?????


----------



## mudwhistle

RKMBrown said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers,  every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is, of course, a phony stereotype.
> 
> What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.
> 
> As to the stereotype.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits.  Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...


Obama believes in crony capitalism. 

I don't believe JFK did. 

The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.
> 
> 
> In the case of the words governing the government,  their bylaws,  our Constitution,  the same applies.
> 
> 
> It's only the words of the law that apply.
> 
> 
> The intentions of some or one of the founders,  as evidenced by what they left behind,  were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion,  not the finished product enshrined in DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with the rule of law as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing legislative intent  even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce *the rules of the common law*.
> 
> 
> In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette,  July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*
> 
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*
> 
> 
> And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
> 
> 
> *But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body?  Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
> 
> 
> "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*
> 
> 
> 
> Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.
> 
> 
> You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law.
> 
> 
> What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.
> 
> 
> Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?
Click to expand...



Oh, but I do accept and promote the rule of law, especially the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, and also follow the rules of the common law as our Constitution commands.


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?


JWK


*The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with the rule of law as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing legislative intent  even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce *the rules of the common law*.
> 
> 
> In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette,  July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*
> 
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*
> 
> 
> And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
> 
> 
> *But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body?  Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
> 
> 
> "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*
> 
> 
> 
> Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.
> 
> 
> You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law.
> 
> 
> What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.
> 
> 
> Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I do accept and promote the rule of law, especially the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, and also follow the rules of the common law as our Constitution commands.
> 
> 
> Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Click to expand...


"Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?"

Because they were not debated,  resolved,  and ratified democratically. 

They are merely the sides around the table. 

As I pointed out yesterday,  some around the table wanted a monarchy.  It was debated but not resolved,  and ratified democratically. A republican form of government was instead.  

Therefore the words used by those who favored monarchy are disempowered in the law. 

They can be quoted but they hold no authority over us.


----------



## PMZ

mudwhistle said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is, of course, a phony stereotype.
> 
> What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.
> 
> As to the stereotype.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits.  Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama believes in crony capitalism.
> 
> I don't believe JFK did.
> 
> The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.
Click to expand...


Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party.  It is its reason for existence.  And it has been since it's formation.  It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only. 

To whatever degree it is practiced today,  as always is due to Republican influence.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.
> 
> As to the stereotype.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits.  Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama believes in crony capitalism.
> 
> I don't believe JFK did.
> 
> The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party.  It is its reason for existence.  And it has been since it's formation.  It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.
> 
> To whatever degree it is practiced today,  as always is due to Republican influence.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah blah... republicans are the devil, it's all because of Fox, blah blah blah.. Obama's crony capitalism is because he's republican, blah blah blah, up is down, left is right, give me your money, blah blah blah...  

You are nothing but a POS.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives.
Click to expand...


*BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!*

God, that's funny!




PMZ said:


> First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?
> 
> The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.
> 
> If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.



In other words, as long as the government doesn't confiscate everything they own, they haven't been penalized.

Thanks for making your communist ideology so obvious.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.
> 
> As to the stereotype.  Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits.  Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama believes in crony capitalism.
> 
> I don't believe JFK did.
> 
> The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party.  It is its reason for existence.  And it has been since it's formation.  It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.
> 
> To whatever degree it is practiced today,  as always is due to Republican influence.
Click to expand...


Could you provide an example of Republican crony capitalism?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama believes in crony capitalism.
> 
> I don't believe JFK did.
> 
> The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party.  It is its reason for existence.  And it has been since it's formation.  It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.
> 
> To whatever degree it is practiced today,  as always is due to Republican influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah... republicans are the devil, it's all because of Fox, blah blah blah.. Obama's crony capitalism is because he's republican, blah blah blah, up is down, left is right, give me your money, blah blah blah...
> 
> You are nothing but a POS.
Click to expand...


Typical Brownie drivel.  What he wishes were true.  Everyone who disagrees is a POS.  

Any questions?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!*
> 
> God, that's funny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?
> 
> The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.
> 
> If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, as long as the government doesn't confiscate everything they own, they haven't been penalized.
> 
> Thanks for making your communist ideology so obvious.
Click to expand...


Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama believes in crony capitalism.
> 
> I don't believe JFK did.
> 
> The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party.  It is its reason for existence.  And it has been since it's formation.  It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.
> 
> To whatever degree it is practiced today,  as always is due to Republican influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you provide an example of Republican crony capitalism?
Click to expand...


Bedding with business is the mission of the Republican Party. Always has been.  It's fundamental. You are,  apparently,  the only person in the US who is unaware of that. 

What did you think???  They care about the middle class????


----------



## SuMar

PMZ said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives.
> 
> First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?
> 
> The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.
> 
> If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.
Click to expand...




They're plenty of wealthy folks who put in time and money to help those without. It should never be forced upon through the government.


----------



## PMZ

SuMar said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives.
> 
> First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?
> 
> The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.
> 
> If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're plenty of wealthy folks who put in time and money to help those without. It should never be forced upon through the government.
Click to expand...


There is nothing prohibiting them from doing more.  When it gets up to enough,  welfare will no longer be required.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.
> 
> 
> You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved,  and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to,  written down,  and in its final version,  voted into law.
> 
> 
> What you espouse is royalty.  What the king wants is the law.
> 
> 
> Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I do accept and promote the rule of law, especially the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, and also follow the rules of the common law as our Constitution commands.
> 
> 
> Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?"
> 
> Because they were not debated,  resolved,  and ratified democratically.
> 
> They are merely the sides around the table.
> 
> As I pointed out yesterday,  some around the table wanted a monarchy.  It was debated but not resolved,  and ratified democratically. A republican form of government was instead.
> 
> Therefore the words used by those who favored monarchy are disempowered in the law.
> 
> They can be quoted but they hold no authority over us.
Click to expand...



In answer to my question asking you "Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?", you respond by saying *Because they were not debated, resolved, and ratified democratically.*

But the irrefutable fact is, the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted are found in the very debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.  And you admit this fact when you point out that some around the table wanted a monarchy during the framing of our Constitution.  Of course, this was rejected.  

But let us take a specific example of documenting the founders intentions with regard to bank notes e.g. Federal Reserve Notes,  being made a legal tender.  SEE *The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison: August 16* 


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion. 

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best. 


____ cut _____



Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations. 


Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out 
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.  

*[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.*

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any note a legal tender, which, if allowed, would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt. 

So with this evidence, how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, which in fact has created a money monopoly being placed in the hands of private bankers?

I would also like to know why you reject enforcing legislative intent when our Constitution under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce the rules of the common law.  I ask this because under the rules of the common law mentioned in our Constitution adhering to legislative intent is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

*But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*


Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.

  Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd comment that *the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." * So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.

JWK

*The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!*
> 
> God, that's funny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?
> 
> The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.
> 
> If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, as long as the government doesn't confiscate everything they own, they haven't been penalized.
> 
> Thanks for making your communist ideology so obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?
Click to expand...


They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy.   Whether you think that's important is irrelevant.  No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party.  It is its reason for existence.  And it has been since it's formation.  It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.
> 
> To whatever degree it is practiced today,  as always is due to Republican influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you provide an example of Republican crony capitalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bedding with business is the mission of the Republican Party. Always has been.  It's fundamental. You are,  apparently,  the only person in the US who is unaware of that.
> 
> What did you think???  They care about the middle class????
Click to expand...


In other words, you can't give an example.

That's exactly what I suspected.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people .  Only conservatives.
> 
> First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth.  How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?
> 
> The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.
> 
> If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth,  it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're plenty of wealthy folks who put in time and money to help those without. It should never be forced upon through the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing prohibiting them from doing more.  When it gets up to enough,  welfare will no longer be required.
Click to expand...


Who put you in charge of decided how much other people should be forced to pay to support your pet causes?


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I do accept and promote the rule of law, especially the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, and also follow the rules of the common law as our Constitution commands.
> 
> 
> Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?"
> 
> Because they were not debated,  resolved,  and ratified democratically.
> 
> They are merely the sides around the table.
> 
> As I pointed out yesterday,  some around the table wanted a monarchy.  It was debated but not resolved,  and ratified democratically. A republican form of government was instead.
> 
> Therefore the words used by those who favored monarchy are disempowered in the law.
> 
> They can be quoted but they hold no authority over us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In answer to my question asking you "Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?", you respond by saying *Because they were not debated, resolved, and ratified democratically.*
> 
> But the irrefutable fact is, the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted are found in the very debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified.  And you admit this fact when you point out that some around the table wanted a monarchy during the framing of our Constitution.  Of course, this was rejected.
> 
> But let us take a specific example of documenting the founders intentions with regard to bank notes e.g. Federal Reserve Notes,  being made a legal tender.  SEE *The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison: August 16*
> 
> 
> Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.
> 
> 
> Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.
> 
> Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.
> 
> 
> ____ cut _____
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.
> 
> 
> Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")
> 
> On the motion for striking out
> N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
> 
> *[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.*
> 
> The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any note a legal tender, which, if allowed, would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.
> 
> So with this evidence, how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, which in fact has created a money monopoly being placed in the hands of private bankers?
> 
> I would also like to know why you reject enforcing legislative intent when our Constitution under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce the rules of the common law.  I ask this because under the rules of the common law mentioned in our Constitution adhering to legislative intent is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.
> 
> In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could *"cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."*
> 
> It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: *"The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."*
> 
> And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:
> 
> *But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
> 
> "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."*
> 
> 
> Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.
> 
> Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd comment that *the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." * So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.
> 
> JWK
> 
> *The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.*--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence,  2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Click to expand...


You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.  

How do you think that laws are made?

People with different positions present and debate those positions.  At some point in give or take they are close enough to have established a common position synthesized from their original positions.  When everyone  is in agreement with a documented proposal,  the Legislative Body votes and passes or rejects the final position.  

You would like to give equal credibility to the initial positions which were not ratified. 

Rule of law says that the law is not anyone's opinion that may have been part of the process leading to the law.  The law is very specifically what was written and voted on and passed. 


the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

You putting your words in quotes does not make them my words. 

The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.


----------



## dcraelin

SuMar said:


> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.



I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into. 

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation. 

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!*
> 
> God, that's funny!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, as long as the government doesn't confiscate everything they own, they haven't been penalized.
> 
> Thanks for making your communist ideology so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy.   Whether you think that's important is irrelevant.  No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.
Click to expand...


Here's the simple truth.  I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way.  You never will.  Dream on.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.



Post my words substantiating you absurd claim.




PMZ said:


> How do you think that laws are made?



Our Constitution was made and came into effect as exhibited in Madisons Notes, Elliots debates and the various state ratification documents.



PMZ said:


> People with different positions present and debate those positions.  At some point in give or take they are close enough to have established a common position synthesized from their original positions.  When everyone  is in agreement with a documented proposal,  the Legislative Body votes and passes or rejects the final position.



And the debates you talk of establishes legislative intent which is to be observed and enforced under the rules of the common law as commanded under our Constitutions VII Amendment. 



PMZ said:


> You would like to give equal credibility to the initial positions which were not ratified.



Your assertion is absolutely baseless and perhaps that is why you offer no quotes of mine establishing you absurd assertion. But that is your disingenuous method of debate ___ constantly level false accusations, make stuff up, and avoid answering pertinent question when asked.

And just what is it that I give credibility to?  Our written Constitution and its legislative intent as documented during its framing and ratification process.  And, my position is in harmony with the rules of the common law as understood by our founding fathers.




PMZ said:


> Rule of law says that the law is not anyone's opinion that may have been part of the process leading to the law.  The law is very specifically what was written and voted on and passed.



And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the Constitution, but are required to find its meaning as understood during its framing and ratification process.



PMZ said:


> the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> You putting your words in quotes does not make them my words.



But when someone else makes a claim, and you write those words and then agree to that claim as you did *IN THIS POST* you should defend that position and not run from it.



PMZ said:


> The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.



And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written in our Constitution, the Court is obligated under the rules of common law, to document legislative intent from a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to attaching its own meaning to our Constitution as it has repeatedly done. 


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?

You also never answer how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE when no such power has been granted to Congress and our founders specifically agreed to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender?

JWK

*Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post my words substantiating you absurd claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution was made and came into effect as exhibited in Madisons Notes, Elliots debates and the various state ratification documents.
> 
> 
> 
> And the debates you talk of establishes legislative intent which is to be observed and enforced under the rules of the common law as commanded under our Constitutions VII Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion is absolutely baseless and perhaps that is why you offer no quotes of mine establishing you absurd assertion. But that is your disingenuous method of debate ___ constantly level false accusations, make stuff up, and avoid answering pertinent question when asked.
> 
> And just what is it that I give credibility to?  Our written Constitution and its legislative intent as documented during its framing and ratification process.  And, my position is in harmony with the rules of the common law as understood by our founding fathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the Constitution, but are required to find its meaning as understood during its framing and ratification process.
> 
> 
> 
> But when someone else makes a claim, and you write those words and then agree to that claim as you did *IN THIS POST* you should defend that position and not run from it.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written in our Constitution, the Court is obligated under the rules of common law, to document legislative intent from a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to attaching its own meaning to our Constitution as it has repeatedly done.
> 
> 
> Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?
> 
> You also never answer how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE when no such power has been granted to Congress and our founders specifically agreed to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same old,  same old.  You post quotes from dead people whose only credibility is that they lived as contemporaries to our founders.  You say that those quotes empower your higher understanding of our Constitution.  In fact the Constitution itself denies your sales pitch.  The real interpretation of it says that your opinions hold no power it's interpretation.  Only what the Supreme Court says it says is reality.
> 
> So,  yammer on to yourself.  The government is safe from your interference.
Click to expand...


----------



## SuMar

dcraelin said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> 
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...




I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.


----------



## PMZ

SuMar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> 
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
Click to expand...


No such thing as fair.


----------



## SuMar

PMZ said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> 
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.
Click to expand...


Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.


----------



## PMZ

SuMar said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.
Click to expand...


No such thing as fair.  You get more, you pay more.  Not as much more as you get,  but some more.  

No like?  Find a better deal.  The ultimate consumerism.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post my words substantiating you absurd claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you think that laws are made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Constitution was made and came into effect as exhibited in Madisons Notes, Elliots debates and the various state ratification documents.
> 
> 
> 
> And the debates you talk of establishes legislative intent which is to be observed and enforced under the rules of the common law as commanded under our Constitutions VII Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion is absolutely baseless and perhaps that is why you offer no quotes of mine establishing you absurd assertion. But that is your disingenuous method of debate ___ constantly level false accusations, make stuff up, and avoid answering pertinent question when asked.
> 
> And just what is it that I give credibility to?  Our written Constitution and its legislative intent as documented during its framing and ratification process.  And, my position is in harmony with the rules of the common law as understood by our founding fathers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the Constitution, but are required to find its meaning as understood during its framing and ratification process.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."
> 
> You putting your words in quotes does not make them my words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But when someone else makes a claim, and you write those words and then agree to that claim as you did *IN THIS POST* you should defend that position and not run from it.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written in our Constitution, the Court is obligated under the rules of common law, to document legislative intent from a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to attaching its own meaning to our Constitution as it has repeatedly done.
> 
> 
> Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?
> 
> You also never answer how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE when no such power has been granted to Congress and our founders specifically agreed to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same old,  same old.  You post quotes from dead people whose only credibility is that they lived as contemporaries to our founders.  You say that those quotes empower your higher understanding of our Constitution.  In fact the Constitution itself denies your sales pitch.  The real interpretation of it says that your opinions hold no power it's interpretation.  Only what the Supreme Court says it says is reality.
> 
> So,  yammer on to yourself.  The government is safe from your interference.
Click to expand...


Our Constitution was written by dead people and part of that Constitution under its 7th Amendment requires our courts to observe the rules of the common law.

Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?

Is your refusal to answer this question because the 7th Amendment proves you absurd opinion is wrong?

Tell me, our Constitution declares that *Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States*  Our Constitution also declares * No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.*  What is a direct tax within the meaning of our Constitution?  How do we confirm what a direct tax is within the meaning of our Constitution?


JWK

*
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
*


----------



## johnwk

SuMar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> 
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
Click to expand...


Most socialists agree those who are the most productive citizens in society should finance the costs of government, and that is why they support your kind of tax which taxes the bread one has earned by the sweat of their labor.

But there was a time in our country when everyone, even the unemployed, were expected and required to contribute their fair share in meeting the expenses of government.  A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Marylands Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were *compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.*

And the law went on to indicate that *anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.*___ _SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland._

And yet, here we are today with countless factions seeking to manipulate taxation upon incomes so as to relieve their identifiable group from its burden, while creating various other groups upon who the burden is placed.  And it is worthy to note that in many instances under a scheme which taxes incomes, those who do not share in financing the government are actually rewarded and allowed to feed from the public trough. How sad and discouraging it is to hear the cries and well-rehearsed arguments and excuses of those who today support and promote such tyranny.  A tyranny under which the force of government is used to transfer the property of one group of citizens to another, which is carried out under the cloak of taxation.  But keep in mind, there is no magic wand in the force of government which changes the definition of theft!

And exactly what was our founding fathers thinking in a matter in which the property of one is transferred to another using government force?  Representative Giles, speaking before Congress *February 3rd, 1792* sums it up as follows:

*"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."*


JWK


*
They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
*


----------



## johnwk

dcraelin said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> 
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...


And just what is the history of the 16th Amendment?  




In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [thats you and me] to get behind the 16th Amendment.  It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes.

During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying *An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.* 44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). _Note the wording unearned wealth as distinguished from earned wages._

And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: *As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law. *44 Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).

But what these cunning scumbag con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal governments manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working peoples _*earned wages*_ from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff has ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which your pal Roosevelt was behind __ the imposition of the *Temporary Victory Tax of 1942* 

Roosevelts class warfare tax expanded the income tax upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent temporary tax upon working peoples earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax unearned income, the temporary tax on working peoples earned wages was sold as a *patriotic necessity* in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelts class warfare tax,  which robs the bread which poor working people have earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence ___ an outcome which is needed by *progressives on Capitol Hill* to maintain a captive voting block!

JWK

_*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> 
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
Click to expand...


You're not fooling anyone.  You're a lib.

Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money?  Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.  You get more, you pay more.  Not as much more as you get,  but some more.
> 
> No like?  Find a better deal.  The ultimate consumerism.
Click to expand...


Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either.  Do you also endorse that?

How about homosexuals?  Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"

Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy.   Whether you think that's important is irrelevant.  No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth.  I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way.  You never will.  Dream on.
Click to expand...


That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "FUCK YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy.   Whether you think that's important is irrelevant.  No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth.  I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way.  You never will.  Dream on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
> All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "FUCK YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
> Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.
Click to expand...


I agree that long term should be our goal.  Thats the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable.  We need solutions,  not do nothing.  We owe that to future generations.


----------



## dcraelin

SuMar said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> You're not fooling anyone.  You're a lib.
> Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money?  Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."



The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).  

I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway. 

a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?

You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone.  You're a lib.
> Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money?  Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> 
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> 
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> 
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
Click to expand...


There is one real solution to our current economic situation.  Jobs.  Business growth. 

To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused,  on business.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> 
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> 
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> 
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> There is one real solution to our current economic situation.  Jobs.  Business growth.
> 
> To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused,  on business.
Click to expand...


Well, perhaps, but government focus on jobs can result in graft and corruption. Most "economic development" has devolved into corruption.  TIF districts (tax increment financing) is one of the biggest examples. It is just a handout to developers who cant handle a market economy. California, where that idiotic practice began, has now ended the practice which has helped that state tremendously. 

Stadiums are another monstrous piece of graft justified as "economic development" although all honest studies show they hurt more than help.

The best economic development practice that government can do is run cheaply and efficiently without subsidies to corporate beggars and parasites.


----------



## itfitzme

It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.   All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.

That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.  Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.

If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.  

Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.

What does matter is not the tax rate but rather what the govt comsumes and produces.  It is that labor utilization that makes all the difference.  Crowding out is the significant feature.  If the private sector economy can absorb more labor and the reduction in govt output doesn't take away some necessary support, then it is that labor utilizatiom that really matters.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.   All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
> 
> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.  Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
> 
> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
> 
> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.



lol


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> 
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> 
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> 
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> There is one real solution to our current economic situation.  Jobs.  Business growth.
> 
> To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused,  on business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps, but government focus on jobs can result in graft and corruption. Most "economic development" has devolved into corruption.  TIF districts (tax increment financing) is one of the biggest examples. It is just a handout to developers who cant handle a market economy. California, where that idiotic practice began, has now ended the practice which has helped that state tremendously.
> 
> Stadiums are another monstrous piece of graft justified as "economic development" although all honest studies show they hurt more than help.
> 
> The best economic development practice that government can do is run cheaply and efficiently without subsidies to corporate beggars and parasites.
Click to expand...


Jobs are the business of business,  not government.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.   All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
> 
> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.  Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
> 
> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
> 
> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
Click to expand...


In other words, you can't do the math or present anything that proves otherwise.  You simply have some stupid rule that you've memorize without knowing how the economy functions, even at the most basic effect of inflation.


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.   All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
> 
> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.  Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
> 
> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
> 
> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.
> 
> What does matter is not the tax rate but rather what the govt comsumes and produces.  It is that labor utilization that makes all the difference.  Crowding out is the significant feature.  If the private sector economy can absorb more labor and the reduction in govt output doesn't take away some necessary support, then it is that labor utilizatiom that really matters.



Good analysis.  What drives business growth are new products,  often the result of new technology.  

Our current business miasma is the result of business followers hanging on to extraordinary profits to reap personal gain from worker output.  

We will be stuck in this place that is great for them but bad for everyone else until we fire the bean counters and replace them with product and technology and customer people. 

Our job would be easy if they were government people.  We could unelected them. But,  as business followers are essentially accountable only to other business followers,  they are a tougher nut to crack. The problem being that customers have the power but are not effectively organized to use it. 

Until that problem gets solved,  we will  be stuck here with high corporate profits and high unemployment. 

Got any ideas?


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.   All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
> 
> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.  Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
> 
> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
> 
> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't do the math or present anything that proves otherwise.  You simply have some stupid rule that you've memorize without knowing how the economy functions, even at the most basic effect of inflation.
Click to expand...


It's futile to expect anything more from him.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.
> back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone.  You're a lib.
> Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money?  Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> 
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> 
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> 
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
Click to expand...


I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.

So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is one real solution to our current economic situation.  Jobs.  Business growth.
> 
> To some degree this tax thing is a red herring to keep attention away from where it ought to be focused,  on business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps, but government focus on jobs can result in graft and corruption. Most "economic development" has devolved into corruption.  TIF districts (tax increment financing) is one of the biggest examples. It is just a handout to developers who cant handle a market economy. California, where that idiotic practice began, has now ended the practice which has helped that state tremendously.
> 
> Stadiums are another monstrous piece of graft justified as "economic development" although all honest studies show they hurt more than help.
> 
> The best economic development practice that government can do is run cheaply and efficiently without subsidies to corporate beggars and parasites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jobs are the business of business,  not government.
Click to expand...


Then why do liberals politicians always take credit for creating jobs?  Government doesn't create jobs, but it can sure do a good job of destroying them.  Raising taxes, increasing regulations and targeting certain industries for elimination destroys jobs and makes the business climate more difficult and uncertain.

That's what your hero Obama has done.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone.  You're a lib.
> Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money?  Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> 
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> 
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> 
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> 
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
Click to expand...


BriPat hates solutions other than his one.  

Richer rich and poorer poor.  One solution fits all.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.



You sure like saying "well established" a lot.  You're putting the cart before the horse.  Increases in output lead to increases in spendable income.  There's no way to increase spendable income by fiat.  All the government can do is create additional money which only serves to drive inflation.



itfitzme said:


> All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.



Tax cuts don't increase the money supply.  However, one thing they do is put money in the hands of people who produce and take it out of the hands of useless government parasites.  That can only have a beneficial effect on production.  Government creation of money is the only cause of inflation, period.



itfitzme said:


> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.



ROFL!  Of course they do.  How can siphoning off the wages of producers into the hands of moochers and looters not have an effect on the economy?  It has a vast negative effect.



itfitzme said:


> Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.



Huh?  If anyone can figure that mess out, please explain it to me.  By "efficiency" what you really mean is productivity.  The most important factor in increasing productivity is the amount of capital per capita.  increasing taxes siphons off money that would be invested in additional capital and sends it to moochers and parasites to consume.



itfitzme said:


> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.



I don't see the math for that equation.



itfitzme said:


> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.



Again, I don't grock your gobbledygook. There is a big difference between increasing the money supply and increasing government spending or decreasing tax rates.  The idea that the magnitude of tax rates means nothing is ludicrous.



itfitzme said:


> What does matter is not the tax rate but rather what the govt comsumes and produces.



Now you're on more solid ground, but then you lose your way again.



itfitzme said:


> It is that labor utilization that makes all the difference.  Crowding out is the significant feature.  If the private sector economy can absorb more labor and the reduction in govt output doesn't take away some necessary support, then it is that labor utilizatiom that really matters.



Government "output" is virtually zero.  Government hands out checks, but it doesn't produce anything of note.  You're also forgetting the amount of capital per capita.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> 
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> 
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> 
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> 
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BriPat hates solutions other than his one.
> 
> Richer rich and poorer poor.  One solution fits all.
Click to expand...


A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> 
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat hates solutions other than his one.
> 
> Richer rich and poorer poor.  One solution fits all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.
Click to expand...


What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.  

Superheroes?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> BriPat hates solutions other than his one.
> 
> Richer rich and poorer poor.  One solution fits all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.
> 
> Superheroes?
Click to expand...


What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people?  I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions.  That's called "freedom."  That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A government boondoggle is your only solution to any problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.
> 
> Superheroes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people?  I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions.  That's called "freedom."  That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.
Click to expand...


No,  that's called anarchy.  It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.
> 
> Superheroes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people?  I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions.  That's called "freedom."  That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  that's called anarchy.  It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.
Click to expand...


Leave it to the bootlicking worm to come up with a pejorative term for "freedom."


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people?  I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions.  That's called "freedom."  That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No,  that's called anarchy.  It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to the bootlicking worm to come up with a pejorative term for "freedom."
Click to expand...


You,  personally,  can have as much freedom as you want.  But,  it's not free.  What you can't have for any price is the freedom to impose what unarguably doesn't work on everyone else.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No,  that's called anarchy.  It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to the bootlicking worm to come up with a pejorative term for "freedom."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You,  personally,  can have as much freedom as you want.  But,  it's not free.  What you can't have for any price is the freedom to impose what unarguably doesn't work on everyone else.
Click to expand...


I'm not proposing to impose anything on anyone, worm.  That's your stock in trade.

Freedom is about allowing people to do what they want.  Majority rule is about imposing the mob's prejudices on everyone.  That's what you favor.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone.  You're a lib.
> Why do the laws of supply and demand entitle government to anyone's money?  Your explanation amounts to saying "just because."
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
Click to expand...


The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give. 
....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact of taxes on the economy will be less if you take more from the rich and less (percentage wise) from the common man (or woman).
> I guess if you want to say I'm a "lib" on tax policy, fine, I don't care, it's just your cutesy little label anyway.
> a couple of things on JWKs posts.  The Maryland example is how the rich influence tax policy. Why give anyone an out on physical work?
> You are correct in that the income tax HAS come to be dependent on wage earners more than was originally suggested. This I think is wrong. But it really isnt an argument against the concept of a higher proportionate tax on the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
> ....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
Click to expand...


A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.

Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?


----------



## ShawnChris13

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> 
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
> 
> ....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
Click to expand...



Or perhaps a populist is just someone who has differing opinions than you? Too many people seem to think that only the main stream conglomerate political parties have a monopoly on ideas and principles. Anyone outside that box is a 'fence rider' or something or other. Supporting the Republicans OR the Democrats only perpetuates their hold on our political system. 

Haven't you ever wondered why other parties aren't invited to presidential debates? The Republicans and Democrats founded the institution that decides who gets the limelight. End result: just them.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you suggest as an alternative for government functions.
> 
> Superheroes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do I suggest as an alternative to bureaucrats using guns to impose their "solutions" on people?  I propose leaving people alone to come up with their own solutions.  That's called "freedom."  That's the reason people from all over the world are dying to get to this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No,  that's called anarchy.  It's been several millenia since we left it behind because it didn't work.
Click to expand...


So now you contend that our founding fathers were anarchists because they adopted a federal constitution which reserved to the states and the people therein control over their own lives, liberties and property and the internal order improvement and prosperity of the State?


I do not believe the following passage found in Federalist Paper No. 45 describes anarchy:


*The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. 

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. *


JWK


_*..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizensa wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*_ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply.  This is, of course, one of two effects.  When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output.  Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation  Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established.   All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply.  Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
> 
> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect.  Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes.  They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
> 
> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
> 
> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production.  If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output.  Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you can't do the math or present anything that proves otherwise.  You simply have some stupid rule that you've memorize without knowing how the economy functions, even at the most basic effect of inflation.
Click to expand...

Dude, how many times do we have to explain real physical assets to you?  The economy does not exist in a vacuum, nor can it be described by the few factors you mentioned.  That is why statements like yours are entirely clueless to how the real world functions.  Your assumptions amount to nothing more than, incorrect assumptions.  But hey why don't you google up a bucket load of incorrect fud charts that back up your dumb ass straw-man arguments.



>> It is well established that price adjust to the money supply. 
Straw-man

>> This is, of course, one of two effects. 
Straw-man

>> When production has the capacity to grow, then increasing spendable income may increase output. 
Straw-man

>> Otherwise, increasing spendable income simply drives inflation Price inflation due to mometary inflation is well established. 
Straw-man

>> All other things being comstat, increasing spendable income through across the board tax cuts simply increases the money supply. 
Straw-man

>> Lacking any growth, it just drives inflation.
Straw-man

>> That said, at steady state, taxes have no real economic effect. 
Bullshit straw-man.

>> Real output is the result of labor, resourses, and efficiency. 
Straw-man.

>> Nominal prices simply adjust to whatever money supply is available, income after taxes. 
Straw-man.

>> They are not driven by the money people don't have to spend... not on what spendable income might have been if not for taxes.
Straw-man

>> If we are to accept that monetary inflation will drive price inflation then we must accept that decreasing the tax rate will drive price inflation as well.
Straw-man

>> Increasing the money supply, increasing govt spending, or decreasing tax rates are no different and have only short lived effect on prices and production. 
Straw-man.

>> If output is short of full output, then decreasing tax rates or increasing spending will bump output. 
Straw-man

>> Once prices and output have adjusted, the magnitude of the rate means nothing.
Straw-man.

ROFL  But hey, gratz on being able to poorly express the libtard view of macro-economics under the tyrannical rule of a socialist government.


----------



## RKMBrown

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the impact on the economy will be greater.  The rich invest a far higher percentage of their money, so that means taxing the rich reduces savings and investment far more than taxing the middle class.  Savings and investment are where jobs and a better standard of living come from.
> So far I haven't noticed that you're conservative on anything.  Let me know when you think you have posted something that isn't left-wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
> ....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
Click to expand...


Soros invests to destroy economies of countries by betting against them and winning when they crash, he also earns a lot of money through quid pro quo with the president and the rest of the DNC.


----------



## bripat9643

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
> ....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soros invests to destroy economies of countries by betting against them and winning when they crash, he also earns a lot of money through quid pro quo with the president and the rest of the DNC.
Click to expand...


I recall Soros had a big investment in PetroBas, and the Obama regime arranged for the export-import bank to give them a $2 billion loan.

It's funny because PMS was recently blubbering in another thread about how Republicans are the kings of crony capitalism.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
> ....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
Click to expand...


No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself. 

It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich, like liberals Warren buffet, Bill Gates, George Sorros, probably invest heavily in little else other than government Debt when we are putting so much of it  out there. ....  Its a little tough to squeeze blood out of a turnip but you apparently think the burden of taxation could fall more on those who have very little to give.
> ....I consider myself a populist, and have said before conservative and lib are just the two pens they put the sheep into.
> 
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.
Click to expand...


No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.



dcraelin said:


> It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.



Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems.  That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems.  That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.
Click to expand...


Can't wait to see your evidence.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems.  That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see your evidence.
Click to expand...


The evidence is the colossal failure of all government programs.  Have any of them achieved the aims their supporters claim for them?

Government spending is just a black hole for good money.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A populist is an idiot who sticks his finger in the wind to see what he thinks.
> 
> Until fairly recently, Bill Gates had all his money invested in Microsoft stock.  I don't know what George Soros invest his money in, but if it's government bonds, aren't you the kind that thinks it's good for the country for American to buy American government bonds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems.  That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.
Click to expand...


Full employment is the solution to all economic problems.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a populist is one who believes that the people at large should have the power in government, Which is really the base meaning to both Republic and Democracy but those partys have devolved into blind partisan cheerleaders like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is even better to not need to issue so many of those bonds in the first place which is really what hurts private investment, a point you failed to address.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems.  That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full employment is the solution to all economic problems.
Click to expand...


Full employment is the goal of economic policy, not the solution to economic problems.

We'll never have full employment unless the Dims stop trying to wreck the economy.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one disagrees with that premise, so you haven't defined what a populist is.
> 
> 
> 
> Government overspending is at the root of all economic problems.  That goes without saying, unless your a libturd, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full employment is the solution to all economic problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Full employment is the goal of economic policy, not the solution to economic problems.
> 
> We'll never have full employment unless the Dims stop trying to wreck the economy.
Click to expand...


President Obama has done everything government can do, and,  in a remarkably short time, unraveled all of the damage that conservative economic policy under Bush,  created.  

Compare the recovery from the Great Recession from the Great Depression. 

Business is now making record profits,  but conservative bean counter business followers choose to invest money in executive bonuses rather than new products and technology development. 

They love high unemployment because it leads to cheap labor.  Their dream for the US. Make us like India and China. 

We simply need more capable and more liberal business leaders. 

Now.


----------



## SuMar

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.  You get more, you pay more.  Not as much more as you get,  but some more.
> 
> No like?  Find a better deal.  The ultimate consumerism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either.  Do you also endorse that?
> 
> How about homosexuals?  Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"
> 
> Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.
Click to expand...



Libs are suppose to be for equality. I suppose they "pick and choose what is equal". I say equal percentage across the bored.


----------



## PMZ

SuMar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.  You get more, you pay more.  Not as much more as you get,  but some more.
> 
> No like?  Find a better deal.  The ultimate consumerism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either.  Do you also endorse that?
> 
> How about homosexuals?  Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"
> 
> Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Libs are suppose to be for equality. I suppose they "pick and choose what is equal". I say equal percentage across the bored.
Click to expand...


Doesn't accomplish everything that taxes must.


----------



## Gadawg73

"full employment" LOL
There are millions in America THAT DO NOT WANT TO WORK.


----------



## johnwk

SuMar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as fair.  You get more, you pay more.  Not as much more as you get,  but some more.
> 
> No like?  Find a better deal.  The ultimate consumerism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoving Jews into gas ovens isn't fair either.  Do you also endorse that?
> 
> How about homosexuals?  Instead of whining about how unfair our marriage laws are, would you tell them to "find a better deal?"
> 
> Your a bootlicking authoritarian scumbag, PMS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Libs are suppose to be for equality. I suppose they "pick and choose what is equal". I say equal percentage across the bored.
Click to expand...


If you want equality whenever a direct tax is levied upon the people of the United States, an idea which is in harmony with our Constitutions original tax plan, I would suggest adding the following 32 words to our Constitution which would put an end to the tyranny allowed under the socialist inspired tax calculated from incomes. 

*The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money*

Adding these words to our Constitution would accomplish a number of essential goals necessary for good government:

If imposts, duties and internal excise taxes imposed upon specifically chosen articles of consumption were found insufficient to fund the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government, and Congress decided to lay a direct tax to raise emergency revenue, our Constitutions fair share formula would control the apportionment of the burden as follows:

  States population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED =  STATES FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


Keep in mind our Constitution also applies a similar formula for apportioning each States number of votes in the House of Representatives:


State`s Pop. 
___________  X   House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. total pop


Our wise founding fathers tied direct taxation and representation by the same rule of apportionment to prevent an evil of democracy in which people are free to use their vote to directly tax those who they may outvote while avoiding an equal contribution into the federal treasury!

Under the rule of apportioning a direct tax, our founders intended Congress to determine a specific sum needed, and then calculate each states fair share of the burden after which they would send a bill to the Governors and Legislatures of each state demanding payment in a set time period.  A state failing to meet their apportioned share of the burden in the time period set would then allow Congress to enter the State and collect the tax directly from the people, e.g., an apportioned tax upon real and personal property within the state.


Congress would also have the option to lay a capitation tax directly upon the people, and if such a tax is levied, it turns out to be an equal per capita tax! For example, if a progressive representative from a socialist state like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc., votes to federally fund a welfare program, his immediate constituents will be obligated to pay the same amount of tax as a constituent of another state ___ everyone pays the same fair share!

In any event, let our founding fathers speak for themselves regarding direct taxation:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

*With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.* *4 Elliots, S.C., 305-6*

And see:
*The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil**3 Elliots, 243*,*Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax* *3 Elliots, 244* ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution. 

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congresss *general power of taxation* that, *"they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."**3 Elliot, 255*

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of those states contributing the lions share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution,  Mr. PENDLETON says:

*The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion**3 Elliots 41* 

Also see an *Act laying a direct tax for $3 million* in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see *Section 7 of direct tax of 1813* allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


JWK

*
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
*


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the simple truth.  I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way.  You never will.  Dream on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
> All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "FUCK YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
> Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that long term should be our goal.  Thats the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable.  We need solutions,  not do nothing.  We owe that to future generations.
Click to expand...


Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> "full employment" LOL
> There are millions in America THAT DO NOT WANT TO WORK.



Your evidence of that is.....,?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem. Everyone speaks in terms of "today" and what is in it for them and their political views.
> All the while you stick your middle finger to the youth and their kids telling them "FUCK YOU, I want mine and I want it now and I am going to borrow it and force you to pay for it".
> Long term planning is a dirty word these days. You want more government and someone else to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that long term should be our goal.  Thats the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable.  We need solutions,  not do nothing.  We owe that to future generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.
Click to expand...


Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth. 

Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that long term should be our goal.  Thats the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable.  We need solutions,  not do nothing.  We owe that to future generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
Click to expand...



Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk. 

http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
Click to expand...


You,  apparently,  are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt.  While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion,  it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt. 

In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative,  what did he do instead?  Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.  

Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies.  So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.

Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.

Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused. 

It's a problem that only business,  the cause,  can fix.  

We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving,  not contributing,  to that problem.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
Click to expand...


What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You,  apparently,  are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt.  While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion,  it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.
> 
> In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative,  what did he do instead?  Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.
> 
> Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies.  So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.
> 
> Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.
> 
> Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.
> 
> It's a problem that only business,  the cause,  can fix.
> 
> We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving,  not contributing,  to that problem.
Click to expand...



You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened. 

Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
Click to expand...



Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
Click to expand...


"Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers."  In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."  

That's how left-wing propaganda works:  take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "full employment" LOL
> There are millions in America THAT DO NOT WANT TO WORK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your evidence of that is.....,?
Click to expand...


If I have to show you evidence of that you are in serious denial.
Workers comp and social security disability fraud at all time highs.
Millions in this country *DO NOT WANT TO WORK.*
And they don't all the while drawing a check that you support giving them.
One can have minor "anxiety" and get full social security disability benefits.
Real world. Please join us in it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that long term should be our goal.  Thats the main reason why conservatism is unaffordable.  We need solutions,  not do nothing.  We owe that to future generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then cut the spending and quit increasing government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton was the last President that brought us affordable government.  Back then we had business leaders who knew what they were doing.  Now we have business follower bean counters running away from growth.
> 
> Government can't fix that.  Consumers can.  We just need to do our job of country first.
Click to expand...


The Republican Congress gets the credit for keeping the cost of government down.  Clinton wanted to spend a lot more than the budgets that were actually passed.  Furthermore, the peace dividend that Reagan bestowed on Clinton allowed him to drastically cut the size of the military.

One thing is certain, Obama certainly hasn't cut the cost of government.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers."  In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."
> 
> That's how left-wing propaganda works:  take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.
Click to expand...


Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.

In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.

And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
How did he get this job?
He never approved a loan without the software.

Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers."  In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."
> 
> That's how left-wing propaganda works:  take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.



Indeependent said:


> In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
> And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.
> 
> And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
> How did he get this job?
> He never approved a loan without the software.
> 
> Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!



Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.

Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?

That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You,  apparently,  are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt.  While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion,  it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.
> 
> In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative,  what did he do instead?  Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.
> 
> Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies.  So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.
> 
> Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.
> 
> Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.
> 
> It's a problem that only business,  the cause,  can fix.
> 
> We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving,  not contributing,  to that problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.
> 
> Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.
Click to expand...


I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when,  in fact,  businesses deserve the credit.  But I think very often the opposite is also true.  There are many factors that help or hurt the economy.  The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession.  Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over. 

That having been said,  a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics,  that cutting taxes raises revenue.  The two,  especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy,  especially capital gains taxes,  sometimes correlate in time,  sometimes not,  proving that they are independent variables.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.
Click to expand...


That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers."  In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."
> 
> That's how left-wing propaganda works:  take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
> And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.
> 
> And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
> How did he get this job?
> He never approved a loan without the software.
> 
> Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.
> 
> Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?
> 
> That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.
Click to expand...


" Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?"

Because they could disguise the risk and sell it as a mortgage backed derivative.  The due diligence standard for banks was never changed.  But their due diligence was compromised by their ability to dump the risk and obtain assets for more loans.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers."  In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."
> 
> That's how left-wing propaganda works:  take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
> And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.
> 
> And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
> How did he get this job?
> He never approved a loan without the software.
> 
> Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.
> 
> Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?
> 
> That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.
Click to expand...


Ever hear of Fees and Commissions?
I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and all I ever heard from MBAs was, "By the time the sh!t hits the fan, I'll be gone.".
GW, by 2006, knew the economy was NOT recovering from the DOT COM bust so his administration ignored any and all warnings of bad loans and shady investments.
Please provide a list of CEOs who, during the GW years, were approving loans left and right, who were prosecuted; heck...investigated.

Your ideology is blinding you to what actually occurred.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton!? Aargh! He raised taxes and raked in the money from the dot com boom. You know what Clinton did? He pushed for the repeal of Steagall-Glass and have banks the right to use people's personal savings as securities. This ended up causing the 2008 bubble and our current economic problems. Wanna blame Bush? You mean the guy that pushed for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac because they warned of economic disaster in 2002. (McCain also pushed for this) Barney Frank is a freking jerk.
> 
> Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - Sam Dealey (usnews.com)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Redlining" was just a pejorative term that financial terrorists like Barney Frank invented to refer to a common banking practice called "lending to qualified borrowers."  In other words, banks that declined to give mortgages to people who couldn't pay them back, they were accused of "red lining."
> 
> That's how left-wing propaganda works:  take a common sensible business practice, give it sinister name and vilify it so you can get more free hand outs for ticks on the ass of society.
Click to expand...


Redlining was institutionalized profiling.  It was inherently racially prejudicial.


----------



## Indeependent

There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.


----------



## PMZ

Indeependent said:


> There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
> The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.



My experience also.  Country Wide was a boom and bust business built on loans to everyone.


----------



## Indeependent

PMZ said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
> The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience also.  Country Wide was a boom and bust business built on loans to everyone.
Click to expand...


Poor bastards must have been "terrified" when they were approving all of those 600K Home Equity loans to Caucasians who were making 40K/year.
Simply "terrified" that Whitey would march in the streets.


----------



## PMZ

Indeependent said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few Loan Officers in my Town with really big mansions.
> The mansions were built between 2007 and the 2008 crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience also.  Country Wide was a boom and bust business built on loans to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor bastards must have been "terrified" when they were approving all of those 600K Home Equity loans to Caucasians who were making 40K/year.
> Simply "terrified" that Whitey would march in the streets.
Click to expand...


Sometimes the best solution to ethical angst is a big bonus.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Barney Frank ended was "Red lining",  an inherently prejudicial practice. It never had any business being used by one bank  much less nearly all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.
Click to expand...



I'm not wishing. He testified in hearings that there was nothing to worry about and Republicans should keep their hands off regulating Fanny and Freddy. I'll send you the video I watched of him testifying when I can find the freking thing again.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You,  apparently,  are a big and therefore typically conservative fan of national debt.  While deficit financing is a reliable business tool as necessary for growth and expansion,  it's a drag on national economies when it's public debt.
> 
> In 2001, the CBO advised Bush that if he continued Clintonomics, the country would be DEBT FREE by 2006, and have a $2.5T surplus by 2011. Being a conservative,  what did he do instead?  Declare two holy wars, drastically cut taxes and fuel the housing boom hoping for economic growth to raise revenue.
> 
> Because Republicans had the House on strike, it took Democrats almost a full term to end those debt building policies.  So Bush conservative decisions not only cost us our prime opportunity to be debt free but added to it for a grand total of $17T.
> 
> Conservatives have been programmed by Republican media propaganda to believe that government is responsible for business. Business is responsible for business including sending millions of American careers overseas.
> 
> Now the one problem from the reign of Bush II is the unemployment that sending those jobs away caused.
> 
> It's a problem that only business,  the cause,  can fix.
> 
> We the people need to be directing our consuming to those businesses that are solving,  not contributing,  to that problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.
> 
> Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when,  in fact,  businesses deserve the credit.  But I think very often the opposite is also true.  There are many factors that help or hurt the economy.  The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession.  Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.
> 
> That having been said,  a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics,  that cutting taxes raises revenue.  The two,  especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy,  especially capital gains taxes,  sometimes correlate in time,  sometimes not,  proving that they are independent variables.
Click to expand...



Reaganomics has been lauded as saving the economy from Carter's mistakes. I think it certainly played its part by allowing companies to invest more in the economy and create jobs. But the income inequality gap certainly began it's skyrocketing subvergence for the middle class.

But if you look at all the current tax increases I would pose that those are hurting the economy alongside our terrible job market. The Fed pushing billions into the market every month is only going to create another bubble that's going to pop.


----------



## Indeependent

Reagan created jobs based on a virtual economy.
He devastated the Bible Belt.
It was like being on cocaine until the crash.
You can't build a city around banks.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too little too late from Barney Frank. He fought to keep anyone from fixing Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac for over a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not wishing. He testified in hearings that there was nothing to worry about and Republicans should keep their hands off regulating Fanny and Freddy. I'll send you the video I watched of him testifying when I can find the freking thing again.
Click to expand...


Fannie and Freddie weren't the problem.  Mortgage backed derivatives were the problem.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know why business caused this? Because banks were allowed to use people's private savings as securities. You know, the kind of savings people use to pay their mortgage if they have to. Then Citi Bank and other banks wrote over mortgages to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac creating the housing bubble. Bubble pops, stock market takes a huge dip and the banks call in the money owed. Foreclosures across the board and bankruptcies rise drastically almost instantly. Business created this issue, and Clinton gave them the power to create it nine years before it even happened.
> 
> Was Bush a great economist? No. But don't claim Clinton was some kind of fiscal genius because he happened to be president during silicon valleys biggest boom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when,  in fact,  businesses deserve the credit.  But I think very often the opposite is also true.  There are many factors that help or hurt the economy.  The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession.  Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.
> 
> That having been said,  a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics,  that cutting taxes raises revenue.  The two,  especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy,  especially capital gains taxes,  sometimes correlate in time,  sometimes not,  proving that they are independent variables.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics has been lauded as saving the economy from Carter's mistakes. I think it certainly played its part by allowing companies to invest more in the economy and create jobs. But the income inequality gap certainly began it's skyrocketing subvergence for the middle class.
> 
> But if you look at all the current tax increases I would pose that those are hurting the economy alongside our terrible job market. The Fed pushing billions into the market every month is only going to create another bubble that's going to pop.
Click to expand...


The only "current tax increases" was the planned expiration of the Bush tax cuts,  primarily for the wealthy,  that,  combined with his absolutely unaffordable holy wars, and the recovery from,  and cost of,  the Great Recession, brought on all of our debt.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> Reagan created jobs based on a virtual economy.
> He devastated the Bible Belt.
> It was like being on cocaine until the crash.
> You can't build a city around banks.



That's a big steaming pile of horse squeeze.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that Presidents are fortunate beneficiaries of good economies when,  in fact,  businesses deserve the credit.  But I think very often the opposite is also true.  There are many factors that help or hurt the economy.  The only time that one of those factors is government is when there is a recession.  Under that circumstance the government can borrow to put a floor under the recession and keep people whole until recovery takes over.
> 
> That having been said,  a major source of Republican economic dysfunction is the myth of Reaganomics,  that cutting taxes raises revenue.  The two,  especially in terms of taxes for the wealthy,  especially capital gains taxes,  sometimes correlate in time,  sometimes not,  proving that they are independent variables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reaganomics has been lauded as saving the economy from Carter's mistakes. I think it certainly played its part by allowing companies to invest more in the economy and create jobs. But the income inequality gap certainly began it's skyrocketing subvergence for the middle class.
> 
> But if you look at all the current tax increases I would pose that those are hurting the economy alongside our terrible job market. The Fed pushing billions into the market every month is only going to create another bubble that's going to pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "current tax increases" was the planned expiration of the Bush tax cuts,  primarily for the wealthy,  that,  combined with his absolutely unaffordable holy wars, and the recovery from,  and cost of,  the Great Recession, brought on all of our debt.
Click to expand...


Your ignoring the 13 different tax increases in Obamacare.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bizarre thing to wish was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not wishing. He testified in hearings that there was nothing to worry about and Republicans should keep their hands off regulating Fanny and Freddy. I'll send you the video I watched of him testifying when I can find the freking thing again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fannie and Freddie weren't the problem.  Mortgage backed derivatives were the problem.
Click to expand...


Dim propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
> And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.
> 
> And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
> How did he get this job?
> He never approved a loan without the software.
> 
> Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.
> 
> Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?
> 
> That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?"
> 
> Because they could disguise the risk and sell it as a mortgage backed derivative.  The due diligence standard for banks was never changed.  But their due diligence was compromised by their ability to dump the risk and obtain assets for more loans.
Click to expand...


They had to do that in order to mitigate the risk of giving mortgages to unqualified borrowers.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac facilitated the whole process by deliberately turning a blind eye to the quality of mortgages they guaranteed.

The "due diligence" may have never changed _de jure_, but it changed _de facto _because government regulators looked the other way.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.
> 
> Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?
> 
> That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?"
> 
> Because they could disguise the risk and sell it as a mortgage backed derivative.  The due diligence standard for banks was never changed.  But their due diligence was compromised by their ability to dump the risk and obtain assets for more loans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had to do that in order to mitigate the risk of giving mortgages to unqualified borrowers.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac facilitated the whole process by deliberately turning a blind eye to the quality of mortgages they guaranteed.
> 
> The "due diligence" may have never changed _de jure_, but it changed _de facto _because government regulators looked the other way.
Click to expand...


It changed because Wall Street figured out a way to lipstick the pig and sell it. It was their customers that ended up holding the bag.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.



Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
Click to expand...



Yet not in this case and many others. Even the government is good at screwing people as you point out in your support of unfair taxes. Companies are profit motivated for profit. Fanny and Freddy just gave them an opportunity to screw people over. This is the governments fault by root cause.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're a big supporter of capitalism.  Not a Marxist bone in your body, is there, worm?

FYI, government screws us all 100 times worse than all the companies who ever wanted to screw us put together.  Obamacare is the biggest screwing we've gotten in the last 40 years.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
Click to expand...


Government is in the way of the screwing?  The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury. 

Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nations inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?

Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working peoples earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:


 Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants  Bankrupt in October 2011

 Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees  Bankrupt in January 2012  has since exited bankruptcy

 Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant)  Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt

 Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit  Bankrupt in August 2011

 SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Bankrupt in August 2011

 Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust)  Bankrupt in early 2009

 Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009  Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010

 Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011  Bankrupt in April 2012
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:

 A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants  Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs

 Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA  Laid off 2/3 of work force

 First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees  Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired

 Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees  Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland

 Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009  Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity

 Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value

 Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees  Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall

 Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012  ½ work force laid off

 BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012  loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsources solar power purchase would have fallen through.

see:*Green Energys Bankruptcy Blackout*

BTW, *80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.*
And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?  

JWK

 *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).


----------



## Gadawg73

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank ended Blue Lining...well financed Blacks who were habitually denied loans based upon locale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meanwhile, the "terrified" CEOs ordered every loan officer to not only approve every Black applicant but EVERY application.
> And they did it by bypassing the well defined Loan Application software with paper applications.
> 
> And yes, I know this because I know someone who is currently auditing THOUSANDS of these approved loans.
> How did he get this job?
> He never approved a loan without the software.
> 
> Yeah, CEOs were "forced"; give me a break!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.
> 
> Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?
> 
> That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Fees and Commissions?
> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and all I ever heard from MBAs was, "By the time the sh!t hits the fan, I'll be gone.".
> GW, by 2006, knew the economy was NOT recovering from the DOT COM bust so his administration ignored any and all warnings of bad loans and shady investments.
> Please provide a list of CEOs who, during the GW years, were approving loans left and right, who were prosecuted; heck...investigated.
> 
> Your ideology is blinding you to what actually occurred.
Click to expand...


Bull shit. You must have had your head up your ass on the Street.
Bush went to Congress how many times stating that Fannie and Freddie needed to be restructured? The dot com bust had little to no effect on the home building that drove the economy for decades. Dot com stocks were not involved in the financial meltdown from bad loans that were over appraised with little to no oversight on borrowing. "If they breathe fund them" was the cry from mortgage brokers signing them up and AAA ratings on the bundled mortgages for investors.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not in this case and many others. Even the government is good at screwing people as you point out in your support of unfair taxes. Companies are profit motivated for profit. Fanny and Freddy just gave them an opportunity to screw people over. This is the governments fault by root cause.
Click to expand...


Only if you don't apply the facts. 

The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.  

All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're a big supporter of capitalism.  Not a Marxist bone in your body, is there, worm?
> 
> FYI, government screws us all 100 times worse than all the companies who ever wanted to screw us put together.  Obamacare is the biggest screwing we've gotten in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...


You've never heard of profit motive?  Make more money regardless of the cost to others?


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically government enabled banks to screw people. Thanks government! More evidence that both parties should be done away with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is in the way of the screwing?  The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.
> 
> Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nations inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?
> 
> Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working peoples earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:
> 
> 
>  Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants  Bankrupt in October 2011
> 
>  Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees  Bankrupt in January 2012  has since exited bankruptcy
> 
>  Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant)  Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt
> 
>  Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust)  Bankrupt in early 2009
> 
>  Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009  Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
> 
>  Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011  Bankrupt in April 2012
> Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
> 
>  A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants  Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
> 
>  Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA  Laid off 2/3 of work force
> 
>  First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees  Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
> 
>  Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees  Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
> 
>  Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009  Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
> 
>  Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value
> 
>  Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees  Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
> 
>  Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012  ½ work force laid off
> 
>  BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012  loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsources solar power purchase would have fallen through.
> 
> see:*Green Energys Bankruptcy Blackout*
> 
> BTW, *80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.*
> And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Click to expand...


Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not in this case and many others. Even the government is good at screwing people as you point out in your support of unfair taxes. Companies are profit motivated for profit. Fanny and Freddy just gave them an opportunity to screw people over. This is the governments fault by root cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you don't apply the facts.
> 
> The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.
> 
> All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.
Click to expand...


Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not in this case and many others. Even the government is good at screwing people as you point out in your support of unfair taxes. Companies are profit motivated for profit. Fanny and Freddy just gave them an opportunity to screw people over. This is the governments fault by root cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you don't apply the facts.
> 
> The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.
> 
> All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
Click to expand...


The did their due diligence using their usual source,  Standard and Poor's.  Who suspected them to be part of the plot.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the way of the screwing?  The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.
> 
> Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nations inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?
> 
> Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working peoples earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:
> 
> 
>  Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants  Bankrupt in October 2011
> 
>  Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees  Bankrupt in January 2012  has since exited bankruptcy
> 
>  Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant)  Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt
> 
>  Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust)  Bankrupt in early 2009
> 
>  Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009  Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
> 
>  Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011  Bankrupt in April 2012
> Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
> 
>  A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants  Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
> 
>  Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA  Laid off 2/3 of work force
> 
>  First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees  Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
> 
>  Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees  Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
> 
>  Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009  Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
> 
>  Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value
> 
>  Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees  Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
> 
>  Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012  ½ work force laid off
> 
>  BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012  loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsources solar power purchase would have fallen through.
> 
> see:*Green Energys Bankruptcy Blackout*
> 
> BTW, *80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.*
> And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...


Business doesn't invest in technology that consumers don't want.    That kind is definitely "too risky."  Private business developed the airplane, the automobile, the light bulb, telephone, television, radio, transistor, integrated circuit, cell phone, flat screens and countless other innovations, so the idea that technological innovation is "too risky for business" is obvious horseshit put out by goosestepping Obama fluffers.

Green energy is clearly a boondoggle.  It's a technology consumers don't want.  That's why these "investments" always go down in flames.  It's definitely "too risky."


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you don't apply the facts.
> 
> The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.
> 
> All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The did their due diligence using their usual source,  Standard and Poor's.  Who suspected them to be part of the plot.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed many of these loans.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the way of the screwing?  The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.
> 
> Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nations inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?
> 
> Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working peoples earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:
> 
> 
>  Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants  Bankrupt in October 2011
> 
>  Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees  Bankrupt in January 2012  has since exited bankruptcy
> 
>  Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant)  Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt
> 
>  Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust)  Bankrupt in early 2009
> 
>  Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009  Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
> 
>  Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011  Bankrupt in April 2012
> Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
> 
>  A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants  Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
> 
>  Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA  Laid off 2/3 of work force
> 
>  First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees  Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
> 
>  Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees  Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
> 
>  Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009  Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
> 
>  Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value
> 
>  Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees  Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
> 
>  Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012  ½ work force laid off
> 
>  BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012  loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsources solar power purchase would have fallen through.
> 
> see:*Green Energys Bankruptcy Blackout*
> 
> BTW, *80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.*
> And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business doesn't invest in technology that consumers don't want.    That kind is definitely "too risky."  Private business developed the airplane, the automobile, the light bulb, telephone, television, radio, transistor, integrated circuit, cell phone, flat screens and countless other innovations, so the idea that technological innovation is "too risky for business" is obvious horseshit put out by goosestepping Obama fluffers.
> 
> Green energy is clearly a boondoggle.  It's a technology consumers don't want.  That's why these "investments" always go down in flames.  It's definitely "too risky."
Click to expand...


"Green energy is clearly a boondoggle."

Yeah,  let's wait until fossil fuels are all gone then figure out alternatives in the cold and dark.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Business doesn't invest in technology that consumers don't want.    That kind is definitely "too risky."  Private business developed the airplane, the automobile, the light bulb, telephone, television, radio, transistor, integrated circuit, cell phone, flat screens and countless other innovations, so the idea that technological innovation is "too risky for business" is obvious horseshit put out by goosestepping Obama fluffers.
> 
> Green energy is clearly a boondoggle.  It's a technology consumers don't want.  That's why these "investments" always go down in flames.  It's definitely "too risky."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Green energy is clearly a boondoggle."
> 
> Yeah,  let's wait until fossil fuels are all gone then figure out alternatives in the cold and dark.
Click to expand...


Wind and solar are never going to be adequate substitutes for coal and oil.  That's the bottom line.  When we absolutely have to go to a substitute, it will be nuclear.  Shortly thereafter it will be fusion.


----------



## itfitzme

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet not in this case and many others. Even the government is good at screwing people as you point out in your support of unfair taxes. Companies are profit motivated for profit. Fanny and Freddy just gave them an opportunity to screw people over. This is the governments fault by root cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you don't apply the facts.
> 
> The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.
> 
> All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
Click to expand...


It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.

a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.

The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you don't apply the facts.
> 
> The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.
> 
> All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?



itfitzme said:


> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers



Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.



itfitzme said:


> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.



The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.



itfitzme said:


> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.



A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.



itfitzme said:


> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.



There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.
> 
> 
> 
> The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.
Click to expand...


Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.


----------



## Indeependent

Gadawg73 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  There's no evidence such a thing ever occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that happened after they started enforcing the CRA.  If banks didn't give out a certain number of loans to blacks, qualified or not, the bank were denied permission to expand.
> 
> Why would a bank give a loan to an unqualified borrower unless it was forced?
> 
> That's what happens when left-wing scumbags start using government's regulatory powers for social engineering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Fees and Commissions?
> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and all I ever heard from MBAs was, "By the time the sh!t hits the fan, I'll be gone.".
> GW, by 2006, knew the economy was NOT recovering from the DOT COM bust so his administration ignored any and all warnings of bad loans and shady investments.
> Please provide a list of CEOs who, during the GW years, were approving loans left and right, who were prosecuted; heck...investigated.
> 
> Your ideology is blinding you to what actually occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit. You must have had your head up your ass on the Street.
> Bush went to Congress how many times stating that Fannie and Freddie needed to be restructured? The dot com bust had little to no effect on the home building that drove the economy for decades. Dot com stocks were not involved in the financial meltdown from bad loans that were over appraised with little to no oversight on borrowing. "If they breathe fund them" was the cry from mortgage brokers signing them up and AAA ratings on the bundled mortgages for investors.
Click to expand...


First sign that I've won the debate...you falling back on an ad hominem.

Notice you claim nothing of actual Wall Street experience?
All you have is Rush Limbaugh.

And, BTW, Limbaugh was gushing about how much of a genius GW was in doing nothing BECAUSE the Sub-Prime Mortgages amounted to less than 3% of all outstanding Mortgage dollars.

But of course, according to irrational ideologues (are there any other kind?), that measly <3% caused a Global Crash.


----------



## Indeependent

itfitzme said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you don't apply the facts.
> 
> The facts say that banks thought they'd stuck oil by signing folks up for mortgages that they couldn't afford and then immediately selling them to investors as safe investments.  The investors thought that banks still believed in due diligence and bought the risk blindly.
> 
> All the while Greenspan fueled the whole gang bang with ultra low interest rates.  A good time was had by all until the band needed to be paid. The Great Recession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
Click to expand...


You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.
> 
> 
> 
> The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
> 
> The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with your blatant lies?  You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities."  Admit it, and move on.  They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.


----------



## itfitzme

Indeependent said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.
Click to expand...


I have no ideology.  All I have are data and facts.  Clearly you don't know the difference.

This is data and facts;

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr514.html


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Fees and Commissions?
> I worked on Wall Street for 16 years and all I ever heard from MBAs was, "By the time the sh!t hits the fan, I'll be gone.".
> GW, by 2006, knew the economy was NOT recovering from the DOT COM bust so his administration ignored any and all warnings of bad loans and shady investments.
> Please provide a list of CEOs who, during the GW years, were approving loans left and right, who were prosecuted; heck...investigated.
> 
> Your ideology is blinding you to what actually occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. You must have had your head up your ass on the Street.
> Bush went to Congress how many times stating that Fannie and Freddie needed to be restructured? The dot com bust had little to no effect on the home building that drove the economy for decades. Dot com stocks were not involved in the financial meltdown from bad loans that were over appraised with little to no oversight on borrowing. "If they breathe fund them" was the cry from mortgage brokers signing them up and AAA ratings on the bundled mortgages for investors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First sign that I've won the debate...you falling back on an ad hominem.
> 
> Notice you claim nothing of actual Wall Street experience?
> All you have is Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> And, BTW, Limbaugh was gushing about how much of a genius GW was in doing nothing BECAUSE the Sub-Prime Mortgages amounted to less than 3% of all outstanding Mortgage dollars.
> 
> But of course, according to irrational ideologues (are there any other kind?), that measly <3% caused a Global Crash.
Click to expand...


What crash?  All I saw was a market correction and a shit load of bailout money being handed out.  You call that a crash?


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.
> 
> 
> 
> The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
> 
> The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.
Click to expand...


So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?

You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no ideology.  All I have are data and facts.  Clearly you don't know the difference.
> 
> This is data and facts;
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Click to expand...


You have government propaganda. The government never blames itself.

The claim that you don't have an ideology is too precious for words.  True, it isn't rational or coherent, but it's still the ideology that says government can do no wrong - the market is always to blame.


----------



## Indeependent

RKMBrown said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull shit. You must have had your head up your ass on the Street.
> Bush went to Congress how many times stating that Fannie and Freddie needed to be restructured? The dot com bust had little to no effect on the home building that drove the economy for decades. Dot com stocks were not involved in the financial meltdown from bad loans that were over appraised with little to no oversight on borrowing. "If they breathe fund them" was the cry from mortgage brokers signing them up and AAA ratings on the bundled mortgages for investors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First sign that I've won the debate...you falling back on an ad hominem.
> 
> Notice you claim nothing of actual Wall Street experience?
> All you have is Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> And, BTW, Limbaugh was gushing about how much of a genius GW was in doing nothing BECAUSE the Sub-Prime Mortgages amounted to less than 3% of all outstanding Mortgage dollars.
> 
> But of course, according to irrational ideologues (are there any other kind?), that measly <3% caused a Global Crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What crash?  All I saw was a market correction and a shit load of bailout money being handed out.  You call that a crash?
Click to expand...


750,000 laid off per month starting from Sep 2008.
CEOs and Directors being rewarded by GW and Obama.
Business Lines of Credit being suspended for almost a year.
Mortgage Lenders going out of business.

It appears to me that as long as the CEOs and Directors are OK, everything is fine.
It's OK, I know people like you.

As far as a correction, what do we have now for those who stayed in the market?
Global conditions have barely changes for the average person and yet the DOW is skyrocketing without bad loans being given out left and right.
Of course, the average person was never in the game and still isn't.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.
> 
> 
> 
> The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
> 
> The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with your blatant lies?  You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities."  Admit it, and move on.  They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.
Click to expand...


They are not government agencies.  They were independent free market enterprises that were initially sponsered by the gov't.  

Just because Chevy built your truck doesn't make them responsible for your driving it drunk.  Nor does the investment by the government, in Chevy, make the gov't responsible for your driving drunk.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.
> 
> 
> 
> The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
> 
> The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?
> 
> You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.
Click to expand...


 And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.

BTW, you are a bit obsesed with dick.  You are clearly a latent homosexual as no one else was talking about dick.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
> 
> The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with your blatant lies?  You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities."  Admit it, and move on.  They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not government agencies.  They were independent free market enterprises that were initially sponsered by the gov't.
Click to expand...


The government still runs them.  It appoints their CEO and board of directors.  Whose the boss?



itfitzme said:


> Just because Chevy built your truck doesn't make them responsible for your driving it drunk.  Nor does the investment by the government, in Chevy, make the gov't responsible for your driving drunk.



Chevy is responsible if the axle falls off, and yes, if the government is part owner, then it is partly responsible.  However, government is entirely responsible in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It chooses the CEO and board of directors.  Why would Congress hold hearings about Fannie Mae lending rules if it wasn't responsible?


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Estate Investors, the Leverage Cycle, and the Housing Market Crisis - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
> 
> The depth and breadth of your misperceptions of economics will require a lifetime to address.  The single largest issue is the unstated assumptions amd paranoid delusions that drive your fantacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?
> 
> You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.
Click to expand...


You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.

Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute

_Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.

Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises&#8217; deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.

The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_


----------



## RKMBrown

Indeependent said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> First sign that I've won the debate...you falling back on an ad hominem.
> 
> Notice you claim nothing of actual Wall Street experience?
> All you have is Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> And, BTW, Limbaugh was gushing about how much of a genius GW was in doing nothing BECAUSE the Sub-Prime Mortgages amounted to less than 3% of all outstanding Mortgage dollars.
> 
> But of course, according to irrational ideologues (are there any other kind?), that measly <3% caused a Global Crash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What crash?  All I saw was a market correction and a shit load of bailout money being handed out.  You call that a crash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 750,000 laid off per month starting from Sep 2008.
> CEOs and Directors being rewarded by GW and Obama.
> Business Lines of Credit being suspended for almost a year.
> Mortgage Lenders going out of business.
> 
> It appears to me that as long as the CEOs and Directors are OK, everything is fine.
> It's OK, I know people like you.
> 
> As far as a correction, what do we have now for those who stayed in the market?
> Global conditions have barely changes for the average person and yet the DOW is skyrocketing without bad loans being given out left and right.
> Of course, the average person was never in the game and still isn't.
Click to expand...

>> 750,000 laid off per month starting from Sep 2008. The market correction and the layoffs & off-shoring of our labor are two independent issues.  

You'd have a hard time proving either was the cause of the other.

>> It appears to me that as long as the CEOs and Directors are OK, everything is fine. It's OK, I know people like you.

Oh you do? My entire team was laid off at the start of the Obama administration. The jobs were moved to China.  I was out of work for five minutes before I landed another job with another firm.  My ex-firm offered me dozens of positions in dozens of countries around the world.  I turned them down and accepted the layoff check.

Apparently, you don't know people like me.

>> As far as a correction, what do we have now for those who stayed in the market?

Tons of profit, the market rebounded in a big way across the country. 

>> Global conditions have barely changes for the average person and yet the DOW is skyrocketing without bad loans being given out left and right.  Of course, the average person was never in the game and still isn't.

Average for America was and still is well above global "average."  For example, people who don't work at all in America live better than most of the Chinese laborers who do.

As for being in the "investment" game.  Yeah I suppose not everyone decides to sock away a small % of their income for investing.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?
> 
> You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
Click to expand...


That means that the private mortgage brokers screwed the investors that bought the derivatives,  the unqualified people who bought a house that they couldn't afford,  and us tax payers who had to bail Freddie and Fannie out. 

You must be so proud.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with your blatant lies?  You were FOS when you stated "Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities."  Admit it, and move on.  They were GSEs nimrod, not private enterprise entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not government agencies.  They were independent free market enterprises that were initially sponsered by the gov't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government still runs them.  It appoints their CEO and board of directors.  Whose the boss?
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Chevy built your truck doesn't make them responsible for your driving it drunk.  Nor does the investment by the government, in Chevy, make the gov't responsible for your driving drunk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chevy is responsible if the axle falls off, and yes, if the government is part owner, then it is partly responsible.  However, government is entirely responsible in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It chooses the CEO and board of directors.  Why would Congress hold hearings about Fannie Mae lending rules if it wasn't responsible?
Click to expand...


Which would be fine if you could demonstrate that Freddie and Fannie were anything else but market followers.  The point is that simply being sponsered demonstrates nothing.  Your entire reasoning is flawed because it relies on a false premise driven by your warped assignment of cause and effect.

And, in fact, they were not any different than any other free market player.

Why would Congress hold hearings?  Really?  You think that holding a hearing is proof of something?  The act of collecting data doesn't prove anything in anyone elses reality but yours.  I get that you only collect data that will fit your predisposition.  Oh, as Congress often does, based on a preconcieved notion of what they want to find.  Real research, like the Fed paper on flippers, collects the data unbiasedly that draws a conclusion based on the facts.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means that the private mortgage brokers screwed the investors that bought the derivatives,  the unqualified people who bought a house that they couldn't afford,  and us tax payers who had to bail Freddie and Fannie out.
> 
> You must be so proud.
Click to expand...


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not "private" by any stretch of the imagination.  And the unqualified people who bought a house they couldn't afford were not the ones who got screwed.  The banks who the government forced to give them a mortgage were the ones who got screwed.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Business doesn't invest in technology that consumers don't want.    That kind is definitely "too risky."  Private business developed the airplane, the automobile, the light bulb, telephone, television, radio, transistor, integrated circuit, cell phone, flat screens and countless other innovations, so the idea that technological innovation is "too risky for business" is obvious horseshit put out by goosestepping Obama fluffers.
> 
> Green energy is clearly a boondoggle.  It's a technology consumers don't want.  That's why these "investments" always go down in flames.  It's definitely "too risky."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Green energy is clearly a boondoggle."
> 
> Yeah,  let's wait until fossil fuels are all gone then figure out alternatives in the cold and dark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind and solar are never going to be adequate substitutes for coal and oil.  That's the bottom line.  When we absolutely have to go to a substitute, it will be nuclear.  Shortly thereafter it will be fusion.
Click to expand...


"Wind and solar are never going to be adequate substitutes for coal and oil."

Why must their be a single solution? 
Wind and solar are fuel and waste free.  It would be idiotic not to harvest that energy to the maximum extent.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Really?  Who selected the CEO of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
> 
> 
> 
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are arms of the government and were used to implement a government policy of making loans available to unqualified borrowers.
> 
> 
> 
> The recession was precipitated by unqualified borrowers failing to make their payments on their mortgages.  The flippers were nothing more than symptom of a problem created by bad government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem.  The flippers simply cashed in on a bad government policy.  The flippers were a symptom, not a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no free market in mortgages, so that claim is obviously false.  Government set the terms on mortgages by fiat.  banks simply complied with those regulations.  Then the Obama fluffers blame the banks for doing what they were told to do.
Click to expand...


"A government policy of forcing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers is what precipitated the problem."

This the fundamental bullshit that Republican propaganda has sold to weak minds. 

It's an unmitigated lie. Nothing changed the bank's responsibility for due diligence. 

But it keeps the cult addicted to their daily feeding.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are supposed to believe some report by one of the institutions that caused the problem in the first place?
> 
> You might have some credibility of you ever took your lips off of Obama's dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises&#8217; deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
Click to expand...


Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.

Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.

BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
Click to expand...


Oh puhleeze.  The claim that only flipper loans went South is too stupid to even respond to.  Even if that were true, the flipper loans were only made possible by government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles.

Fannie and Freddie are not "simple free market enterprises."  They are government institutions carrying out government policy masquerading as market enterprises.  Loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are generally viewed as risk proof by investors, so these loans were incorporated into mortgage backed securities and sold at a premium. 

Government had its hand in this disaster at every point.  There's no doubt that government caused the crises.  Lenders and investors only followed the cues and regulations that government was giving off.

Government has been the cause of virtually every financial panic this country ever had.  Why should anyone believe the resent one is an exception?


----------



## PMZ

Indeependent said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in all of that mumbo jumbo is the due diligence requirement that investors should do on their own before they invest their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.
Click to expand...


Where's your evidence that I don't?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  The claim that only flipper loans went South is too stupid to even respond to.  Even if that were true, the flipper loans were only made possible by government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie are not "simple free market enterprises."  They are government institutions carrying out government policy masquerading as market enterprises.  Loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are generally viewed as risk proof by investors, so these loans were incorporated into mortgage backed securities and sold at a premium.
> 
> Government had its hand in this disaster at every point.  There's no doubt that government caused the crises.  Lenders and investors only followed the cues and regulations that government was giving off.
> 
> Government has been the cause of virtually every financial panic this country ever had.  Why should anyone believe the resent one is an exception?
Click to expand...


"government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles."

Can't wait to see this documented.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your evidence that I don't?
Click to expand...


This thread contains almost 300 pages of such evidence.


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, boom,  you demonstrate ignorance.  Just ignore the data, facts, and actual research and you can believe anything you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
Click to expand...


The fundamental workings of propaganda is that the people who all got it from the common source reinforce it to each other.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are profit motivated to screw people.  They don't need any help from government.  In fact,  typically, government is in the way of the screwing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the way of the screwing?  The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.
> 
> Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nation&#8217;s inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?
> 
> Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working people&#8216;s earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:
> 
> 
> &#8226; Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants &#8211; Bankrupt in October 2011
> 
> &#8226; Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Bankrupt in January 2012 &#8211; has since exited bankruptcy
> 
> &#8226; Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) &#8212; Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt
> 
> &#8226; Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit &#8212; Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
> &#8226; SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 &#8212; Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
> &#8226; Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) &#8211; Bankrupt in early 2009
> 
> &#8226; Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 &#8212; Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
> 
> &#8226; Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 &#8211; Bankrupt in April 2012
> Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
> 
> &#8226; A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants &#8212; Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
> 
> &#8226; Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA &#8212; Laid off 2/3 of work force
> 
> &#8226; First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
> 
> &#8226; Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
> 
> &#8226; Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 &#8212; Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
> 
> &#8226; Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 &#8212; Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value
> 
> &#8226; Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees &#8212; Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
> 
> &#8226; Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 &#8212; ½ work force laid off
> 
> &#8226; BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 &#8211; loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource&#8217;s solar power purchase would have fallen through.
> 
> see:*Green Energy&#8217;s Bankruptcy Blackout*
> 
> BTW, *80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.*
> And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obama&#8217;s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...


Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working person&#8217;s earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop &#8220;green energy&#8221; technology.  As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal government&#8217;s role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives: 

*"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.&#8221; **Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792*

Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?

JWK

 *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obama&#8217;s Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundamental workings of propaganda is that the people who all got it from the common source reinforce it to each other.
Click to expand...


Yep, and you and idgitme are regurgitating self-serving Federal Reserve propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government is in the way of the screwing?  The truth is, Obama works in concert with his pals who are running a green energy money laundering operation which is plundering our national treasury.
> 
> Obama has been instrumental in taxing hard working people's earned wages living in our nations inner cities, and then transfer their earned wages to his pals who start up phony green energy businesses whose primary object is to get rich by plundering our national treasury?
> 
> Let us take a look at the list who have profited off working peoples earned wages being transferred to them by Obama:
> 
> 
>  Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants  Bankrupt in October 2011
> 
>  Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees  Bankrupt in January 2012  has since exited bankruptcy
> 
>  Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant)  Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt
> 
>  Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Bankrupt in August 2011
> 
>  Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust)  Bankrupt in early 2009
> 
>  Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009  Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
> 
>  Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011  Bankrupt in April 2012
> Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
> 
>  A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants  Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
> 
>  Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA  Laid off 2/3 of work force
> 
>  First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees  Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
> 
>  Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees  Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
> 
>  Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009  Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
> 
>  Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009  Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value
> 
>  Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees  Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
> 
>  Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012  ½ work force laid off
> 
>  BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012  loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsources solar power purchase would have fallen through.
> 
> see:*Green Energys Bankruptcy Blackout*
> 
> BTW, *80% of Obama green jobs money goes to Obama donors.*
> And you have the nerve to tell us Government is in the way of the screwing?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working persons earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop green energy technology.  As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal governments role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives:
> 
> *"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers. **Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792*
> 
> Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Click to expand...


Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental workings of propaganda is that the people who all got it from the common source reinforce it to each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and you and idgitme are regurgitating self-serving Federal Reserve propaganda.
Click to expand...


How about breaking your record streak and posting some evidence that what you wish to be is actually true?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental workings of propaganda is that the people who all got it from the common source reinforce it to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and you and idgitme are regurgitating self-serving Federal Reserve propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about breaking your record streak and posting some evidence that what you wish to be is actually true?
Click to expand...


I already posted the report from the CATO Institute.  it's loaded with all manner of statistics about the mortgage market prior to 2008


----------



## Gadawg73

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one ignoring the facts.  Fannie May and Freddie Mac purchased large numbers of these bad mortgages.
> 
> Fannie, Freddie, and the Subprime Mortgage Market | Cato Institute
> 
> _Changes in the mortgage market, resulting largely from misguided monetary policy, drove a frenzy of refinancing activity in 2003. When that origination boom died out, mortgage industry participants looked elsewhere for profits. Fannie and Freddie, among others, found those illusionary profits in lowering credit quality.
> 
> Foremost among the government-sponsored enterprises deleterious activities was their vast direct purchases of loans that can only be characterized as subprime. Under reasonable definitions of subprime, almost 30 percent of Fannie and Freddie direct purchases could be considered subprime.
> 
> The government-sponsored enterprises were also the largest single investor in subprime private label mortgage-backed securities. During the height of the housing bubble, almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> In order to protect both the taxpayer and our broader economy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be abolished, along with other policies that transfer the risk of mortgage default from the lender to the taxpayer.​_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  The claim that only flipper loans went South is too stupid to even respond to.  Even if that were true, the flipper loans were only made possible by government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie are not "simple free market enterprises."  They are government institutions carrying out government policy masquerading as market enterprises.  Loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are generally viewed as risk proof by investors, so these loans were incorporated into mortgage backed securities and sold at a premium.
> 
> Government had its hand in this disaster at every point.  There's no doubt that government caused the crises.  Lenders and investors only followed the cues and regulations that government was giving off.
> 
> Government has been the cause of virtually every financial panic this country ever had.  Why should anyone believe the resent one is an exception?
Click to expand...


Totally agree but where were the banks screaming when all of this was going down?
Government followed by banks, mortgage institutions, appraisal companies, Wall Street and phony rating services all were in it together.
And no one said a word.


----------



## Gadawg73

Government contributed to the problem and lack of government caused it to go on as long as it did.


----------



## bripat9643

Gadawg73 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't package some of the flippers loans.  Like all free market enterprises, they acted in concert with the free market.  Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the crash.
> 
> Nor does Freddie and Fannie, as you claim, transfer the risk to the taxpayer.  You are oblivious.  The were simply a free market enterprise that got caught up in the free market bubble like all the free market lending banks did.
> 
> BTW; your Cato article is simple BS, drawing on the same faulty premise that has been demonstrated as wrong.  It was specifically flippers that defaulted and took the market down, not subprime mortgages as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  The claim that only flipper loans went South is too stupid to even respond to.  Even if that were true, the flipper loans were only made possible by government policy that forced banks to grant no-doc loans, no money down loans and other high risk lending vehicles.
> 
> Fannie and Freddie are not "simple free market enterprises."  They are government institutions carrying out government policy masquerading as market enterprises.  Loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie are generally viewed as risk proof by investors, so these loans were incorporated into mortgage backed securities and sold at a premium.
> 
> Government had its hand in this disaster at every point.  There's no doubt that government caused the crises.  Lenders and investors only followed the cues and regulations that government was giving off.
> 
> Government has been the cause of virtually every financial panic this country ever had.  Why should anyone believe the resent one is an exception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally agree but where were the banks screaming when all of this was going down?
> Government followed by banks, mortgage institutions, appraisal companies, Wall Street and phony rating services all were in it together.
> And no one said a word.
Click to expand...


Banks have been totally co-opted by the government.  They are practically branches of the government.  the same goes for big Well Street firms like Morgan Stanley.


----------



## ShawnChris13

The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.


----------



## bripat9643

Gadawg73 said:


> Government contributed to the problem and lack of government caused it to go on as long as it did.



You mean regulators deliberately turning a blind eye to the problem because of pressure from the Clinton Administration caused it to go on as long as it did.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and you and idgitme are regurgitating self-serving Federal Reserve propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about breaking your record streak and posting some evidence that what you wish to be is actually true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already posted the report from the CATO Institute.  it's loaded with all manner of statistics about the mortgage market prior to 2008
Click to expand...


Sure, except that it doesn't have any way to differentiate the buyers of houses in the subprime market, specifically, the status of the purchasers that actually defaulted on their loans.  Nor can they say were the subprime defaults occured, for Freddie and Fannie predominately or the remainder of the markets.  Their interpretation can be boiled down to

a) There were subprime motgages.
b) All mortgage lenders had subprime loans.
c) Some subprime loans defaulted.

Ergo....faulty conclusion that it was specifically the purchases of freddie and fannie subprime mortages to owner occupied homes that caused the crash.

They have no evidence of it being specifically freddie and fannie MBS packaged, owner occupied homes that precipitated the market crash.

The singular fact remains that it was the investment flipping market that precipitated the crash.  

The question isn't whether Freddie and Fannie are part of the market.  Of course they are part of the market.  The question is what precipitated the crash.

You should avoid reading "studies" by the Cato Institute because they reach faulty conclusions even on their best data.

BTW;  the Cato Institute article begins with "Liberal pundits"....  a term that clearly presents their bias.  In examining economic data and reaching sound conclusions, there is simply no reason for using the term "Liberal pundits" as it adds absolutely nothing to the research.  What "Liberal pundits" have to say is irrelevant to the quality of mortgage backed securities.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.



"Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"

Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"? 

What evidence did they pass along with it?


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.



Nice unqualified opinion.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
> 
> Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
> 
> What evidence did they pass along with it?
Click to expand...



Here's an example for you: healthcare.gov

Really qualified people building a website for three years spending more than anyone else to write code that doesn't work. I only place out general facts that don't need sourcing because they're obviously and unequivocally true. Go talk to a communications officer on a ship and tell me they're qualified for that. They aren't.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
> 
> Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
> 
> What evidence did they pass along with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example for you: healthcare.gov
> 
> Really qualified people building a website for three years spending more than anyone else to write code that doesn't work. I only place out general facts that don't need sourcing because they're obviously and unequivocally true. Go talk to a communications officer on a ship and tell me they're qualified for that. They aren't.
Click to expand...


Healthcare. gov is working fine.  Only the Fox Opinions addicts who have not used it think otherwise.  Not to mention the telephone option is available for those who need more help. 

I use Medicare.gov which does much the same and has for years.


----------



## Indeependent

PMZ said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me how some folk espouse the wonders of ths free market, calling for liberty and freedom, then complaining bitterly when the free market fails to live up to expectation and blaming that failure on thw government.
> 
> a) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were private enterprise entities.
> b) Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were, like all free market enterprises, price takers and market followers
> c) The recession was precipitated by 1) Flippers, housing investors, that obtained low doc/no doc loans and walked away when thei ROI failed to mee expectations and 2) the deceleration of consumer credit as a whole.
> d) The effects of flippers propogated up the money supply chain as MBSs tanked and CDS came due all at once.
> 
> The entire process was a systematic free market systematic failure as reasonably appropriate market expectations based on past market performance failed to pan out.  The recession was, at its core, caused by the free market failing to meet its expectiom of randomness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your evidence that I don't?
Click to expand...


That, my friend, was sarcasm directed towards those who refuse to see the fact that YOU guys are presenting actual facts and not ideological CATO articles.


----------



## Indeependent

Simply put, Mortgage Brokers and Bankers were required to use software.
They didn't use the software and took advantage of the eventual bail-out.
That's right, the private industry knew well in advance that they would be bailed out.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
> 
> Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
> 
> What evidence did they pass along with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example for you: healthcare.gov
> 
> Really qualified people building a website for three years spending more than anyone else to write code that doesn't work. I only place out general facts that don't need sourcing because they're obviously and unequivocally true. Go talk to a communications officer on a ship and tell me they're qualified for that. They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Healthcare. gov is working fine.  Only the Fox Opinions addicts who have not used it think otherwise.  Not to mention the telephone option is available for those who need more help.
> 
> I use Medicare.gov which does much the same and has for years.
Click to expand...



You obviously are only qualified to type. If you think healthcare.gov is working the way it should then you know that computers turn on and off. And little else. 

Telephone option argument is a deflection and holds no water.

Medicare.gov also had a bad rollout further proving my point.

Government does a lot without having people who know what they're doing do it and they will only continue to do so.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example for you: healthcare.gov
> 
> Really qualified people building a website for three years spending more than anyone else to write code that doesn't work. I only place out general facts that don't need sourcing because they're obviously and unequivocally true. Go talk to a communications officer on a ship and tell me they're qualified for that. They aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Healthcare. gov is working fine.  Only the Fox Opinions addicts who have not used it think otherwise.  Not to mention the telephone option is available for those who need more help.
> 
> I use Medicare.gov which does much the same and has for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously are only qualified to type. If you think healthcare.gov is working the way it should then you know that computers turn on and off. And little else.
> 
> Telephone option argument is a deflection and holds no water.
> 
> Medicare.gov also had a bad rollout further proving my point.
> 
> Government does a lot without having people who know what they're doing do it and they will only continue to do so.
Click to expand...


You too live in the Fox Fantasy. 

Enjoy it,  but please don't vote.  You are too ill-informed.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Healthcare. gov is working fine.  Only the Fox Opinions addicts who have not used it think otherwise.  Not to mention the telephone option is available for those who need more help.
> 
> I use Medicare.gov which does much the same and has for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously are only qualified to type. If you think healthcare.gov is working the way it should then you know that computers turn on and off. And little else.
> 
> Telephone option argument is a deflection and holds no water.
> 
> Medicare.gov also had a bad rollout further proving my point.
> 
> Government does a lot without having people who know what they're doing do it and they will only continue to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You too live in the Fox Fantasy.
> 
> Enjoy it,  but please don't vote.  You are too ill-informed.
Click to expand...



Yeah I'm definitely not a republican. I just know more about how the government works in real life than you apparently do. Also more about computers. 

You accuse me of being ill informed yet can offer no refuting arguments to simple ideas I put out. I would love to see you refute points from people who deal with more specific arguments.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
> 
> Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
> 
> What evidence did they pass along with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example for you: healthcare.gov
> 
> Really qualified people building a website for three years spending more than anyone else to write code that doesn't work. I only place out general facts that don't need sourcing because they're obviously and unequivocally true. Go talk to a communications officer on a ship and tell me they're qualified for that. They aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Healthcare. gov is working fine.
Click to expand...


*BWHAHAHAHA!!!*

Man, you sure are funny!


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and PMZ have GOT to learn never to let FACTS get in the way of ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your evidence that I don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That, my friend, was sarcasm directed towards those who refuse to see the fact that YOU guys are presenting actual facts and not ideological CATO articles.
Click to expand...


They're posting government propaganda.  What makes CATO any more "ideological" than the Federal Reserve?  The paper from CATO includes all the supporting FACTS.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technology development is a risky business.  Too risky for business. When all is said and done, and the pioneers have taken the risk,  there will be huge winners and many losers.  But the winners will repower the world.  And save the world from the dregs of fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working persons earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop green energy technology.  As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal governments role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives:
> 
> *"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers. **Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792*
> 
> Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.
Click to expand...


But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government,  and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:

Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*

Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. 

Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?

JWK


 *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working persons earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop green energy technology.  As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal governments role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives:
> 
> *"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers. **Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792*
> 
> Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?
> 
> JWK
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government,  and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Click to expand...


Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams.  We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution.  You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.


----------



## FA_Q2

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
> 
> Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
> 
> What evidence did they pass along with it?
Click to expand...


I realize that you are not capable of taking anything that disparages the government under Obama as anything other than Fox propaganda but in reality everyone has been reporting it.  It is seen in stark reality when the government pays millions of dollars to develop a website over 2 years and utterly fails to complete the project.  One of those key features that was supposed to be in the system was the ability to shop and compare plans without having to go through an arduous and lengthy sign up process.  The admin has been claiming for weeks that such functionality is one of the things that they are hard at work creating.  Of course, it took a whole 3 days for 3 young programmers to do it for free
3 Guys, 3 Days to Build a Better Obamacare Website - ABC News
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/tech/web/alternate-healthcare-site/
Three Guys Built a Better Healthcare.gov - The Wire

While this is not the same thing as the entire rollout (they use government data that is part of the websites that actually work) it is a major piece that the contractors have completely failed to produce for millions.  Of course, the payment process still has yet to even be coded yet.  That is another integral part that is completely nonexistent.  Perhaps they can ask these three to teach them how to do it?

(Note - NONE of these are Fox but keep clinging onto that fantasy that all bad news is some vaunted Fox conspiracy - the idiocy is so cute)


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government,  and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams.  We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution.  You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
Click to expand...


One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?  I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:

Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*

Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?

JWK


 *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).


----------



## PMZ

FA_Q2 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
> 
> Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
> 
> What evidence did they pass along with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that you are not capable of taking anything that disparages the government under Obama as anything other than Fox propaganda but in reality everyone has been reporting it.  It is seen in stark reality when the government pays millions of dollars to develop a website over 2 years and utterly fails to complete the project.  One of those key features that was supposed to be in the system was the ability to shop and compare plans without having to go through an arduous and lengthy sign up process.  The admin has been claiming for weeks that such functionality is one of the things that they are hard at work creating.  Of course, it took a whole 3 days for 3 young programmers to do it for free
> 3 Guys, 3 Days to Build a Better Obamacare Website - ABC News
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/tech/web/alternate-healthcare-site/
> Three Guys Built a Better Healthcare.gov - The Wire
> 
> While this is not the same thing as the entire rollout (they use government data that is part of the websites that actually work) it is a major piece that the contractors have completely failed to produce for millions.  Of course, the payment process still has yet to even be coded yet.  That is another integral part that is completely nonexistent.  Perhaps they can ask these three to teach them how to do it?
> 
> (Note - NONE of these are Fox but keep clinging onto that fantasy that all bad news is some vaunted Fox conspiracy - the idiocy is so cute)
Click to expand...


The only conclusion possible is that they should gave used government rather than private resources. 

BTW,  anybody who really knows by first hand  experience knows that it's working fine.  If you believe otherwise you're the victim of Republican propaganda.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government,  and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an *Act of Congress in June of 1836* all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams.  We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution.  You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?  I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Click to expand...


" One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."

I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams.  We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution.  You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?  I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
Click to expand...


Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist.  You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?  I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist.  You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist.  You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
Click to expand...


That would be you, worm.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist.  You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
Click to expand...

Happy Thanksgiving retard.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist.  You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving retard.
Click to expand...


I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving. 

Why would you?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist.  You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be you, worm.
Click to expand...


No.  I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
> 
> Why would you?
Click to expand...


You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.

Why would I celebrate?  Cause I have lots to be thankful for.  I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere.  Good times.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
> 
> Why would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.
> 
> Why would I celebrate?  Cause I have lots to be thankful for.  I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere.  Good times.
Click to expand...


Then why are you constantly whining?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
> 
> Why would you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.
> 
> Why would I celebrate?  Cause I have lots to be thankful for.  I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere.  Good times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you constantly whining?
Click to expand...




> A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.



Name one whine you POS libtard.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
> 
> Why would you?
Click to expand...


We're only unhappy with the government, worm.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you, worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  You're fine when the SC amends it by fiat.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.
> 
> Why would I celebrate?  Cause I have lots to be thankful for.  I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere.  Good times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you constantly whining?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one whine you POS libtard.
Click to expand...


Why,  here's one now!


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be you, worm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You're fine when the SC amends it by fiat.
Click to expand...


That's what it says to do. That's a whole lot better then every yahoo conspiracy declaring their own interpretation.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You're fine when the SC amends it by fiat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what it says to do. That's a whole lot better then every yahoo conspiracy declaring their own interpretation.
Click to expand...


Where does the Constitution say the Supreme Court gets to be the final arbiter on the meaning of the Constitution?


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you constantly whining?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one whine you POS libtard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why,  here's one now!
Click to expand...


You need to learn the difference between someone calling you out as a lying piece of shit, and someone whining about their circumstance.   You also need to learn to use the dictionary before you use words, for which you have no clue as to their meaning.

Whine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one whine you POS libtard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why,  here's one now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn the difference between someone calling you out as a lying piece of shit, and someone whining about their circumstance.   You also need to learn to use the dictionary before you use words, for which you have no clue as to their meaning.
> 
> Whine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


You need to be taught some manners,  boy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why,  here's one now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn the difference between someone calling you out as a lying piece of shit, and someone whining about their circumstance.   You also need to learn to use the dictionary before you use words, for which you have no clue as to their meaning.
> 
> Whine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to be taught some manners,  boy.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAdLruOIKmA]Drill Sergeant Therapist - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## jasonnfree

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why,  here's one now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn the difference between someone calling you out as a lying piece of shit, and someone whining about their circumstance.   You also need to learn to use the dictionary before you use words, for which you have no clue as to their meaning.
> 
> Whine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to be taught some manners,  boy.
Click to expand...


Great part about the internet.  You  can mouth off and not get  KO'd.


----------



## PMZ

jasonnfree said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn the difference between someone calling you out as a lying piece of shit, and someone whining about their circumstance.   You also need to learn to use the dictionary before you use words, for which you have no clue as to their meaning.
> 
> Whine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be taught some manners,  boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great part about the internet.  You  can mouth off and not get  KO'd.
Click to expand...


That's why he does it.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams.  We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution.  You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?  I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
Click to expand...


Last time I checked our Constitution declares in crystal clear language that Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*

It also declares *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people*.

So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?  And especially when our Supreme Court, which you hold in high esteem, has stated *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."* ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka ?

JWK


*He has erected a* multitude of new offices (Washingtons existing political plum job Empire) , _*and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance *____Declaration of Independence


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
> 
> Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?  I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
> 
> Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes *[Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals]_* is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."*_ ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked our Constitution declares in crystal clear language that Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> It also declares *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people*.
> 
> So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?  And especially when our Supreme Court, which you hold in high esteem, has stated *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."* ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka ?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *He has erected a* multitude of new offices (Washingtons existing political plum job Empire) , _*and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance *____Declaration of Independence
Click to expand...


"So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?"

I have no idea.  It sounds like you don't either. Fortunately, the founders made an allowance  for people like you and I and everyone else.  They gave the responsibility to make determinations like that to experts. We follow their advice.  

Think of the chaos that would result if they hadn't been prescient enough to foresee the problems that would result if every hack who came along could mangle it's meaning.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be taught some manners,  boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great part about the internet.  You  can mouth off and not get  KO'd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why he does it.
Click to expand...


If you can't take the result of being a piece of shit, maybe you should come up with a new shtick.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> " One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
> 
> I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS.  You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked our Constitution declares in crystal clear language that Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> It also declares *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people*.
> 
> So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?  And especially when our Supreme Court, which you hold in high esteem, has stated *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."* ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka ?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *He has erected a* multitude of new offices (Washingtons existing political plum job Empire) , _*and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance *____Declaration of Independence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?"
> 
> I have no idea.  It sounds like you don't either. Fortunately, the founders made an allowance  for people like you and I and everyone else.  They gave the responsibility to make determinations like that to experts. We follow their advice.
> 
> Think of the chaos that would result if they hadn't been prescient enough to foresee the problems that would result if every hack who came along could mangle it's meaning.
Click to expand...


No they didn't, worm.  furthermore, the justices are not "experts."  They're flunkies.

The reason they wrote the document in plain English is so every American could read it and understand it for himself.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great part about the internet.  You  can mouth off and not get  KO'd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why he does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't take the result of being a piece of shit, maybe you should come up with a new shtick.
Click to expand...


This seems to be your strongest argument to support anarchy.  

Got to tell you,  not very compelling at all.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked our Constitution declares in crystal clear language that Congress shall have power *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries*
> 
> It also declares *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people*.
> 
> So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?  And especially when our Supreme Court, which you hold in high esteem, has stated *"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."* ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka ?
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *He has erected a* multitude of new offices (Washingtons existing political plum job Empire) , _*and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance *____Declaration of Independence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So tell us PMZ, under what provision of our Constitution has our federal government been granted power to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and then transfer that money to private businesses who are allegedly working on green energy technology?"
> 
> I have no idea.  It sounds like you don't either. Fortunately, the founders made an allowance  for people like you and I and everyone else.  They gave the responsibility to make determinations like that to experts. We follow their advice.
> 
> Think of the chaos that would result if they hadn't been prescient enough to foresee the problems that would result if every hack who came along could mangle it's meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't, worm.  furthermore, the justices are not "experts."  They're flunkies.
> 
> The reason they wrote the document in plain English is so every American could read it and understand it for himself.
Click to expand...


You're certainly free to read it as often as you like.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why he does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't take the result of being a piece of shit, maybe you should come up with a new shtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This seems to be your strongest argument to support anarchy.
> 
> Got to tell you,  not very compelling at all.
Click to expand...


Your arguments amount to the ooze that comes off wet donkey shit.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't take the result of being a piece of shit, maybe you should come up with a new shtick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be your strongest argument to support anarchy.
> 
> Got to tell you,  not very compelling at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your arguments amount to the ooze that comes off wet donkey shit.
Click to expand...


You are one classy guy.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to be your strongest argument to support anarchy.
> 
> Got to tell you,  not very compelling at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments amount to the ooze that comes off wet donkey shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one classy guy.
Click to expand...


I call it, how I see it.  You want me to pretend that the bile you spew is benign?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments amount to the ooze that comes off wet donkey shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one classy guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call it, how I see it.  You want me to pretend that the bile you spew is benign?
Click to expand...


I think that if you were anywhere near as smart as you like to pretend that you are, you would drop the one trick pony act of anarchy is the answer to every problem,  that Bush wasn't the worst President that we've ever had,  that business can replace government,  that returning to Clintonomics is toxic and that you are entitled to liberties that you can't even define.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are one classy guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call it, how I see it.  You want me to pretend that the bile you spew is benign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that if you were anywhere near as smart as you like to pretend that you are, you would drop the one trick pony act of anarchy is the answer to every problem,  that Bush wasn't the worst President that we've ever had,  that business can replace government,  that returning to Clintonomics is toxic and that you are entitled to liberties that you can't even define.
Click to expand...


WTF is "Clintonomics"?
Inheriting an economy left by a Republican President and being forced to reform welfare by a Republican Congress?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I call it, how I see it.  You want me to pretend that the bile you spew is benign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that if you were anywhere near as smart as you like to pretend that you are, you would drop the one trick pony act of anarchy is the answer to every problem,  that Bush wasn't the worst President that we've ever had,  that business can replace government,  that returning to Clintonomics is toxic and that you are entitled to liberties that you can't even define.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is "Clintonomics"?
> Inheriting an economy left by a Republican President and being forced to reform welfare by a Republican Congress?
Click to expand...


Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that if you were anywhere near as smart as you like to pretend that you are, you would drop the one trick pony act of anarchy is the answer to every problem,  that Bush wasn't the worst President that we've ever had,  that business can replace government,  that returning to Clintonomics is toxic and that you are entitled to liberties that you can't even define.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is "Clintonomics"?
> Inheriting an economy left by a Republican President and being forced to reform welfare by a Republican Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.
Click to expand...


Clinton never paid down one cent of National Debt. 
Ah, so you also fell for the "Clinton left a surplus" myth. Bet you never took an economics course in college.
The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as T bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when government borrows money from itself, mostly borrowing from social security as was the case with Clinton at the end of his term. 
When you claim that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false as the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton DID do was pay down the public debt. 
But to those of us that know how to add Clinton paid down the public debt by borrowing far MORE money in the form of intergovernmental holdings, mostly from social security.
Am very surprised you fell for that myth.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that if you were anywhere near as smart as you like to pretend that you are, you would drop the one trick pony act of anarchy is the answer to every problem,  that Bush wasn't the worst President that we've ever had,  that business can replace government,  that returning to Clintonomics is toxic and that you are entitled to liberties that you can't even define.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is "Clintonomics"?
> Inheriting an economy left by a Republican President and being forced to reform welfare by a Republican Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.
Click to expand...


Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.


----------



## RKMBrown

Clintonomics:  Hire interns on the taxpayer dime for sexual favors.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is "Clintonomics"?
> Inheriting an economy left by a Republican President and being forced to reform welfare by a Republican Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
Click to expand...


He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.


----------



## PMZ

"Now let's look at Clinton's tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton's stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough.

So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that "we paid down the debt for four years," though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion -- which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997."

From  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
Click to expand...

Rofl. Yeah cause the dot com bubble didn't pop at the end of Clinton's term in office. Rofl. You are a special kind of fool Pms.


----------



## zeke

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rofl.* Yeah cause the dot com bubble didn't pop at the end of Clinton's term in office. *Rofl. You are a special kind of fool Pms.
Click to expand...


What the fuk does the "dot com bubble" have to do with anything? If there is one thing I have learned from reading the drivel posted by people like you rkm, it is that past presidents and their actions have NOTHING to do with what happens under the current President.

That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.

So don't be blaming Clinton for the fuk ups of Bush. Dot com bubble burst my ass. Who cares. It wasn't Clintons fault.


----------



## OODA_Loop

zeke said:


> That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.



Obama didn't inherit anything.

He campaigned and spent millions of dollars to take control.

And he got us nowhere.


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Rofl.* Yeah cause the dot com bubble didn't pop at the end of Clinton's term in office. *Rofl. You are a special kind of fool Pms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuk does the "dot com bubble" have to do with anything? If there is one thing I have learned from reading the drivel posted by people like you rkm, it is that past presidents and their actions have NOTHING to do with what happens under the current President.
> 
> That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.
> 
> So don't be blaming Clinton for the fuk ups of Bush. Dot com bubble burst my ass. Who cares. It wasn't Clintons fault.
Click to expand...


Where did I blame Clinton for the dot com bubble?  Do you have a mental handicap?  The economy estimates that the deficit would disappear were wiped away when the revenue popped due to the dot-com bubble pop.  Then there was Katrina and 911.  Both of which were not predicted.  You retards give Clinton credit for the dot com bubble revenue bubble, then blame Bush for the revenue shortfall when it popped.


----------



## zeke

OODA_Loop said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama didn't inherit anything.*
> 
> He campaigned and spent millions of dollars to take control.
> 
> And he got us nowhere.
Click to expand...



Good God you are stupid. Obama didn't "inherit" you say.

Well let me rephrase that so that your tiny mind can grasp what I said.

Obama did not begin his Presidency that he campaigned for with an economy that didn't exist. He had to start out with the economy that was in place when he took office.

Some people that have an understanding of the English language would even say that Obama "inherited" the economy from his predecessor.

But understanding ANYTHING would rule you out. No matter how "loopy" you are.


----------



## OODA_Loop

zeke said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama didn't inherit anything.*
> 
> He campaigned and spent millions of dollars to take control.
> 
> And he got us nowhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good God you are stupid. Obama didn't "inherit" you say.
> 
> Well let me rephrase that so that your tiny mind can grasp what I said.
> 
> Obama did not begin his Presidency that he campaigned for with an economy that didn't exist. He had to start out with the economy that was in place when he took office.
> 
> Some people that have an understanding of the English language would even say that Obama "inherited" the economy from his predecessor.
> 
> But understanding ANYTHING would rule you out. No matter how "loopy" you are.
Click to expand...


Obama proclaimed _*......I am the man to fix it.....vote for me*_

Now he just blames others.

Total ineffectiveness as a leader.


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama didn't inherit anything.*
> 
> He campaigned and spent millions of dollars to take control.
> 
> And he got us nowhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good God you are stupid. Obama didn't "inherit" you say.
> 
> Well let me rephrase that so that your tiny mind can grasp what I said.
> 
> Obama did not begin his Presidency that he campaigned for with an economy that didn't exist. He had to start out with the economy that was in place when he took office.
> 
> Some people that have an understanding of the English language would even say that Obama "inherited" the economy from his predecessor.
> 
> But understanding ANYTHING would rule you out. No matter how "loopy" you are.
Click to expand...


Same with Bush, you mentally challenged water carrier.


----------



## zeke

RKMBrown said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama didn't inherit anything.*
> 
> He campaigned and spent millions of dollars to take control.
> 
> And he got us nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good God you are stupid. Obama didn't "inherit" you say.
> 
> Well let me rephrase that so that your tiny mind can grasp what I said.
> 
> Obama did not begin his Presidency that he campaigned for with an economy that didn't exist. He had to start out with the economy that was in place when he took office.
> 
> Some people that have an understanding of the English language would even say that Obama "inherited" the economy from his predecessor.
> 
> But understanding ANYTHING would rule you out. No matter how "loopy" you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Same with Bush, you mentally challenged water carrier.*
Click to expand...



You trying to make a point about something? What is it?

That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.

That's a great point. You think Obama would have liked to have the Clinton economy when he was sworn in. 

Or are you so stupid that you think the Clinton economy was worse than the Bush economy?

Or better yet. Are you going to say that the reason the Bush economy went to shit was BECAUSE of the Clinton economy?

That would be really funny if that is what you are claiming.


----------



## OODA_Loop

zeke said:


> That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.



Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"


----------



## RKMBrown

zeke said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good God you are stupid. Obama didn't "inherit" you say.
> 
> Well let me rephrase that so that your tiny mind can grasp what I said.
> 
> Obama did not begin his Presidency that he campaigned for with an economy that didn't exist. He had to start out with the economy that was in place when he took office.
> 
> Some people that have an understanding of the English language would even say that Obama "inherited" the economy from his predecessor.
> 
> But understanding ANYTHING would rule you out. No matter how "loopy" you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Same with Bush, you mentally challenged water carrier.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to make a point about something? What is it?
> 
> That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.
> 
> That's a great point. You think Obama would have liked to have the Clinton economy when he was sworn in.
> 
> Or are you so stupid that you think the Clinton economy was worse than the Bush economy?
> 
> Or better yet. Are you going to say that the reason the Bush economy went to shit was BECAUSE of the Clinton economy?
> 
> That would be really funny if that is what you are claiming.
Click to expand...


>> That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.

Ayup.  

>> That's a great point. You think Obama would have liked to have the Clinton economy when he was sworn in. 

Thank you, and Yup I'm sure he would have preferred the relatively good days of our economy at the turn of the century.

>> Or are you so stupid that you think the Clinton economy was worse than the Bush economy?

No, I'm not.  Clinton's years in office were marked by relative peace on earth, a small fraction of the welfare we have now, thanks to republican intransigence to said spending, and success of the internet based on the people of this nation pretty much creating said internet and taking advantage of the new tech.

Bush's years were marked by federal spending on disasters, wars, off-shoring and on-shoring of jobs, expansions of socialist programs, then of course the resulting drop in individual revenue of every day Americans causing a drop in real-estate prices that highlighted that so many people had no income at all and were speculators and many banks were thus gonna be left holding the bag they approved, this caused the real-estate bubble to pop due to these activities.

The issue I have with Obama is he pretty much left in place every single failed Bush policy, and even doubled down on them.  Then to make matters worse he drove OCA through against the will of the people with no support from republicans at all.  How do you expect to completely change an entire industry of our country, the most important one, with no input or support at all of 50% of the country?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
Click to expand...


The tech bubble began its collapse in 2000 before Clinton left office.  What policy of Clinton's that caused that should Bush have maintained?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rofl. Yeah cause the dot com bubble didn't pop at the end of Clinton's term in office. Rofl. You are a special kind of fool Pms.
Click to expand...


Government had nothing to do with the dot.com bubble.  The policies Bush needed to follow were very simple. 

Stay out of war. 

Tax.  

It took him less than a year to screw both simple policies up.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
Click to expand...


He wasn't smart enough to know.  Somebody told him Reagonomics works.  He believed,  oh Lawd,  he believed. 

The rest is history.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Rofl. Yeah cause the dot com bubble didn't pop at the end of Clinton's term in office. Rofl. You are a special kind of fool Pms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government had nothing to do with the dot.com bubble.  The policies Bush needed to follow were very simple.
> 
> Stay out of war.
> 
> Tax.
> 
> It took him less than a year to screw both simple policies up.
Click to expand...


Every once in a while you say something useful. 

Yes, we should have stayed out of Iraq.  To bad the democrats were for it before they were against it, before they were in charge of it, before they started even more wars than Bush did.

Yes we should have continued to tax the middle and lower income classes to keep them involved in pushing for less government spending, vs. this abortion of a plan to have half the country paying zero personal income taxes, NUTZ.  To bad the democrats have maintained that policy of Bush's throughout Obama's entire term in office.

Funny how the very things you hate Bush for... you love Obama for.  You should note that both parties are guilty of these sins.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct? Isn't it? I mean look at what has happened under Obama and now I know that the economy Obama inherited from Bush had nothing to do with our current economic situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't inherit anything.
> 
> He campaigned and spent millions of dollars to take control.
> 
> And he got us nowhere.
Click to expand...


How soon those short of mind forget 2007-2009.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
Click to expand...


He created failure from success.  There is nobody to blame but he and Cheney. Why do you think that they've been hiding out for five years? Why do you think that the GOP has been leaderless that long?


----------



## OODA_Loop

PMZ said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> That Bush had to work with the economy that was in place when Clinton went out? OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He created failure from success.  There is nobody to blame but he and Cheney. Why do you think that they've been hiding out for five years? Why do you think that the GOP has been leaderless that long?
Click to expand...


This is your pass for Obama ?

Again:

Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"


----------



## RKMBrown

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He created failure from success.  There is nobody to blame but he and Cheney. Why do you think that they've been hiding out for five years? Why do you think that the GOP has been leaderless that long?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your pass for Obama ?
> 
> Again:
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
Click to expand...

That's because despite Bush's bad qualities, that of an authoritarian war hawk socialist, he was a real man, not at all like Obama, the drug addicted sissy boy bastard son of a drunkard communist.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He created failure from success.  There is nobody to blame but he and Cheney. Why do you think that they've been hiding out for five years? Why do you think that the GOP has been leaderless that long?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is your pass for Obama ?
> 
> Again:
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
Click to expand...


Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care. 

The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He created failure from success.  There is nobody to blame but he and Cheney. Why do you think that they've been hiding out for five years? Why do you think that the GOP has been leaderless that long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your pass for Obama ?
> 
> Again:
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because despite Bush's bad qualities, that of an authoritarian war hawk socialist, he was a real man, not at all like Obama, the drug addicted sissy boy bastard son of a drunkard communist.
Click to expand...


He was a Texas man.  Much different than a real man.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He created failure from success.  There is nobody to blame but he and Cheney. Why do you think that they've been hiding out for five years? Why do you think that the GOP has been leaderless that long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your pass for Obama ?
> 
> Again:
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
Click to expand...


ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your pass for Obama ?
> 
> Again:
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
Click to expand...


Once you've demonstrated success,  the path to it is irrelevant. He probably didn't want to embarrass Bush with his grades.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once you've demonstrated success,  the path to it is irrelevant. He probably didn't want to embarrass Bush with his grades.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8]UNBELIEVABLE OBAMA GAFFES, Mistakes, Lies, and Confusion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your pass for Obama ?
> 
> Again:
> 
> Bush never blamed his lack of effectiveness on the actions on others or what he "inherited"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
Click to expand...


And your proof?  Why should he?

By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?


----------



## OODA_Loop

PMZ said:


> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.



Obama has fixed government and health care and it is just FOX lying to think otherwise ?


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
Click to expand...


The people who get prepackaged opinions from Faux Opinions on a daily basis are not equipped to defend them because they didn't form them themselves.  They are merely the current repository. 

What's interesting is that everyone denies watching Faux Opinions or listening to Rush.  Yet there are millions of secondary propaganda outlets posting exactly the same issues and thoughts and words here. 

Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## OODA_Loop

PMZ said:


> The people who get prepackaged opinions from Faux Opinions on a daily basis are not equipped to defend them because they didn't form them themselves.  They are merely the current repository.



"You" really have surmised the motivation and capability of your opponent incorrectly.

I think it easy and comfortable that way.


----------



## johnwk

*Originally Posted by PMZ*


> The people who get prepackaged opinions from Faux Opinions on a daily basis are not equipped to defend them because they didn't form them themselves. They are merely the current repository.



and: 



PMZ said:


> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.



The truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.  

If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will  explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the _Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act_ it cannot be said to be a law passed in &#8220;pursuance&#8221; of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI

Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obama&#8217;s actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the &#8220;shared responsibility payment&#8221;?*

Of course, I doubt if anyone here, including me, really expects you to engage in a productive discussion and shed light on the above issues raised.  Your mission apparently is to troll the thread, be as obnoxious as you can, and avoid any productive discussion about the &#8220;rule of law&#8221; and the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government by our written Constitution.  

Finally, I wonder why you are given &#8220;a pass&#8221; to troll the thread and constantly disrupt a productive discussion.

JWK


*
Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote 
*


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has fixed government and health care and it is just FOX lying to think otherwise ?
Click to expand...


I don't know what fixing government even is.  The fact that people are trying desperately to get in the country rather than leave it means to me that there's no better deal in the world. 

Most of the noise about Obamacare is pure Republican propaganda delivered through Fox and Rush et al.  

Go to healthcare.gov yourself.  It's working fine.  Call the do it by phone number.  Working fine.  Consider all of the private insurance policies offered.  Free enterprise at work.  Consider the coverage.  No more insurance company loopholes.  Consider the policy costs.  Up as has happened every year in memory. Go to Medicare.gov.  Helpful,  friendly, courteous,  kind,  etc. 

There is only one reason for the uproar.  Same reason for all of the uproars over the last five years.  The worst President in our history has derailed the Republican Party.  Their only recourse is to try to drag our perception of the country and their competition to below their dismal performance. They do it by relentless propaganda.  Through many sources but primarily through Fox News who acts like a solely owned subsidiary of the GOP.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who get prepackaged opinions from Faux Opinions on a daily basis are not equipped to defend them because they didn't form them themselves.  They are merely the current repository.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You" really have surmised the motivation and capability of your opponent incorrectly.
> 
> I think it easy and comfortable that way.
Click to expand...


I have not,  of the Republican Party.  I certainly have of some Republican individuals.  I certainly have not of other Republican individuals.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
Click to expand...


ROFL Big "L"  Loooser! hehe Obuma what a dumb ass he is.  He probably did believe we could keep our insurance plans after he regulated them out of existence. ROFL guy's a dumb ass.  Probably due to to much cocaine & weed.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has fixed government and health care and it is just FOX lying to think otherwise ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what fixing government even is.  The fact that people are trying desperately to get in the country rather than leave it means to me that there's no better deal in the world.
> 
> Most of the noise about Obamacare is pure Republican propaganda delivered through Fox and Rush et al.
> 
> Go to healthcare.gov yourself.  It's working fine.  Call the do it by phone number.  Working fine.  Consider all of the private insurance policies offered.  Free enterprise at work.  Consider the coverage.  No more insurance company loopholes.  Consider the policy costs.  Up as has happened every year in memory. Go to Medicare.gov.  Helpful,  friendly, courteous,  kind,  etc.
> 
> There is only one reason for the uproar.  Same reason for all of the uproars over the last five years.  The worst President in our history has derailed the Republican Party.  Their only recourse is to try to drag our perception of the country and their competition to below their dismal performance. They do it by relentless propaganda.  Through many sources but primarily through Fox News who acts like a solely owned subsidiary of the GOP.
Click to expand...



Lol the great deal of free health care paying no taxes and voting for whoever you want while not proving you're a citizen. 

Meanwhile the people working have to get healthcare and pay for the freeloaders by being overcharged by a blanket law that didn't actually address any of the real issues it was touted as fixing.

Yes I can see why people are jumping the border for the great deal over here.


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't need a pass.  He's fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor,  health care.
> 
> The only argument to the contrary is what the Republican Party pays Faux Opinions to broadcast to the minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
Click to expand...



Obama called for Romney to show his tax records because he was running for president and the American people deserved to know about his personal life. Obama claimed it was Romneys duty to share his personal life without showing his.

If you are trying to hold an office for the people, I agree and you should put yourself under the microscope of the People. Not hold double standards and lie and lie and lie and lie.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has fixed government and health care and it is just FOX lying to think otherwise ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what fixing government even is.  The fact that people are trying desperately to get in the country rather than leave it means to me that there's no better deal in the world.
> 
> Most of the noise about Obamacare is pure Republican propaganda delivered through Fox and Rush et al.
> 
> Go to healthcare.gov yourself.  It's working fine.  Call the do it by phone number.  Working fine.  Consider all of the private insurance policies offered.  Free enterprise at work.  Consider the coverage.  No more insurance company loopholes.  Consider the policy costs.  Up as has happened every year in memory. Go to Medicare.gov.  Helpful,  friendly, courteous,  kind,  etc.
> 
> There is only one reason for the uproar.  Same reason for all of the uproars over the last five years.  The worst President in our history has derailed the Republican Party.  Their only recourse is to try to drag our perception of the country and their competition to below their dismal performance. They do it by relentless propaganda.  Through many sources but primarily through Fox News who acts like a solely owned subsidiary of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the great deal of free health care paying no taxes and voting for whoever you want while not proving you're a citizen.
> 
> Meanwhile the people working have to get healthcare and pay for the freeloaders by being overcharged by a blanket law that didn't actually address any of the real issues it was touted as fixing.
> 
> Yes I can see why people are jumping the border for the great deal over here.
Click to expand...


So you have read PPACA, or at least the table of contents, and can identify what parts of the healthcare markets are addressed and which are not?


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama called for Romney to show his tax records because he was running for president and the American people deserved to know about his personal life. Obama claimed it was Romneys duty to share his personal life without showing his.
> 
> If you are trying to hold an office for the people, I agree and you should put yourself under the microscope of the People. Not hold double standards and lie and lie and lie and lie.
Click to expand...


Here are Obama's tax returns.

President Obama and Vice President Biden: 12 Years of Tax Returns ? Barack Obama

Apparently it is a long standing tradition to release tax returns.

So what point do you think you have made?


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> 
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama called for Romney to show his tax records because he was running for president and the American people deserved to know about his personal life. Obama claimed it was Romneys duty to share his personal life without showing his.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to hold an office for the people, I agree and you should put yourself under the microscope of the People. Not hold double standards and lie and lie and lie and lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are Obama's tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Vice President Biden: 12 Years of Tax Returns ? Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is a long standing tradition to release tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> So what point do you think you have made?
Click to expand...



Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:

Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.

Clinton released his school records.

Bush released his school records.

Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what fixing government even is.  The fact that people are trying desperately to get in the country rather than leave it means to me that there's no better deal in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the noise about Obamacare is pure Republican propaganda delivered through Fox and Rush et al.
> 
> 
> 
> Go to healthcare.gov yourself.  It's working fine.  Call the do it by phone number.  Working fine.  Consider all of the private insurance policies offered.  Free enterprise at work.  Consider the coverage.  No more insurance company loopholes.  Consider the policy costs.  Up as has happened every year in memory. Go to Medicare.gov.  Helpful,  friendly, courteous,  kind,  etc.
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one reason for the uproar.  Same reason for all of the uproars over the last five years.  The worst President in our history has derailed the Republican Party.  Their only recourse is to try to drag our perception of the country and their competition to below their dismal performance. They do it by relentless propaganda.  Through many sources but primarily through Fox News who acts like a solely owned subsidiary of the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the great deal of free health care paying no taxes and voting for whoever you want while not proving you're a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the people working have to get healthcare and pay for the freeloaders by being overcharged by a blanket law that didn't actually address any of the real issues it was touted as fixing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can see why people are jumping the border for the great deal over here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have read PPACA, or at least the table of contents, and can identify what parts of the healthcare markets are addressed and which are not?
Click to expand...



You're really good at dumb questions. 

Please pose an actual rebuttal if you disagree with what I said.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> I don't know what fixing government even is. .



Then why did you tell us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*

The truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision. 

If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI

Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*

JWK



*
Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote 
*


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Big "L"  Loooser! hehe Obuma what a dumb ass he is.  He probably did believe we could keep our insurance plans after he regulated them out of existence. ROFL guy's a dumb ass.  Probably due to to much cocaine & weed.
Click to expand...




You sound exactly like someone I recently observed that didn't take her antipsychotic meds. She too got all distracted in her rants, talking about illegal drugs.

 So you are actually suppose to be taking antipsychotic meds..  You are unable to concentrate appropriately and go off on irrelevant tangents.


----------



## RKMBrown

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Big "L"  Loooser! hehe Obuma what a dumb ass he is.  He probably did believe we could keep our insurance plans after he regulated them out of existence. ROFL guy's a dumb ass.  Probably due to to much cocaine & weed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound exactly like someone I recently observed that didn't take her antipsychotic meds. She too got all distracted in her rants, talking about illegal drugs.
> 
> So you are actually suppose to be taking antipsychotic meds..  You are unable to concentrate appropriately and go off on irrelevant tangents.
Click to expand...


And you sound exactly like some looser socialists I know who never amounted to a hill of beans in life.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol the great deal of free health care paying no taxes and voting for whoever you want while not proving you're a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the people working have to get healthcare and pay for the freeloaders by being overcharged by a blanket law that didn't actually address any of the real issues it was touted as fixing.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can see why people are jumping the border for the great deal over here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have read PPACA, or at least the table of contents, and can identify what parts of the healthcare markets are addressed and which are not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're really good at dumb questions.
> 
> Please pose an actual rebuttal if you disagree with what I said.
Click to expand...


So you haven't read it.  Nor have you posed an actual rebuttal to anything.  All you have done is make unsubstantiated, overgeneralized, and meaningless claims about a subject for which you have absolutely actual knowledge.

I ask the "dumb" questions as complex questions, even simple ones, are beyond you capability.

You may ask me the question and the answer is yes, along with Money flow, Supply, Demand, and Market inefficiencies.


----------



## itfitzme

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Big "L"  Loooser! hehe Obuma what a dumb ass he is.  He probably did believe we could keep our insurance plans after he regulated them out of existence. ROFL guy's a dumb ass.  Probably due to to much cocaine & weed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound exactly like someone I recently observed that didn't take her antipsychotic meds. She too got all distracted in her rants, talking about illegal drugs.
> 
> So you are actually suppose to be taking antipsychotic meds..  You are unable to concentrate appropriately and go off on irrelevant tangents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you sound exactly like some looser socialists I know who never amounted to a hill of beans in life.
Click to expand...


Well, the opinion of someone that is off of their perscribed anti psychotics and is unable to focus really doesn't mean anything.  You aren't able to judge what other people are about.

You are still living with some rape and bondage fantacy.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL Obama is so bad he can't even show his college records.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your proof?  Why should he?
> 
> By what principle of freedom and liberty, by what Constitutional principle, should he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL Big "L"  Loooser! hehe Obuma what a dumb ass he is.  He probably did believe we could keep our insurance plans after he regulated them out of existence. ROFL guy's a dumb ass.  Probably due to to much cocaine & weed.
Click to expand...


We realize how difficult it is to defend Bush and Texas. I honestly can't think of any alternative that you have more effective than insulting everybody who thinks for themselves.  

Tragic,  but true.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what fixing government even is. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you tell us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> The truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> *
Click to expand...


You really don't understand the difference between "fixing government" and "fixed all that government can"? 

No wonder you're so easily manipulated.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama called for Romney to show his tax records because he was running for president and the American people deserved to know about his personal life. Obama claimed it was Romneys duty to share his personal life without showing his.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to hold an office for the people, I agree and you should put yourself under the microscope of the People. Not hold double standards and lie and lie and lie and lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are Obama's tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Vice President Biden: 12 Years of Tax Returns ? Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is a long standing tradition to release tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> So what point do you think you have made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:
> 
> Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.
> 
> Clinton released his school records.
> 
> Bush released his school records.
> 
> Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.
Click to expand...


And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.

"Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].

Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are Obama's tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Vice President Biden: 12 Years of Tax Returns ? Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is a long standing tradition to release tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> So what point do you think you have made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:
> 
> Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.
> 
> Clinton released his school records.
> 
> Bush released his school records.
> 
> Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
Click to expand...


Brownie is big on "liberty"  which is Faux Opinions code for "entitlement". 

It's not to be questioned.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Fair is an equal percentage of taxes...


----------



## PMZ

Matthew said:


> Fair is an equal percentage of taxes...



"Fair" is an abstraction.  Nothing can be objectively described as fair


----------



## itfitzme

Matthew said:


> Fair is an equal percentage of taxes...



Well, actually, there is no word "fair" in economics.

Maximizing economic performance may be better.


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are Obama's tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama and Vice President Biden: 12 Years of Tax Returns ? Barack Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it is a long standing tradition to release tax returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what point do you think you have made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton released his school records.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush released his school records.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> 
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
Click to expand...



You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have read PPACA, or at least the table of contents, and can identify what parts of the healthcare markets are addressed and which are not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're really good at dumb questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Please pose an actual rebuttal if you disagree with what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't read it.  Nor have you posed an actual rebuttal to anything.  All you have done is make unsubstantiated, overgeneralized, and meaningless claims about a subject for which you have absolutely actual knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask the "dumb" questions as complex questions, even simple ones, are beyond you capability.
> 
> 
> 
> You may ask me the question and the answer is yes, along with Money flow, Supply, Demand, and Market inefficiencies.
Click to expand...



General truths are just that. Truths. I need not delve deeper as your only responses are deflections and changed topics. If my simple facts are too much for you have fun debating anything more complicated than tying your show laces. Enjoy learning how open that Cracker Jack box so you have something to enjoy with your kool-aid.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton released his school records.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush released his school records.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> 
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
Click to expand...


Serious charge, without a shred of evidence,  much less proof.  Purely what you wish was true.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're really good at dumb questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Please pose an actual rebuttal if you disagree with what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't read it.  Nor have you posed an actual rebuttal to anything.  All you have done is make unsubstantiated, overgeneralized, and meaningless claims about a subject for which you have absolutely actual knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask the "dumb" questions as complex questions, even simple ones, are beyond you capability.
> 
> 
> 
> You may ask me the question and the answer is yes, along with Money flow, Supply, Demand, and Market inefficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> General truths are just that. Truths. I need not delve deeper as your only responses are deflections and changed topics. If my simple facts are too much for you have fun debating anything more complicated than tying your show laces. Enjoy learning how open that Cracker Jack box so you have something to enjoy with your kool-aid.
Click to expand...


Can you point out one simple fact that you've posted?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you haven't read it.  Nor have you posed an actual rebuttal to anything.  All you have done is make unsubstantiated, overgeneralized, and meaningless claims about a subject for which you have absolutely actual knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask the "dumb" questions as complex questions, even simple ones, are beyond you capability.
> 
> 
> 
> You may ask me the question and the answer is yes, along with Money flow, Supply, Demand, and Market inefficiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> General truths are just that. Truths. I need not delve deeper as your only responses are deflections and changed topics. If my simple facts are too much for you have fun debating anything more complicated than tying your show laces. Enjoy learning how open that Cracker Jack box so you have something to enjoy with your kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point out one simple fact that you've posted?
Click to expand...



Itfitz enjoys coloring books. 

PMZ before you jump on his bandwagon of idiocy just take a step back and focus on the myriad of other things worth talking about. He lists rhetorical questions that don't require me to source answers because he wants to know things like 'are people crossing the border' while simultaneously trying to sound smart by deflecting. I agree with you half the time P but this guys an idiot.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clintonomics is paying down the National Debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
Click to expand...


No he didn't and I explained the facts to you.
You believe what you want to believe based on ideology only.
Clinton did not pay down one cent of the national debt. It rose every year he was in office.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton released his school records.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush released his school records.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> 
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
Click to expand...


Which is faulty reasoning.  A simpler reason is that he just hasn't bothered to.  

A search on Obama's college grades yields that he graduated with top honors.  So your conclusion is further faulted.

That whole Birther thing lends credance to the concept that this "transcript" issue of yours is simply another meaningless pursuit.

Even so, there is no college requirement for the Presidency of the US.

So, what's your point?


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is faulty reasoning.  A simpler reason is that he just hasn't bothered to.
> 
> 
> 
> A search on Obama's college grades yields that he graduated with top honors.  So your conclusion is further faulted.
> 
> 
> 
> That whole Birther thing lends credance to the concept that this "transcript" issue of yours is simply another meaningless pursuit.
> 
> 
> 
> Even so, there is no college requirement for the Presidency of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what's your point?
Click to expand...



I don't care about him graduating with honors so let me further spell out for you what your crayons cannot show you. He's hiding his college records. Which means he has something to hide. I give no credence to birthers or the forgers or the other hooplah.


I only raise the question of what is he hiding. I'm sorry that I didn't just say that, as it appears the concept of someone hiding something for a reason fails to reach past the ROY G BIV mindset you place on everything.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow really? Thinking helps a lot when you read things. But here:
> 
> Obama released his tax returns. So then Romney did.
> 
> Clinton released his school records.
> 
> Bush released his school records.
> 
> Obama pushed his school records under executive privilege so that no one could see them. You really don't see anything wrong with that? Gotta love that kool-aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
Click to expand...




Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't and I explained the facts to you.
> You believe what you want to believe based on ideology only.
> Clinton did not pay down one cent of the national debt. It rose every year he was in office.
Click to expand...


You need to learn what inflation is, nominal vs real dollars.  In fact, between Bush I and Clinton, the real dollar government debt did stop climbing, even reversing when examined on a per capita basis.

In fact, some monetaryist suggest that the recession that followed was caused by this.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is faulty reasoning.  A simpler reason is that he just hasn't bothered to.
> 
> A search on Obama's college grades yields that he graduated with top honors.  So your conclusion is further faulted.
> 
> That whole Birther thing lends credance to the concept that this "transcript" issue of yours is simply another meaningless pursuit.
> 
> Even so, there is no college requirement for the Presidency of the US.
> 
> So, what's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care about him graduating with honors so let me further spell out for you what your crayons cannot show you. He's hiding his college records. Which means he has something to hide. I give no credence to birthers or the forgers or the other hooplah.
> 
> I only raise the question of what is he hiding. I'm sorry that I didn't just say that, as it appears the concept of someone hiding something for a reason fails to reach past the ROY G BIV mindset you place on everything.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.  If you are so convinced that it does, then prove that it does.  Surely you can site some accepted principle in psychology.  I can site one that suggests you have a habit of hiding things.

I simply have a realistic mindset.


----------



## itfitzme

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton didn't pay down a dime of the National debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't and I explained the facts to you.
> You believe what you want to believe based on ideology only.
> Clinton did not pay down one cent of the national debt. It rose every year he was in office.
Click to expand...


Here's a question for you.

What economic entity, in your opinion, should carry debt regularly?  Govt?  Individuals? Businesses?


----------



## Iceman

0% sounds good to me. FEDGOV doesn't deserve a dime. The sooner the default happens the better.


----------



## ShawnChris13

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is faulty reasoning.  A simpler reason is that he just hasn't bothered to.
> 
> A search on Obama's college grades yields that he graduated with top honors.  So your conclusion is further faulted.
> 
> That whole Birther thing lends credance to the concept that this "transcript" issue of yours is simply another meaningless pursuit.
> 
> Even so, there is no college requirement for the Presidency of the US.
> 
> So, what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care about him graduating with honors so let me further spell out for you what your crayons cannot show you. He's hiding his college records. Which means he has something to hide. I give no credence to birthers or the forgers or the other hooplah.
> 
> I only raise the question of what is he hiding. I'm sorry that I didn't just say that, as it appears the concept of someone hiding something for a reason fails to reach past the ROY G BIV mindset you place on everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  If you are so convinced that it does, then prove that it does.  Surely you can site some accepted principle in psychology.  I can site one that suggests you have a habit of hiding things.
> 
> I simply have a realistic mindset.
Click to expand...




You want me to prove psychologically that a guy hiding things has something to hide?

Can I instead postulate, again, that you follow blindly? Just learn to question the obvious things. Then you can ask me to begin citing whatever it is you think I should prove.

What do I have to hide by the way? I'm a sailor we are pretty open people.


----------



## itfitzme

ShawnChris13 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care about him graduating with honors so let me further spell out for you what your crayons cannot show you. He's hiding his college records. Which means he has something to hide. I give no credence to birthers or the forgers or the other hooplah.
> 
> I only raise the question of what is he hiding. I'm sorry that I didn't just say that, as it appears the concept of someone hiding something for a reason fails to reach past the ROY G BIV mindset you place on everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  If you are so convinced that it does, then prove that it does.  Surely you can site some accepted principle in psychology.  I can site one that suggests you have a habit of hiding things.
> 
> I simply have a realistic mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to prove psychologically that a guy hiding things has something to hide?
> 
> Can I instead postulate, again, that you follow blindly? Just learn to question the obvious things. Then you can ask me to begin citing whatever it is you think I should prove.
> 
> What do I have to hide by the way? I'm a sailor we are pretty open people.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you have to hide.  You have, though, managed to hide every shred of intelligent thought so far.  You have yet to actually say anything of substance.


----------



## Gadawg73

itfitzme said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point being what?  That he didn't release them?  Try to be specific.
> 
> "Obama not releasing his transcripts means" [blank].
> 
> Fill in the blank.  Try hard to not get distracted by thoughts of bondage, rape, and illegal drugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did.  And if Bush had maintained his policies he would have paid off our entire debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he didn't and I explained the facts to you.
> You believe what you want to believe based on ideology only.
> Clinton did not pay down one cent of the national debt. It rose every year he was in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn what inflation is, nominal vs real dollars.  In fact, between Bush I and Clinton, the real dollar government debt did stop climbing, even reversing when examined on a per capita basis.
> 
> In fact, some monetaryist suggest that the recession that followed was caused by this.
Click to expand...


Dude, I have a BBA, a MBA and own 3 corporations. 
The claim was not that national debt "did stop climbing". The claim was Clinton LOWERED the national debt. 
And that claim is FALSE.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're captain my captain you so blindly follow obviously has something to hide by hiding his past. If you could think past ding fries are done you would reach the same conclusion. Sorry if my question couldn't be answered by you as it was obviously too complicated. Enjoy your coloring books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't and I explained the facts to you.
> You believe what you want to believe based on ideology only.
> Clinton did not pay down one cent of the national debt. It rose every year he was in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn what inflation is, nominal vs real dollars.  In fact, between Bush I and Clinton, the real dollar government debt did stop climbing, even reversing when examined on a per capita basis.
> 
> In fact, some monetaryist suggest that the recession that followed was caused by this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I have a BBA, a MBA and own 3 corporations.
> The claim was not that national debt "did stop climbing". The claim was Clinton LOWERED the national debt.
> And that claim is FALSE.
Click to expand...


Your claim is false.  He did lower the public debt. 

"Now let's look at Clinton's tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton's stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough."

"So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that "we paid down the debt for four years," though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion -- which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997."

From:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what fixing government even is. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you tell us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> The truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't understand the difference between "fixing government" and "fixed all that government can"?
> 
> No wonder you're so easily manipulated.
Click to expand...

What I do know is you told us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*

But the truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision. 

If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI

Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*

JWK



*
Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote 
*


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you tell us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> The truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't understand the difference between "fixing government" and "fixed all that government can"?
> 
> No wonder you're so easily manipulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do know is you told us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> But the truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> *
Click to expand...


Don't worry,  if you live long enough,  you'll see Republicans recovered and back in power,  and then you can use your collection of pre Constitution,  debate  floor  sweepings to support another attempt to destroy America.  We can hope that the next one else will be less successful than the last one. 

In the meantime I'm sure that your musings will continue to entertain with a never ending recital of "If I Were King".


----------



## P@triot

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you tell us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> The truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't understand the difference between "fixing government" and "fixed all that government can"?
> 
> No wonder you're so easily manipulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I do know is you told us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> But the truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
Click to expand...


Shhh... you can't talk about the Constitution with Dumbocrats. They don't understand such a "complicated" document. You have to dumb it down to their level (think pre-school...colors...shapes...talk softly...etc.).


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't understand the difference between "fixing government" and "fixed all that government can"?
> 
> No wonder you're so easily manipulated.
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is you told us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> But the truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhh... you can't talk about the Constitution with Dumbocrats. They don't understand such a "complicated" document. You have to dumb it down to their level (think pre-school...colors...shapes...talk softly...etc.).
Click to expand...


I,  for one,  am a strict Constitutionalist. Exactly as it's written.


----------



## PMZ

Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's, says, but rather what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.  

For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism. 

The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying to sell, like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.  

Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.


----------



## Iceman

PMZ said:


> Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's,  is not as as accurate as what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism.
> 
> The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.
> 
> Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.



Real Americans support high taxes! lol.

I like your appeal to patriotism there.


----------



## PMZ

Iceman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's,  is not as as accurate as what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism.
> 
> The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.
> 
> Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
Click to expand...


By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?


----------



## Iceman

PMZ said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's,  is not as as accurate as what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism.
> 
> The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.
> 
> Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
Click to expand...

They aren't high enough, moar taxes, moar patriotism!


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is you told us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> But the truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh... you can't talk about the Constitution with Dumbocrats. They don't understand such a "complicated" document. You have to dumb it down to their level (think pre-school...colors...shapes...talk softly...etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I,  for one,  am a strict Constitutionalist. Exactly as it's written.
Click to expand...


*BWAHAHAHAHA!!!*

You're a laugh riot, worm.  

You've already admitted you believe the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says.  That's the opposite of a strict constructionist.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's,  is not as as accurate as what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism.
> 
> The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.
> 
> Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
Click to expand...


No because we're hoping we can elect a more rational gang of politicians.  However, many people are preparing to leave.  Check out this:

The incredible mile-long floating CITY - complete with schools, a hospital, parks and an airport for its 50,000 residents | Mail Online


----------



## bripat9643

Iceman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's,  is not as as accurate as what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism.
> 
> The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.
> 
> Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
Click to expand...


That seems to be the latest Democrat meme.  Joe Biden inaugurated it when he started talking about having "skin in the game."

It's all horseshit, of course.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't understand the difference between "fixing government" and "fixed all that government can"?
> 
> No wonder you're so easily manipulated.
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is you told us that Obama has  *"... fixed all that government can of the wreck that Bush left. And addressed our biggest national economic competitiveness anchor, health care."*
> 
> But the truth is, Obama has repeatedly ignored the rule of law and has imposed his will upon the people without their consent, impinging upon their inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decision.
> 
> If you disagree, I am sure you will defend your opinion and cite to us when the American People debated granting power to our federal government to regulate their fundamental right to make their own medical and healthcare decisions and choices! And, after having this debate, you will explain how this regulatory power was granted within the limits of Article V of our Constitution, which is the only way for our federal government to exercise new powers. Without this part of our Constitution being adhered to in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act it cannot be said to be a law passed in pursuance of our Constitution, which our Constitution requires under Article VI
> 
> Additionally, there is another question which you may be willing to answer since you defend Obamas actions, *What specific tax mentioned in our Constitution is being levied as the shared responsibility payment?*
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process.  Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry,  if you live long enough,  you'll see Republicans recovered and back in power,  and then you can use your collection of pre Constitution,  debate  floor  sweepings to support another attempt to destroy America.  We can hope that the next one else will be less successful than the last one.
> 
> In the meantime I'm sure that your musings will continue to entertain with a never ending recital of "If I Were King".
Click to expand...


How will abolishing the Department of Education destroy America?  If anything, the ACA is destroying America.  Thanks to all the Obama fluffers for that.


----------



## boedicca

PMZ said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the oldest extreme right propaganda trick,  is the idea that the Constitution doesn't say what the interpretation that it authorizes,  the Supreme Court's,  is not as as accurate as what they wish was true.  And as proof they offer talking points that some of the debaters spoke, that led up to discussions that they lost in the Constitutional Convention.
> 
> For instance,  many were States (Colony) righters.  They wanted a weak Union of powerful States. The extreme right would like to reinterpret their words as favoring weak government.  Which simply is not something that existed in those times in any models that the founders considered,  which were essentially only somewhat recent graduates of feudalism.
> 
> The real world does not entitle right wingers to what they feel is their due.  So they've built and are trying like real estate moguls,  an alternative world,  that recreates the aristocracy that they crave.
> 
> Just say no.  Over and over.  And keep the America that's always been successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
Click to expand...




Medieval serfs rebelled when their taxes exceeded 30%...

Our Progressive Income tax system retards growth by punishing success..which never works out very well.


----------



## PMZ

Iceman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't high enough, moar taxes, moar patriotism!
Click to expand...


Why must you avoid my question?


----------



## Iceman

PMZ said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't high enough, moar taxes, moar patriotism!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must you avoid my question?
Click to expand...


You disagree that taxes shouldn't be higher? What are you, unpatriotic?


----------



## PMZ

boedicca said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans support high taxes! lol.
> 
> I like your appeal to patriotism there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs rebelled when their taxes exceeded 30%...
> 
> Our Progressive Income tax system retards growth by punishing success..which never works out very well.
Click to expand...


Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves. 

And we pay for many critical services that way.


----------



## bripat9643

Iceman said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't high enough, moar taxes, moar patriotism!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you avoid my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree that taxes shouldn't be higher? What are you, unpatriotic?
Click to expand...


The question isn't why can't we raise taxes.  The question is why shouldn't we cut them by 70%?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you avoid my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree that taxes shouldn't be higher? What are you, unpatriotic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question isn't why can't we raise taxes.  The question is why shouldn't we cut them by 70%?
Click to expand...


Our control on taxes is at the polls.  Vote for the people that you believe will bring about what you want.  I will too.  We each have no choice but to live with the results.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> By what actual real world measures are our taxes high? If they were,  wouldn't you expect people like you to be leaving?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs rebelled when their taxes exceeded 30%...
> 
> Our Progressive Income tax system retards growth by punishing success..which never works out very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves.
Click to expand...


Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.

The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  What each person produces is the point.



PMZ said:


> And we pay for many critical services that way.



Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree that taxes shouldn't be higher? What are you, unpatriotic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't why can't we raise taxes.  The question is why shouldn't we cut them by 70%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our control on taxes is at the polls.  Vote for the people that you believe will bring about what you want.  I will too.  We each have no choice but to live with the results.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur.

Why can't we cut taxes by 70%?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs rebelled when their taxes exceeded 30%...
> 
> Our Progressive Income tax system retards growth by punishing success..which never works out very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  What each person produces is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we pay for many critical services that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


You do understand that money circulates,  right? 

We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly,  if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.


----------



## zeke

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medieval serfs rebelled when their taxes exceeded 30%...
> 
> Our Progressive Income tax system retards growth by punishing success..which never works out very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that *taking money from people who actually produce something *and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  *What each person produces is the point.*
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we pay for many critical services that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
Click to expand...



Well at least you don't have to worry about that. I mean, other than 22,500 posts of drivel what is it you "produce?" Bile? Weird rhetoric?

I mean wtf do you produce that is worthwhile that people would spend money on?


----------



## PMZ

zeke said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that *taking money from people who actually produce something *and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  *What each person produces is the point.*
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we pay for many critical services that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you don't have to worry about that. I mean, other than 22,500 posts of drivel what is it you "produce?" Bile? Weird rhetoric?
> 
> I mean wtf do you produce that is worthwhile that people would spend money on?
Click to expand...


He's a major player in the ignorance market.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question isn't why can't we raise taxes.  The question is why shouldn't we cut them by 70%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our control on taxes is at the polls.  Vote for the people that you believe will bring about what you want.  I will too.  We each have no choice but to live with the results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Why can't we cut taxes by 70%?
Click to expand...


The simple truth is not a non sequitur,  no matter how inconvenient.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our control on taxes is at the polls.  Vote for the people that you believe will bring about what you want.  I will too.  We each have no choice but to live with the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Why can't we cut taxes by 70%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The simple truth is not a non sequitur,  no matter how inconvenient.
Click to expand...


You are still refusing to answer the question.  You asked why we can't raise taxes.  The corollary to the proposition is the question "why can't we lower taxes and government spending?"

You obviously don't want to answer the question.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.



Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.


----------



## bripat9643

zeke said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that *taking money from people who actually produce something *and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  *What each person produces is the point.*
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we pay for many critical services that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least you don't have to worry about that. I mean, other than 22,500 posts of drivel what is it you "produce?" Bile? Weird rhetoric?
> 
> I mean wtf do you produce that is worthwhile that people would spend money on?
Click to expand...


What difference does it make what I produce since I'm not sucking off the taxpayers?

The question is what does a tick on the ass of society produce that justifies giving him a slice of the money I earn? 

What does the Dept of Education produce?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.
Click to expand...


Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.

On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Why can't we cut taxes by 70%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is not a non sequitur,  no matter how inconvenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still refusing to answer the question.  You asked why we can't raise taxes.  The corollary to the proposition is the question "why can't we lower taxes and government spending?"
> 
> You obviously don't want to answer the question.
Click to expand...


"You asked why we can't raise taxes." 

No,  I didn't. 

Taxes are merely the consequence of services.  Just like privately produced products have a cost. 

Private companies price by market forces and charge whatever the market bears despite the cost.  

Government supplied services are priced at cost. 

We should always ask what services have lost their value and what new needs for additional services have arisen. 

And tax accordingly.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero evidence that the government spending our taxes on goods and services has any different impact on our economy than Americans putting the same money back into circulation themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  What each person produces is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we pay for many critical services that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand that money circulates,  right?
Click to expand...


Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.



PMZ said:


> We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly,  if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.



There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."  

Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
Click to expand...


"The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."

Workers,  consumers, and shareholders do.  When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing,  that is a parasite.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple truth is not a non sequitur,  no matter how inconvenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still refusing to answer the question.  You asked why we can't raise taxes.  The corollary to the proposition is the question "why can't we lower taxes and government spending?"
> 
> You obviously don't want to answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "You asked why we can't raise taxes."
> 
> No,  I didn't.
> 
> Taxes are merely the consequence of services.  Just like privately produced products have a cost.
> 
> Private companies price by market forces and charge whatever the market bears despite the cost.
> 
> Government supplied services are priced at cost.
> 
> We should always ask what services have lost their value and what new needs for additional services have arisen.
> 
> And tax accordingly.
Click to expand...


When you start saying that Americans pay less in taxes than all other countries, what you're actually doing is lobbying for a tax increase.

As for your bullshit theory about the price of government services, it's a non sequitur because the price I pay for stuff that I don't want and haven't asked for is zero in the free market.  Why should it be any different with government "services?"

There is zero need for services people don't want.  If people had the option of not paying for the "services" of the Dept of Education, it's budget would be zero.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  What each person produces is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that money circulates,  right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly,  if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."
> 
> Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.
Click to expand...


Vote for people who promise no government services.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."
> 
> Workers,  consumers, and shareholders do.  When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing,  that is a parasite.
Click to expand...


Your bullshit theory is false.  Executives aren't useless.  Furthermore, all those exchanges are entirely voluntary.  If the workers don't like what the executive gets paid, they can find a job elsewhere.  If consumers don't like it, they don't have to buy the company's products.  The shareholders don't have to buy the company stock.  However, the government does hold a gun to my head and force me to give money to useless ticks.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that money circulates,  right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly,  if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."
> 
> Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vote for people who promise no government services.
Click to expand...


I do whenever I'm given the choice.  However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head?  How does a majority vote justify robbery?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> The fact that a parasite can spend money just as well as a someone who works isn't the point.  What each person produces is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the Dept of Defense, I can't think of a single "critical service."  The term is practically an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that money circulates,  right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly,  if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."
> 
> Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.
Click to expand...


The government doesn't just just "spend"  money.  They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."
> 
> Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vote for people who promise no government services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do whenever I'm given the choice.  However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head?  How does a majority vote justify robbery?
Click to expand...


We choose to live in  a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.

Consider: I had to live under the worst President in American history,  and,  as a consequence,  now owe my share of $17T, the remaining cost of his adventure in fantasy land.  Am I happy about that?  No.  Am I willing to give up democracy and accept tyranny to avoid a repeat?  Emphatically no.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that money circulates,  right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We understand your desire for free government services, which you disguise by pretending ignorance of services that you gladly,  if unknowingly, take advantage of every day. So be it. There are enough of us not in denial to offset the ignorazzi at the polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."
> 
> Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't just just "spend"  money.  They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.
Click to expand...


What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn.  That does not benefit society in any way.  Spending money isn't a beneficial service.  It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.

Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest."  It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vote for people who promise no government services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do whenever I'm given the choice.  However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head?  How does a majority vote justify robbery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We choose to live in  a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.
Click to expand...


I never "chose" to live in a Democracy.  I was born in one.  Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur.  How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do whenever I'm given the choice.  However, how does that justify anyone voting to have government take what I earn by holding a gun to my head?  How does a majority vote justify robbery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We choose to live in  a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never "chose" to live in a Democracy.  I was born in one.  Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur.  How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?
Click to expand...


Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We choose to live in  a democracy. Responsible people vote their interests and beliefs. We all live with the results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never "chose" to live in a Democracy.  I was born in one.  Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur.  How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.
Click to expand...


Horseshit.  Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is just useless scraps of paper.  You can't eat it or wear it.  Spending money isn't a service to the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, attributing positions to me that I don't hold.  I don't want free government "services."  I want no government "services."
> 
> Please explain why I should be charged for stuff I haven't asked for and don't want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government doesn't just just "spend"  money.  They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn.  That does not benefit society in any way.  Spending money isn't a beneficial service.  It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.
> 
> Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest."  It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.
Click to expand...


Paying salaries,  and buying goods,  has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company,  a person,  or the government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government doesn't just just "spend"  money.  They pay salaries and buy goods which puts money back into circulation. Or they invest in national interests which has the same effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn.  That does not benefit society in any way.  Spending money isn't a beneficial service.  It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.
> 
> Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest."  It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying salaries,  and buying goods,  has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company,  a person,  or the government.
Click to expand...


Wrong, because when a private company pays wages it had to produce a quantity of goods or services that become available for Americans to consume.  When government takes from Richard Roe to give to the parasite John Doe, nothing was produced by John Doe for the money he spends.  Richard Roe has less to spend.

Without the government transfer John Doe couldn't consume a thing without producing goods or services for his fellow Americans to consume.  With the government transfer, he can be a useless tick on the ass of society.  

There's obviously a vast economic difference between the two types of transactions.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "putting money back in circulation" means is that useless ticks on the ass of society get to consume goods and services they have done nothing to earn.  That does not benefit society in any way.  Spending money isn't a beneficial service.  It doesn't add one iota to the gross national product.
> 
> Furthermore, except in exceptional cases, government doesn't "invest."  It pours our tax dollars down the sewer hole never to be seen again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying salaries,  and buying goods,  has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company,  a person,  or the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, because when a private company pays wages it had to produce a quantity of goods or services that become available for Americans to consume.  When government takes from Richard Roe to give to the parasite John Doe, nothing was produced by John Doe for the money he spends.  Richard Roe has less to spend.
> 
> Without the government transfer John Doe couldn't consume a thing without producing goods or services for his fellow Americans to consume.  With the government transfer, he can be a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> There's obviously a vast economic difference between the two types of transactions.
Click to expand...


The government produces services just like a Dr or lawyer or policeman does.  Your problem is that,  without original thought,  you have accepted the propaganda that none of those government services have value.  They do to someone,  that may or may not be you. Just like private enterprise services.  

Your control over that is voting.  I Personally recommend that you vote for folks that promise to cut back on all services that don't go specifically to you.  Why do I recommend that?  Because I'm sure that those folks will lose elections to people who are responsible to a larger cross section of their constituents. 

That's democracy.  You choose to support it every day that you don't move.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple logic tells you that taking money from people who actually produce something and giving it to tics on the ass of society is going to decrease the net total output of useful goods and services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
Click to expand...


They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron.  It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never "chose" to live in a Democracy.  I was born in one.  Whether it's "responsible" to vote is a non sequitur.  How does voting justify taking money from people that they have earned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?
Click to expand...


I would call that intuitively obvious.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron.  It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.
Click to expand...


The exchange is purely voluntary.  If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.

Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.

The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every day that you don't move you choose to live in a democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would call that intuitively obvious.
Click to expand...


I agree. It's intuitively obvious that your birth is not agreement to anything.  It's also a basic legal principle.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron.  It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange is purely voluntary.  If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.
> 
> Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.
> 
> The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.
Click to expand...


His point went right over your head.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The real parasites - the ones sucking the most money from the system - tend to be top executives, Wall Street douchebags and bankers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."
> 
> Workers,  consumers, and shareholders do.  When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing,  that is a parasite.
Click to expand...


Well, you've certainly explained something about YOUR existence to us here, and we thank you.  However, your ignorance of what those you envy actually do in their jobs is no basis for anything except contempt from others.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Under what theory of jurisprudence is that claim valid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would call that intuitively obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. It's intuitively obvious that your birth is not agreement to anything.  It's also a basic legal principle.
Click to expand...


Every day you could move to a country more amenable to your principles.  Every day,  apparently,  you choose to stay here. Inexplicable,  unless there is no such alternative,  in which case your noise here is reduced from essential reality to childish whining.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying salaries,  and buying goods,  has the same effect on the economy, whether the originator be a company,  a person,  or the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, because when a private company pays wages it had to produce a quantity of goods or services that become available for Americans to consume.  When government takes from Richard Roe to give to the parasite John Doe, nothing was produced by John Doe for the money he spends.  Richard Roe has less to spend.
> 
> Without the government transfer John Doe couldn't consume a thing without producing goods or services for his fellow Americans to consume.  With the government transfer, he can be a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> There's obviously a vast economic difference between the two types of transactions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government produces services just like a Dr or lawyer or policeman does.
Click to expand...


Nope.  The "services" government provides are more along the lines of the kind of thing Guido The Leg Breaker provides.  Government is just one vase extortion racket.  It forces you to pay for "services" you don't really want or need.  There's nothing similar to a profit making business that has to produce something its customers actually want.



PMZ said:


> Your problem is that,  without original thought,  you have accepted the propaganda that none of those government services have value.  They do to someone,  that may or may not be you. Just like private enterprise services.



They have no value to me.  If you place a value on them, then you pay for them.  Why should I pay for them?



PMZ said:


> Your control over that is voting.  I Personally recommend that you vote for folks that promise to cut back on all services that don't go specifically to you.  Why do I recommend that?  Because I'm sure that those folks will lose elections to people who are responsible to a larger cross section of their constituents.



In other words, I have no control at all.  I propose to cut back all services, period.  What the majority wants is irrelevant.  You have yet to prove that a majority vote justifies forcing me to pay for stuff I don't want.



PMZ said:


> That's democracy.  You choose to support it every day that you don't move.



You have yet to provide any credible support for this claim.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would call that intuitively obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It's intuitively obvious that your birth is not agreement to anything.  It's also a basic legal principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every day you could move to a country more amenable to your principles.  Every day,  apparently,  you choose to stay here. Inexplicable,  unless there is no such alternative,  in which case your noise here is reduced from essential reality to childish whining.
Click to expand...


Every day you could move to Cuba, worm.  What's stopping you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron.  It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exchange is purely voluntary.  If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.
> 
> Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.
> 
> The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His point went right over your head.
Click to expand...


His point was a non sequitur.  Your points, on the other hand, are almost entirely Marxist idiocies.


----------



## bripat9643

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."
> 
> Workers,  consumers, and shareholders do.  When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing,  that is a parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you've certainly explained something about YOUR existence to us here, and we thank you.  However, your ignorance of what those you envy actually do in their jobs is no basis for anything except contempt from others.
Click to expand...


PMS and JoeNormal obviously don't have a clue about what executives do.  If they had ever worked for a badly managed company, they would understand the value of executives.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."
> 
> Workers,  consumers, and shareholders do.  When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing,  that is a parasite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you've certainly explained something about YOUR existence to us here, and we thank you.  However, your ignorance of what those you envy actually do in their jobs is no basis for anything except contempt from others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PMS and JoeNormal obviously don't have a clue about what executives do.  If they had ever worked for a badly managed company, they would understand the value of executives.
Click to expand...


It's not their value,  it's their compensation that's the problem.  Many are overpayed by an order of magnitude,  some by two.  By any standard. They are accountable only to each other for their pay.  A situation that is dysfunctional in the extreme.


----------



## JoeNormal

bripat9643 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron.  It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The exchange is purely voluntary.  If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.
> 
> Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.
> 
> The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.
Click to expand...


The 'purity' of this simpleminded ideology never ceases to amuse me.  It'd be fun to measure the average IQ of it's proponents.


----------



## JoeNormal

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only morons swallow that libturd bullshit that corporate executives are parasites. The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites.
> 
> On the other hand, every employee at the Dept of Education is a useless tick on the ass of society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The taxpayers don't pay their salaries, so by definition they aren't parasites."
> 
> Workers,  consumers, and shareholders do.  When a small useless thing lives at the expense of a big thing,  that is a parasite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you've certainly explained something about YOUR existence to us here, and we thank you.  However, your ignorance of what those you envy actually do in their jobs is no basis for anything except contempt from others.
Click to expand...


Tell me how many major corporations you've worked for and how many movers and shakers you've known and then we'll compare notes.


----------



## JoeNormal

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you've certainly explained something about YOUR existence to us here, and we thank you.  However, your ignorance of what those you envy actually do in their jobs is no basis for anything except contempt from others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMS and JoeNormal obviously don't have a clue about what executives do.  If they had ever worked for a badly managed company, they would understand the value of executives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not their value,  it's their compensation that's the problem.  Many are overpayed by an order of magnitude,  some by two.  By any standard. They are accountable only to each other for their pay.  A situation that is dysfunctional in the extreme.
Click to expand...


Exactly right.  The CEO of Caterpillar (I believe) tried to defend the outrageous compensation of top execs by saying that's just what you have to offer to get top talent in an international market.  His compensation was over 300 times the average worker's.  Meanwhile, the CEO of Kubota made 20 times the average.


----------



## ShawnChris13

CEOs are crooks charging whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. Even if they do break the law they're only going to be put on house arrest. No accountability has created chaotic money grubbing high society narcissistic assholes.


----------



## PMZ

Everyone needs to be accountable to someone.  Many corporate executives have escaped that.  There is hardly a more important issue to be resolved in the US today.  

I think that they somehow have to be treated like politicians in serving at the pleasure of their constituents.  They won't cause that to happen.  We as consumers need to organize to get it done.


----------



## dcraelin

JoeNormal said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMS and JoeNormal obviously don't have a clue about what executives do.  If they had ever worked for a badly managed company, they would understand the value of executives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not their value,  it's their compensation that's the problem.  Many are overpayed by an order of magnitude,  some by two.  By any standard. They are accountable only to each other for their pay.  A situation that is dysfunctional in the extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  The CEO of Caterpillar (I believe) tried to defend the outrageous compensation of top execs by saying that's just what you have to offer to get top talent in an international market.  His compensation was over 300 times the average worker's.  Meanwhile, the CEO of Kubota made 20 times the average.
Click to expand...


Some time back wasnt there was a movement to give shareholders more say on pay, which was rejected I believe by most corporate boards?

Clinton had an interesting proposal once that corporations shouldn't be able to deduct from taxes the full pay of their executives if it was over a certain amount. Probably something that should be done.

heres an interesting link on some TeaParty members teaming up with the Sierra club and Common Cause,  Tea Party Strikes Out Against the Atlanta Braves to fight an idiotic stadium move by the braves.  This is a good development and more of this sort of thing should be done to stop corporate welfare recipients.

l


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not their value,  it's their compensation that's the problem.  Many are overpayed by an order of magnitude,  some by two.  By any standard. They are accountable only to each other for their pay.  A situation that is dysfunctional in the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  The CEO of Caterpillar (I believe) tried to defend the outrageous compensation of top execs by saying that's just what you have to offer to get top talent in an international market.  His compensation was over 300 times the average worker's.  Meanwhile, the CEO of Kubota made 20 times the average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some time back wasnt there was a movement to give shareholders more say on pay, which was rejected I believe by most corporate boards?
> 
> Clinton had an interesting proposal once that corporations shouldn't be able to deduct from taxes the full pay of their executives if it was over a certain amount. Probably something that should be done.
> 
> heres an interesting link on some TeaParty members teaming up with the Sierra club and Common Cause,  Tea Party Strikes Out Against the Atlanta Braves to fight an idiotic stadium move by the braves.  This is a good development and more of this sort of thing should be done to stop corporate welfare recipients.
> 
> l
Click to expand...


One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.


----------



## OODA_Loop

PMZ said:


> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.



Executive compensation abuse.

Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.

Someone else's success does not hurt you.


----------



## ShawnChris13

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
Click to expand...



Not their success. Success isn't an issue. The issue is the tax loophole that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system. US needs to get rid of the tax loopholes, then we can debate how much their success is worth when companies actually have to pay taxes on their payroll.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
Click to expand...


"Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders."

It's typically approved by the BOD who are also corporate executives.  It's an incestuous relationship. 

"Someone else's success does not hurt you."

That money comes at the expense of some combination of customers,  workers and shareholders.


----------



## JoeNormal

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
Click to expand...


Of course it does.  The only thing I've agreed with BriPat on in the last several pages is that when parasites (like top execs) take exorbitant sums of money out of the system, there's less available to pay the productive members.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not their success. Success isn't an issue. The issue is the tax loophole that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system. US needs to get rid of the tax loopholes, then we can debate how much their success is worth when companies actually have to pay taxes on their payroll.
Click to expand...


Corporate taxes are based on earnings.  Earnings = income - expenses.  Everyone's salary is an expense and therefore not taxed. 

Where nefariousness comes in are stock options because the are taxed to the receiver,  not the corporation,  as capital gains.  

It's always easier to get rich from wealth than from work.


----------



## OODA_Loop

JoeNormal said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The only thing I've agreed with BriPat on in the last several pages is that when parasites (like top execs) take exorbitant sums of money out of the system, there's less available to pay the productive members.
Click to expand...


The beauty is you have the ability to market yourself at whatever level of remuneration you deem appropriate.  

Demonstrated production is certainly a great way to increase your value.

The CEO can make all he wants.  The more the better.

The CEO has spots under him/her and down the line.

All opportunity.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does.  The only thing I've agreed with BriPat on in the last several pages is that when parasites (like top execs) take exorbitant sums of money out of the system, there's less available to pay the productive members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The beauty is you have the ability to market yourself at whatever level of remuneration you deem appropriate.
> 
> Demonstrated production is certainly a great way to increase your value.
> 
> The CEO can make all he wants.  The more the better.
> 
> The CEO has spots under him/her and down the line.
> 
> All opportunity.
Click to expand...


"The more the better."

This is the kind of non thinking that allowed the problem to get traction in the first place.  

Shouldn't we all get paid the more the better? 

How about if we get paid according to the value that we add.  

Whatever,  the same rules ought to be applied to every employee.


----------



## OODA_Loop

PMZ said:


> How about if we get paid according to the value that we add.



Exactly as my post alludes to increasing your value.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not their success. Success isn't an issue. The issue is the tax loophole that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system. US needs to get rid of the tax loopholes, then we can debate how much their success is worth when companies actually have to pay taxes on their payroll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporate taxes are based on earnings.  Earnings = income - expenses.  Everyone's salary is an expense and therefore not taxed.
> 
> Where nefariousness comes in are stock options because the are taxed to the receiver,  not the corporation,  as capital gains.
> 
> It's always easier to get rich from wealth than from work.
Click to expand...



When I get paid my taxes are taken out immediately because I'm paid as an employee. There shouldn't be a way to pay employees otherwise. Instead of writing some tax free check corporations should have to look at those taxes paid for every employee, instead of these loopholes they had hidden in the system.


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we get paid according to the value that we add.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly as my post alludes to increasing your value.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that executives add several hundred times the value of workers who actually make the product or people who directly serve the customer,  who's the sole judge of value?


----------



## bripat9643

JoeNormal said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> They set their own compensation packages you friggen moron.  It's as far from a meritocracy as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exchange is purely voluntary.  If it wasn't, it would be illegal, you friggen moron.
> 
> Whether the deserve what the receive is purely an existential question, not an ethical or legal question.
> 
> The transfer of money to government parasites, on the other hand, is conducted at gunpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'purity' of this simpleminded ideology never ceases to amuse me.  It'd be fun to measure the average IQ of it's proponents.
Click to expand...


I realize you find logic mystifying.  That's why you're a liberal.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> CEOs are crooks charging whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. Even if they do break the law they're only going to be put on house arrest. No accountability has created chaotic money grubbing high society narcissistic assholes.



In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that you can count on.  No progress on curbing executive compensation abuse with Republicans in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not their success. Success isn't an issue. The issue is the tax loophole that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system. US needs to get rid of the tax loopholes, then we can debate how much their success is worth when companies actually have to pay taxes on their payroll.
Click to expand...


What tax "loophole" is that?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CEOs are crooks charging whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. Even if they do break the law they're only going to be put on house arrest. No accountability has created chaotic money grubbing high society narcissistic assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.
Click to expand...


Who in the Obama administration has been convicted of a crime?


----------



## OODA_Loop

PMZ said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about if we get paid according to the value that we add.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly as my post alludes to increasing your value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that executives add several hundred times the value of workers who actually make the product or people who directly serve the customer,  who's the sole judge of value?
Click to expand...


Board of Directors determines value and executive compensation accordingly.


----------



## ShawnChris13

bripat9643 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CEOs are crooks charging whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. Even if they do break the law they're only going to be put on house arrest. No accountability has created chaotic money grubbing high society narcissistic assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.
Click to expand...



I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.

A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.


----------



## ShawnChris13

bripat9643 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation abuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive compensation is sanctioned and contractually approved by the shareholders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone else's success does not hurt you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not their success. Success isn't an issue. The issue is the tax loophole that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system. US needs to get rid of the tax loopholes, then we can debate how much their success is worth when companies actually have to pay taxes on their payroll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax "loophole" is that?
Click to expand...



Are you suggesting we don't have tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the rich? Is it really a necessity to prove something like that?


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly as my post alludes to increasing your value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that executives add several hundred times the value of workers who actually make the product or people who directly serve the customer,  who's the sole judge of value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Board of Directors determines value and executive compensation accordingly.
Click to expand...


And then that grossly overpaid executive reciprocates as a BOD member.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CEOs are crooks charging whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. Even if they do break the law they're only going to be put on house arrest. No accountability has created chaotic money grubbing high society narcissistic assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who in the Obama administration has been convicted of a crime?
Click to expand...



They won't even convict a congressman for drug possession. Why would anybody in the upper echelons of the executive branch be convicted of crimes when the head of the justice department can just cry for executive privilege and sweep it under the rug? They wouldn't. (Just devils advocate, not actually accusing them of being criminals. Except for that crack head guy from FL)


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CEOs are crooks charging whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. Even if they do break the law they're only going to be put on house arrest. No accountability has created chaotic money grubbing high society narcissistic assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.
> 
> A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.
Click to expand...


Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.
> 
> A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.
Click to expand...



You mean the rule of law that guarantees my privacy but secret courts rule that my privacy can be invaded without my consent? Great rule of law.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.
> 
> A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rule of law that guarantees my privacy but secret courts rule that my privacy can be invaded without my consent? Great rule of law.
Click to expand...


From   
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.  The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.  In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.  Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.  The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.  Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children.  In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade.  The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country."  The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students.  Justice McReynolds wrote:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.

The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples.  Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."

In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including  pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home.  Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right.  Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.)  Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers.  The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state.   In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home. 

The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."  Moore found privacy protection for an extended family's choice of living arrangements, striking down a housing ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living together with her two grandsons.  Writing for the Court, Justice Powell said, "The choice of relatives in this degree of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the state."

In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right).  In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy.  Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'

One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest.  Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high. 

The future of privacy protection remains an open question.  Justices Scalia  and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees.  The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed.  The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.

Cases 
Meyer v Nebraska (1923)
Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
Stanley v Georgia (1969)
Ravin v State (1975)
Kelley v Johnson (1976)
Moore v East Cleveland (1977)
Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990) 
Lawrence v Texas (2003) 

Estelle Griswold, of the Planned Parenthood League, whose lawsuit led to the invalidation of a state law banning contraceptives.

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy

Amendment I 
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law.

Tyron Garner and John Lawrence (with their attorney), the gay men 
who successfully challenged Texas's sodomy law.

Questions

1.  Assuming that there exists a general right of privacy, what sort of conduct to you think lies at its very center?  What sort of conduct lies at its periphery?  What sort of conduct should be considered outside of the protection of a reasonably interpreted right of privacy?
2.  Is there a stronger basis in the Constitution for protecting personal privacy rights as opposed to personal economic rights, such as the liberty of contract recognized in Lochner v New York?
3.  When the state burdens an important privacy right, what sort of justification should the state have to make to sustain its regulation?  What arguments would be likely to convince the U. S. Supreme Court (unlike the Alaska Supreme Court) that the Constitution protects the right to possess obscene materials but not marijuana or other drugs?
4.  Some state constitutions provide express protection for privacy.  Would you favor including such a provision in your state's constitution?  What wording would you suggest for a constitutional amendment protecting privacy?
5.  The Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to marry, as well as the right to live a homosexual lifestyle.  Should it also be interpreted to protect the right of homosexuals to marry?
6.  Are a person's choices with respect to personal appearance protected by the Constitution?  Should the Constitution protect the right of students or police officers to wear their hair in any style they see fit?  Why or why not?  Would a tax on beards, such as the one adopted by Peter the Great, be constitutional?
7.  The choice of a woman to have an abortion was found in Roe v Wade to be the sort of fundamental personal decision deserving privacy protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause.  In what respects is abortion a private matter, and in what respects might it not be?  If you don't believe that the Constitution protects the decision to have an abortion, do you believe that it would  prevent the government from forcing a woman to have an abortion and, if it would, what is the constitutional basis for that protection?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rule of law that guarantees my privacy but secret courts rule that my privacy can be invaded without my consent? Great rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
> 
> The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.  The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.  In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
> 
> The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.  Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.  The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.  Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
> 
> The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children.  In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade.  The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country."  The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students.  Justice McReynolds wrote:
> 
> "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.
> 
> The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples.  Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."
> 
> In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including  pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home.  Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:
> 
> "Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
> 
> The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right.  Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.)  Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers.  The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state.   In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.
> 
> The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."  Moore found privacy protection for an extended family's choice of living arrangements, striking down a housing ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living together with her two grandsons.  Writing for the Court, Justice Powell said, "The choice of relatives in this degree of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the state."
> 
> In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right).  In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy.  Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'
> 
> One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest.  Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high.
> 
> The future of privacy protection remains an open question.  Justices Scalia  and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees.  The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed.  The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.
> 
> Cases
> Meyer v Nebraska (1923)
> Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
> Stanley v Georgia (1969)
> Ravin v State (1975)
> Kelley v Johnson (1976)
> Moore v East Cleveland (1977)
> Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990)
> Lawrence v Texas (2003)
> 
> Estelle Griswold, of the Planned Parenthood League, whose lawsuit led to the invalidation of a state law banning contraceptives.
> 
> Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy
> 
> Amendment I
> (Privacy of Beliefs)
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Amendment III
> (Privacy of the Home)
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
> 
> Amendment IV
> (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> Amendment IX
> (More General Protection for Privacy?)
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
> No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
> without due process of law.
> 
> Tyron Garner and John Lawrence (with their attorney), the gay men
> who successfully challenged Texas's sodomy law.
> 
> Questions
> 
> 1.  Assuming that there exists a general right of privacy, what sort of conduct to you think lies at its very center?  What sort of conduct lies at its periphery?  What sort of conduct should be considered outside of the protection of a reasonably interpreted right of privacy?
> 2.  Is there a stronger basis in the Constitution for protecting personal privacy rights as opposed to personal economic rights, such as the liberty of contract recognized in Lochner v New York?
> 3.  When the state burdens an important privacy right, what sort of justification should the state have to make to sustain its regulation?  What arguments would be likely to convince the U. S. Supreme Court (unlike the Alaska Supreme Court) that the Constitution protects the right to possess obscene materials but not marijuana or other drugs?
> 4.  Some state constitutions provide express protection for privacy.  Would you favor including such a provision in your state's constitution?  What wording would you suggest for a constitutional amendment protecting privacy?
> 5.  The Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to marry, as well as the right to live a homosexual lifestyle.  Should it also be interpreted to protect the right of homosexuals to marry?
> 6.  Are a person's choices with respect to personal appearance protected by the Constitution?  Should the Constitution protect the right of students or police officers to wear their hair in any style they see fit?  Why or why not?  Would a tax on beards, such as the one adopted by Peter the Great, be constitutional?
> 7.  The choice of a woman to have an abortion was found in Roe v Wade to be the sort of fundamental personal decision deserving privacy protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause.  In what respects is abortion a private matter, and in what respects might it not be?  If you don't believe that the Constitution protects the decision to have an abortion, do you believe that it would  prevent the government from forcing a woman to have an abortion and, if it would, what is the constitutional basis for that protection?
Click to expand...


You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights?  Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?

As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means. 


As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:

1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.

2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.

3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.

4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.

5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.

6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.

7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire. 

The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Also PMZ I'm on my phone you're killing me bro!


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not their success. Success isn't an issue. The issue is the tax loophole that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system. US needs to get rid of the tax loopholes, then we can debate how much their success is worth when companies actually have to pay taxes on their payroll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What tax "loophole" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we don't have tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the rich? Is it really a necessity to prove something like that?
Click to expand...


Now you're moving the goal posts.  You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system."  Which tax loopholes are those?


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the rule of law that guarantees my privacy but secret courts rule that my privacy can be invaded without my consent? Great rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
> 
> The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.  The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.  In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
> 
> The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.  Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.  The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.  Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
> 
> The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children.  In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade.  The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country."  The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students.  Justice McReynolds wrote:
> 
> "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.
> 
> The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples.  Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."
> 
> In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including  pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home.  Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:
> 
> "Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
> 
> The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right.  Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.)  Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers.  The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state.   In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.
> 
> The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."  Moore found privacy protection for an extended family's choice of living arrangements, striking down a housing ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living together with her two grandsons.  Writing for the Court, Justice Powell said, "The choice of relatives in this degree of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the state."
> 
> In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right).  In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy.  Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'
> 
> One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest.  Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high.
> 
> The future of privacy protection remains an open question.  Justices Scalia  and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees.  The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed.  The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.
> 
> Cases
> Meyer v Nebraska (1923)
> Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
> Stanley v Georgia (1969)
> Ravin v State (1975)
> Kelley v Johnson (1976)
> Moore v East Cleveland (1977)
> Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990)
> Lawrence v Texas (2003)
> 
> Estelle Griswold, of the Planned Parenthood League, whose lawsuit led to the invalidation of a state law banning contraceptives.
> 
> Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy
> 
> Amendment I
> (Privacy of Beliefs)
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Amendment III
> (Privacy of the Home)
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
> 
> Amendment IV
> (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> Amendment IX
> (More General Protection for Privacy?)
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
> No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
> without due process of law.
> 
> Tyron Garner and John Lawrence (with their attorney), the gay men
> who successfully challenged Texas's sodomy law.
> 
> Questions
> 
> 1.  Assuming that there exists a general right of privacy, what sort of conduct to you think lies at its very center?  What sort of conduct lies at its periphery?  What sort of conduct should be considered outside of the protection of a reasonably interpreted right of privacy?
> 2.  Is there a stronger basis in the Constitution for protecting personal privacy rights as opposed to personal economic rights, such as the liberty of contract recognized in Lochner v New York?
> 3.  When the state burdens an important privacy right, what sort of justification should the state have to make to sustain its regulation?  What arguments would be likely to convince the U. S. Supreme Court (unlike the Alaska Supreme Court) that the Constitution protects the right to possess obscene materials but not marijuana or other drugs?
> 4.  Some state constitutions provide express protection for privacy.  Would you favor including such a provision in your state's constitution?  What wording would you suggest for a constitutional amendment protecting privacy?
> 5.  The Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to marry, as well as the right to live a homosexual lifestyle.  Should it also be interpreted to protect the right of homosexuals to marry?
> 6.  Are a person's choices with respect to personal appearance protected by the Constitution?  Should the Constitution protect the right of students or police officers to wear their hair in any style they see fit?  Why or why not?  Would a tax on beards, such as the one adopted by Peter the Great, be constitutional?
> 7.  The choice of a woman to have an abortion was found in Roe v Wade to be the sort of fundamental personal decision deserving privacy protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause.  In what respects is abortion a private matter, and in what respects might it not be?  If you don't believe that the Constitution protects the decision to have an abortion, do you believe that it would  prevent the government from forcing a woman to have an abortion and, if it would, what is the constitutional basis for that protection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights?  Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?
> 
> As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means.
> 
> 
> As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:
> 
> 1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.
> 
> 2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.
> 
> 3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.
> 
> 4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.
> 
> 5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.
> 
> 6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.
> 
> 7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire.
> 
> The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.
Click to expand...


Opinions are cool.  

But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> Also PMZ I'm on my phone you're killing me bro!



Me too,  much of the time.  Tapatalk?


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> From
> The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?



Very nice.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> From
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
> 
> The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.  The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.  In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."  The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
> 
> The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.  Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists.  The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.  Polls show most  Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
> 
> The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children.  In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade.  The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country."  The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students.  Justice McReynolds wrote:
> 
> "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
> 
> Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.
> 
> The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples.  Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."
> 
> In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including  pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home.  Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:
> 
> "Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
> 
> The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right.  Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.)  Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers.  The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state.   In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.
> 
> The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition."  Moore found privacy protection for an extended family's choice of living arrangements, striking down a housing ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living together with her two grandsons.  Writing for the Court, Justice Powell said, "The choice of relatives in this degree of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the state."
> 
> In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right).  In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy.  Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:
> 
> "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'
> 
> One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest.  Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high.
> 
> The future of privacy protection remains an open question.  Justices Scalia  and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees.  The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed.  The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.
> 
> Cases
> Meyer v Nebraska (1923)
> Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
> Stanley v Georgia (1969)
> Ravin v State (1975)
> Kelley v Johnson (1976)
> Moore v East Cleveland (1977)
> Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990)
> Lawrence v Texas (2003)
> 
> Estelle Griswold, of the Planned Parenthood League, whose lawsuit led to the invalidation of a state law banning contraceptives.
> 
> Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy
> 
> Amendment I
> (Privacy of Beliefs)
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> Amendment III
> (Privacy of the Home)
> No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
> 
> Amendment IV
> (Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> Amendment IX
> (More General Protection for Privacy?)
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
> No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
> without due process of law.
> 
> Tyron Garner and John Lawrence (with their attorney), the gay men
> who successfully challenged Texas's sodomy law.
> 
> Questions
> 
> 1.  Assuming that there exists a general right of privacy, what sort of conduct to you think lies at its very center?  What sort of conduct lies at its periphery?  What sort of conduct should be considered outside of the protection of a reasonably interpreted right of privacy?
> 2.  Is there a stronger basis in the Constitution for protecting personal privacy rights as opposed to personal economic rights, such as the liberty of contract recognized in Lochner v New York?
> 3.  When the state burdens an important privacy right, what sort of justification should the state have to make to sustain its regulation?  What arguments would be likely to convince the U. S. Supreme Court (unlike the Alaska Supreme Court) that the Constitution protects the right to possess obscene materials but not marijuana or other drugs?
> 4.  Some state constitutions provide express protection for privacy.  Would you favor including such a provision in your state's constitution?  What wording would you suggest for a constitutional amendment protecting privacy?
> 5.  The Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to marry, as well as the right to live a homosexual lifestyle.  Should it also be interpreted to protect the right of homosexuals to marry?
> 6.  Are a person's choices with respect to personal appearance protected by the Constitution?  Should the Constitution protect the right of students or police officers to wear their hair in any style they see fit?  Why or why not?  Would a tax on beards, such as the one adopted by Peter the Great, be constitutional?
> 7.  The choice of a woman to have an abortion was found in Roe v Wade to be the sort of fundamental personal decision deserving privacy protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause.  In what respects is abortion a private matter, and in what respects might it not be?  If you don't believe that the Constitution protects the decision to have an abortion, do you believe that it would  prevent the government from forcing a woman to have an abortion and, if it would, what is the constitutional basis for that protection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights?  Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?
> 
> As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means.
> 
> 
> As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:
> 
> 1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.
> 
> 2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.
> 
> 3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.
> 
> 4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.
> 
> 5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.
> 
> 6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.
> 
> 7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire.
> 
> The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions are cool.
> 
> But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...



The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.


----------



## ShawnChris13

bripat9643 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What tax "loophole" is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we don't have tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the rich? Is it really a necessity to prove something like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now your moving the goal posts.  You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system."  Which tax loopholes are those?
Click to expand...



Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!

They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we don't have tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the rich? Is it really a necessity to prove something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now your moving the goal posts.  You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system."  Which tax loopholes are those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!
> 
> They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.
Click to expand...


There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric.  We did it however too fast and too out of control.  

Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment,  and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting we don't have tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the rich? Is it really a necessity to prove something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now your moving the goal posts.  You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system."  Which tax loopholes are those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!
> 
> They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.
Click to expand...


NAFTA isn't a tax loophole.  There are no "tax incentives" in it.  All it does is remove tariffs on goods imported from the NAFTA countries.

Try again.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now your moving the goal posts.  You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system."  Which tax loopholes are those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!
> 
> They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric.  We did it however too fast and too out of control.
> 
> Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment,  and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.
Click to expand...


People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy."  There never was any such thing.

Here's the reality:  in the past the US was responsible for a large share for the world's production of goods and services.  Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share.  More production overseas means more competition for US firms.  You can't have one without the other.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights?  Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?
> 
> As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means.
> 
> 
> As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:
> 
> 1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.
> 
> 2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.
> 
> 3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.
> 
> 4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.
> 
> 5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.
> 
> 6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.
> 
> 7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire.
> 
> The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are cool.
> 
> But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.
Click to expand...


BINGO!

The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws.  On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.
> 
> A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.
Click to expand...


So you're not a criminal if you don't get caught?


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights?  Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?
> 
> As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means.
> 
> 
> As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:
> 
> 1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.
> 
> 2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.
> 
> 3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.
> 
> 4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.
> 
> 5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.
> 
> 6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.
> 
> 7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire.
> 
> The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are cool.
> 
> But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.
Click to expand...


No.  The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law.  Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!
> 
> They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric.  We did it however too fast and too out of control.
> 
> Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment,  and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy."  There never was any such thing.
> 
> Here's the reality:  in the past the US was responsible for a share for the world's production of goods and services.  Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share.  More production overseas means more competition for US firms.  You can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...


It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact. 

However,  it's self explanatory and relevant. 

Businesses in the US used to be US centric.  That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary.  Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially. 

They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.  

They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures. 

Now we,  as a country,  are supporting those that they abandoned. 

My point is that if they have no loyalty to us,  we owe them none. 

Simple.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.
> 
> A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're not a criminal if you don't get caught?
Click to expand...


Correct.  Thats a Constitutional guarantee.  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are cool.
> 
> But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Thats what our Constitution specifies.  Our primary rule of law. 

Do you not support our Constitution?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions are cool.
> 
> But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law.  Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.
Click to expand...



Their opinion is the rule of law. I understand you like tone technical but in reality it's just their opinion.


----------



## johnwk

bripat9643 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now your moving the goal posts.  You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system."  Which tax loopholes are those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!
> 
> They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAFTA isn't a tax loophole.  There are no "tax incentives" in it.  All it does is remove tariffs on goods imported from the NAFTA countries.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...





Actually, the NAFTA does far more than remove tariffs on goods imported from the NAFTA countries.

If it wasnt for Newt Gingrich, Clinton would not have gotten the global governance NAFTA deal passed by Congress.  Perhaps you didnt know but the NAFTA deal has nothing to do with free trade as panhandled by Newt Gingrich.  It was all about managed trade, to be managed by internationalists un-elected by the American people!

Under the Newt/Clinton  NAFTA deal the regulation of Americas trade is now in the hands of Bi-national Panels a majority of whom are foreigners, and make arbitrarily and binding decisions concerning Americas commerce with Canada and Mexico see *Establishment of Bi-national Panels* 

What the NAFTA legislation was really designed to accomplish was the same thing progressives accomplished with the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, which unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress-- the power to regulate the value of our nations currencyand placed that power in the hands of a body the Federal Reserve Board --not elected by or accountable to the American People!

Likewise, under the Newt/Clinton NAFTA, Congresss assigned duty to regulate commerce with foreign nations was usurped from the hands of the American Peoples _elected representatives_ and was placed in the hands of a group of internationalists who are not elected by or accountable to the American People.  And, this same progressive agenda has now been established under Obamas financial reform bill.  Un-elected presidential appointees now get to make financial decisions which affect our lives, our liberties and our property, the very kind of arbitrary power which our founding fathers rejected when creating a legislature elected by the people, and limited their powers as enumerated in our written Constitution.

JWK


*
If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?
*


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats what our Constitution specifies.  Our primary rule of law.
> 
> Do you not support our Constitution?
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.  Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution.  Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law."  It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course,  you are wrong.  We live under the rule of law.  People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals.  People not so convicted are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not a criminal if you don't get caught?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  Thats a Constitutional guarantee.  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...


That may be the legal principle, but it often differs with reality.  We know O.J. was guilty, despite what the jury decided.


----------



## johnwk

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law.  Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Their opinion is the rule of law.
Click to expand...



You are absolutely wrong!  Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.  Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.  And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


*  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric.  We did it however too fast and too out of control.
> 
> Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment,  and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy."  There never was any such thing.
> 
> Here's the reality:  in the past the US was responsible for a share for the world's production of goods and services.  Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share.  More production overseas means more competition for US firms.  You can't have one without the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.
> 
> However,  it's self explanatory and relevant.
> 
> Businesses in the US used to be US centric.  That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary.  Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.
> 
> They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.
> 
> They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.
> 
> Now we,  as a country,  are supporting those that they abandoned.
> 
> My point is that if they have no loyalty to us,  we owe them none.
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...


That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing.  Trade has been around for 10,000 years.  Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas.  There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers.  The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.


----------



## Gadawg73

Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law.  Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their opinion is the rule of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely wrong!  Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.  Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.  And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Click to expand...


You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion. 

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
> Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
> Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.



Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy."  There never was any such thing.
> 
> Here's the reality:  in the past the US was responsible for a share for the world's production of goods and services.  Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share.  More production overseas means more competition for US firms.  You can't have one without the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.
> 
> However,  it's self explanatory and relevant.
> 
> Businesses in the US used to be US centric.  That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary.  Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.
> 
> They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.
> 
> They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.
> 
> Now we,  as a country,  are supporting those that they abandoned.
> 
> My point is that if they have no loyalty to us,  we owe them none.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing.  Trade has been around for 10,000 years.  Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas.  There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers.  The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.
Click to expand...


The difference between you and I is that I prefer full employment for the country.


----------



## PMZ

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.
> 
> However,  it's self explanatory and relevant.
> 
> Businesses in the US used to be US centric.  That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary.  Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.
> 
> They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.
> 
> They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.
> 
> Now we,  as a country,  are supporting those that they abandoned.
> 
> My point is that if they have no loyalty to us,  we owe them none.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing.  Trade has been around for 10,000 years.  Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas.  There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers.  The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I prefer business to grow to full employment for the country.
Click to expand...


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their opinion is the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely wrong!  Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.  Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.  And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion.
Click to expand...


Our Constitution is written and is there for all to look at.  You confuse what is written in our Constitution as being "opinion".


JWK


*The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. *___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The difference between you and I is that I prefer full employment for the country.



You do? _Really_? Then why do you keep supporting policies which are forcing jobs overseas (such as the highest corporate tax rate in the world which is making it to expensive to do business here and keep jobs here)?


----------



## P@triot

Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):


----------



## P@triot

Rottweiler said:


> Straight from the liberal golden-boy's own mouth (back when the Dumbcrats were still liberals and not full-on communists):



*How amazing is it that the Tea Party says the exact same thing today and is labeled by Dumbocrats as "radicals" for it. It really illustrates just how bat-shit crazy the Dumbocrats have become. They have slid so far to the left, even a radical marxist like Barack Obama isn't left enough for them.*


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their opinion is the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely wrong!  Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.  Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.  And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion.
> 
> What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.
Click to expand...


As usual, when you can't post a substantive response, you post pompous blather signifying nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing.  Trade has been around for 10,000 years.  Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas.  There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers.  The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between you and I is that I prefer business to grow to full employment for the country.
Click to expand...


The difference between you and me is that your understanding of economics is based on political slogans rather than fact.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
> Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
> Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
Click to expand...


You must be an "extremist" then because you are always telling us what out "fair share" of paying for your pet causes is.  Aren't you retired?  doesn't that mean you is on your ass in your house and whittle your tax liability down at low as you can get it?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their opinion is the rule of law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely wrong!  Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.  Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.  And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion.
> 
> What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.
Click to expand...


It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely wrong!  Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.  Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.  And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion.
> 
> What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.
Click to expand...


The difference is that I support it, and he wants,  like you,  to destroy it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion.
> 
> What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I support it, and he wants,  like you,  to destroy it.
Click to expand...


You "support it" the same way Adolf Hitler supported the German government in 1933.  By the time you're done supporting it, we'll all be cutting wood in a concentration camp in Montana.  You support it even when the NSA is monitoring all our phone calls and rifling through our emails.  You support it when it forces us all into an healthcare system that no one wants.  You support it when the president orders the execution of American citizens without a trial.  You support it no matter how oppressive, barbaric or unjust it becomes.

There's nothing noble about supporting your government.  Goebbels, Himmler and Goering all supported their government.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO!
> 
> The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what our Constitution specifies.  Our primary rule of law.
> 
> Do you not support our Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution.  Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law."  It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.
Click to expand...


Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I support it, and he wants,  like you,  to destroy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "support it" the same way Adolf Hitler supported the German government in 1933.  By the time you're done supporting it, we'll all be cutting wood in a concentration camp in Montana.  You support it even when the NSA is monitoring all our phone calls and rifling through our emails.  You support it when it forces us all into an healthcare system that no one wants.  You support it when the president orders the execution of American citizens without a trial.  You support it no matter how oppressive, barbaric or unjust it becomes.
> 
> There's nothing noble about supporting your government.  Goebbels, Himmler and Goering all supported their government.
Click to expand...


Mr.  Buffoon,  Your hero,  Adolph,  wanted to change German government from a democracy to a dictatorship because majority rule did not give him the power to which he felt entitled.  Exactly,  precisely,  like you.  

The rest is history. 

My reaction?  There but by the grace of democracy could have gone we.


----------



## PMZ

The buffoon is unable to distinguish between the worst tyranny the world has ever seen,  and our democracy.  That's a level of ignorance so monumental as to be beyond belief.  So,  why does he pretend it?  

I think that it is consistent with the well known Republican conspiracy and propaganda avalanche designed to drag the country and Democrats down to the level of incompetence demonstrated by Republicans.

Their only possibility of redemption.


----------



## PMZ

But why should we grant them redemption at the polls?  They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value.  They are politically bankrupt.  They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product,  and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions. 

The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls.  Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value. 

Tough times breed leaders.  They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what our Constitution specifies.  Our primary rule of law.
> 
> Do you not support our Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution.  Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law."  It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.  It doesn't even imply it.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution.  Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law."  It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.  It doesn't even imply it.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> But why should we grant them redemption at the polls?  They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value.  They are politically bankrupt.  They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product,  and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.
> 
> The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls.  Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.
> 
> Tough times breed leaders.  They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.



Who is "them?"

Yeah, "Tough times breed leaders,"  like Adolph Hitler.  You want to show us how tough times really are?  I can't imagine a more obviously fascist statement than that.  You're a Stalinist just like Obama who refers to the political opposition as "his enemies."


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why should we grant them redemption at the polls?  They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value.  They are politically bankrupt.  They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product,  and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.
> 
> The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls.  Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.
> 
> Tough times breed leaders.  They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "them?"
> 
> Yeah, "Tough times breed leaders,"  like Adolph Hitler.  You want to show us how tough times really are?  I can't imagine a more obviously fascist statement than that.  You're a Stalinist just like Obama who refers to the political opposition as "his enemies."
Click to expand...


The Republican redemption strategy of dragging down the country to their level, personified. Thank you Mr Buffoon.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional scholars disagree with you Mr Buffoon. However Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.  It doesn't even imply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.
Click to expand...


Wrong, worm.  Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But why should we grant them redemption at the polls?  They are merely an organization that has destroyed their own value.  They are politically bankrupt.  They have designed and chosen what led them to become inept at their one and only product,  and they are desperate to avoid accountability for their actions.
> 
> The only path to their recovery is tough love at the polls.  Clear demonstration that they've become unacceptable to America and only a complete makeover will suffice to restore their value.
> 
> Tough times breed leaders.  They have to be shown explicitly how tough the times really are for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "them?"
> 
> Yeah, "Tough times breed leaders,"  like Adolph Hitler.  You want to show us how tough times really are?  I can't imagine a more obviously fascist statement than that.  You're a Stalinist just like Obama who refers to the political opposition as "his enemies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican redemption strategy of dragging down the country to their level, personified. Thank you Mr Buffoon.
Click to expand...


"Dragging down the country" to what level, freedom?

Horrors!


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but no Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states explicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.  It doesn't even imply it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, worm.  Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with people who disagree.  The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, worm.  Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people who disagree.  The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree.  You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?

Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document.  There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, worm.  Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people who disagree.  The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree.  You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?
> 
> Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document.  There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.
Click to expand...


We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you,  and Constitutional scholars disagreeing.  I have avoided the trouble that you haven't,  deciding between the two sources.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people who disagree.  The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree.  You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?
> 
> Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document.  There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you,  and Constitutional scholars disagreeing.  I have avoided the trouble that you haven't,  deciding between the two sources.
Click to expand...


As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue.  There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree.  You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?
> 
> Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document.  There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you,  and Constitutional scholars disagreeing.  I have avoided the trouble that you haven't,  deciding between the two sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue.  There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.
Click to expand...


The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court.  Not on the airwaves.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you,  and Constitutional scholars disagreeing.  I have avoided the trouble that you haven't,  deciding between the two sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue.  There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court.  Not on the airwaves.
Click to expand...


_Appeal to authority_ - your favorite logical fallacy.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue.  There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court.  Not on the airwaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Appeal to authority_ - your favorite logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


No.  Appeal to reality.  Something you are,  apparently,  unable to do.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court.  Not on the airwaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Appeal to authority_ - your favorite logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Appeal to reality.  Something you are,  apparently,  unable to do.
Click to expand...


Now you're declaring yourself the authority. 

You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Appeal to authority_ - your favorite logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Appeal to reality.  Something you are,  apparently,  unable to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're declaring yourself the authority.
> 
> You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?
Click to expand...


I'm very good at reality. You should try it sometime.


----------



## ShawnChris13

The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Appeal to reality.  Something you are,  apparently,  unable to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're declaring yourself the authority.
> 
> You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very good at reality. You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...


No, you aren't good at reality.  For example, you believe other people will accept what you say as fact simply because you've said it.  That indicates delusions of grandeur, not a good relationship with reality.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome to your rant.  What you wish was true.  Your opinion.
> 
> What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is that I support it, and he wants,  like you,  to destroy it.
Click to expand...




I noticed you have not challenged anything I have posted regarding our Constitution and provided sufficient supportive documentation.  I also know you have not posted when the American People debated giving power to Congress to regulate their medical and health care decisions and then approved the delegation of such power via our Constitutions amendment process as outlined in Article V.

Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance.  Care to share that information with us?


JWK


*
They are not liberals. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
*


----------



## OODA_Loop

johnwk said:


> Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance.  Care to share that information with us?



Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage, each month, for themselves and their dependents.

Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayers individual tax return.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OODA_Loop said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance.  Care to share that information with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage, each month, for themselves and their dependents.
> 
> Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayers individual tax return.
Click to expand...


January 1 2014 a day that shall live in infamy


----------



## johnwk

OODA_Loop said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance.  Care to share that information with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage, each month, for themselves and their dependents.
> 
> Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayers individual tax return.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.  


JWK


*If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.*  POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.



You apparently don't like America much.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're declaring yourself the authority.
> 
> You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very good at reality. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you aren't good at reality.  For example, you believe other people will accept what you say as fact simply because you've said it.  That indicates delusions of grandeur, not a good relationship with reality.
Click to expand...


Delusions,  by definition,  are not reality. That's why you never fare well in these discussions. You are full of propaganda and nearly devoid of reality.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
Click to expand...


Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted.  Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!


JWK



*  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)


----------



## OODA_Loop

johnwk said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance.  Care to share that information with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage, each month, for themselves and their dependents.
> 
> Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayers individual tax return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


You're looking at the tax for not having insurance withstanding Constitutional scrutiny of SCOTUS


----------



## PMZ

OODA_Loop said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage, each month, for themselves and their dependents.
> 
> Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayers individual tax return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're looking at the tax for not having insurance withstanding Constitutional scrutiny of SCOTUS
Click to expand...


That makes it Constitutional.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted.  Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
Click to expand...


He's against our Constitution,  as are you.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted.  Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's against our Constitution,  as are you.
Click to expand...


No, he isn't.  You are.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
Click to expand...



Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.
Click to expand...


How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
Click to expand...


I refer to them as "liberals."


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I refer to them as "liberals."
Click to expand...


Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to them as "liberals."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
Click to expand...


The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap.  The original Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was far better than anything you endorse.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
> Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
> Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
Click to expand...


An extremist to you is everyone that wants to stop the government from taking 60% of their money that they worked 65 hours a week to earn.
We call those folks good citizens that are independent and do not ask others to pay their expenses.
You despise all of us that are not dependent on government.


----------



## Gadawg73

I have worked 29 days in a row in my businesses including Thanksgiving night.
And the moocher class and their supporters label me as an extremist because I want to stop them from plundering more of my earnings to give to the moocher class for their vote for Democrats.


----------



## bripat9643

Gadawg73 said:


> I have worked 29 days in a row in my businesses including Thanksgiving night.
> And the moocher class and their supporters label me as an extremist because I want to stop them from plundering more of my earnings to give to the moocher class for their vote for Democrats.



Name calling, threats and intimidation are just a few of the methods the parasite class uses to keep us all cowed and reluctant to throw off our chains.


----------



## Gadawg73

bripat9643 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have worked 29 days in a row in my businesses including Thanksgiving night.
> And the moocher class and their supporters label me as an extremist because I want to stop them from plundering more of my earnings to give to the moocher class for their vote for Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name calling, threats and intimidation are just a few of the methods the parasite class uses to keep us all cowed and reluctant to throw off our chains.
Click to expand...


All the while they work their 40 hour weeks with benefits, days off for holidays and retirement pay.
They despise anyone that is not dependent on someone else for their job.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to them as "liberals."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap.  The original Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was far better than anything you endorse.
Click to expand...


"The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."

As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
> Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
> Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An extremist to you is everyone that wants to stop the government from taking 60% of their money that they worked 65 hours a week to earn.
> We call those folks good citizens that are independent and do not ask others to pay their expenses.
> You despise all of us that are not dependent on government.
Click to expand...


I've never been dependent on government. I believe in America because it gives even people like you a chance.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have worked 29 days in a row in my businesses including Thanksgiving night.
> And the moocher class and their supporters label me as an extremist because I want to stop them from plundering more of my earnings to give to the moocher class for their vote for Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name calling, threats and intimidation are just a few of the methods the parasite class uses to keep us all cowed and reluctant to throw off our chains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the while they work their 40 hour weeks with benefits, days off for holidays and retirement pay.
> They despise anyone that is not dependent on someone else for their job.
Click to expand...


You sound just like Adolf describing the Jews. 

Coincidence?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to them as "liberals."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
Click to expand...



So the SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the law amended by we the people. Telling us what we mean when we send them a law so that they can enforce our laws on us by their measure? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer to them as "liberals."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the law amended by we the people. Telling us what we mean when we send them a law so that they can enforce our laws on us by their measure? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...


If the executive branch tries to enforce a law that someone believes is unconstitutional it is referred to the Federal Court system for a ruling. The lower courts rule as to Constitutionality, but their ruling can be appealed up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. 

If it is ruled unConstitutional it cannot be enforced by any court in the land. 

The relevant interpretation of the Constitution is based on the original words in it, it's amendments, and the precedents set by Federal Court systems through the years.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap.  The original Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was far better than anything you endorse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."
> 
> As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.
Click to expand...


Not unAmerican at all.    Our government routinely ignores the Constitution. Anyone who claims it is still in force is either a fool or a tool of our fascist government.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name calling, threats and intimidation are just a few of the methods the parasite class uses to keep us all cowed and reluctant to throw off our chains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the while they work their 40 hour weeks with benefits, days off for holidays and retirement pay.
> They despise anyone that is not dependent on someone else for their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound just like Adolf describing the Jews.
> 
> Coincidence?
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm,   .   .   no.  He sounds like a Jew describing the Nazis. Remember, the Nazis were the ones running the government.  That would be equivalent to you and your ilk.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap.  The original Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was far better than anything you endorse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."
> 
> As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not unAmerican at all.    Our government routinely ignores the Constitution. Anyone who claims it is still in force is either a fool or a tool of our fascist government.
Click to expand...


Why do you choose to live under a fascist government?

Are you in a terrorist cell here or something?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the law amended by we the people. Telling us what we mean when we send them a law so that they can enforce our laws on us by their measure? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the executive branch tries to enforce a law that someone believes is unconstitutional it is referred to the Federal Court system for a ruling. The lower courts rule as to Constitutionality, but their ruling can be appealed up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
> 
> If it is ruled unConstitutional it cannot be enforced by any court in the land.
> 
> The relevant interpretation of the Constitution is based on the original words in it, it's amendments, and the precedents set by Federal Court systems through the years.
Click to expand...


You mean a precedent where the court rules something to be a tax that is clearly not a tax?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the while they work their 40 hour weeks with benefits, days off for holidays and retirement pay.
> They despise anyone that is not dependent on someone else for their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound just like Adolf describing the Jews.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm,   .   .   no.  He sounds like a Jew describing the Nazis. Remember, the Nazis were the ones running the government.  That would be equivalent to you and your ilk.
Click to expand...


The fact that you say something does not make it true. 

Do you really think that the German Jews called your hero lazy?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the law amended by we the people. Telling us what we mean when we send them a law so that they can enforce our laws on us by their measure? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the executive branch tries to enforce a law that someone believes is unconstitutional it is referred to the Federal Court system for a ruling. The lower courts rule as to Constitutionality, but their ruling can be appealed up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
> 
> If it is ruled unConstitutional it cannot be enforced by any court in the land.
> 
> The relevant interpretation of the Constitution is based on the original words in it, it's amendments, and the precedents set by Federal Court systems through the years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean a precedent where the court rules something to be a tax that is clearly not a tax?
Click to expand...


If you'd like to be on the Supreme Court get a law degree specializing in Constitutional Law, practice for 4 decades or so and rise to the top of your profession including many years on the Federal Bench. That will get your odds up to 1 in a few thousand. 

I assume that you have zero of those qualifications so you have zero credibility in their field. 

So, stick to plumbing expertise or whatever you have.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.  You like your constitution but not our Constitution.  The one that SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting and enforcing.  The one amended by we,  the people.  The one that supports democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the law amended by we the people. Telling us what we mean when we send them a law so that they can enforce our laws on us by their measure? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the executive branch tries to enforce a law that someone believes is unconstitutional it is referred to the Federal Court system for a ruling. The lower courts rule as to Constitutionality, but their ruling can be appealed up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
> 
> If it is ruled unConstitutional it cannot be enforced by any court in the land.
> 
> The relevant interpretation of the Constitution is based on the original words in it, it's amendments, and the precedents set by Federal Court systems through the years.
Click to expand...



So the SCOTUS interprets laws referred to them written by we the people, as you put it, and rules on those. It seems that the Federal government would be we the peoples representative? That's my assumption of your position of course.

Would it then mean that out of 300 million people that 200 correctly represent them and all their views? All the while  holding only two parties providing two options to any solution? That's the system you defend? Or am I missing something?

You know what I'm missing? The salaries of we the people.those writing our laws make more than 10 times (over 1000%) the federal poverty level. (15000). So my question then is if the representatives of the people are so far out of touch with them, on what basis are they arguing against these laws?

The system you seem to approve of has consistently passed laws that grant the Federal government the power to detain Americans without trial. The NDAA. Ever heard of it? Now tell me how due process means life with no trial in a court and how that is constitutional.

AND NO DODGING. Please.


----------



## johnwk

OODA_Loop said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain minimum essential coverage, each month, for themselves and their dependents.
> 
> Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayers individual tax return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're looking at the tax for not having insurance withstanding Constitutional scrutiny of SCOTUS
Click to expand...


I still have no idea of what your point is.  What is you point in relation to what I posted?


JWK


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the law amended by we the people. Telling us what we mean when we send them a law so that they can enforce our laws on us by their measure? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the executive branch tries to enforce a law that someone believes is unconstitutional it is referred to the Federal Court system for a ruling. The lower courts rule as to Constitutionality, but their ruling can be appealed up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
> 
> If it is ruled unConstitutional it cannot be enforced by any court in the land.
> 
> The relevant interpretation of the Constitution is based on the original words in it, it's amendments, and the precedents set by Federal Court systems through the years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS interprets laws referred to them written by we the people, as you put it, and rules on those. It seems that the Federal government would be we the peoples representative? That's my assumption of your position of course.
> 
> Would it then mean that out of 300 million people that 200 correctly represent them and all their views? All the while  holding only two parties providing two options to any solution? That's the system you defend? Or am I missing something?
> 
> You know what I'm missing? The salaries of we the people.those writing our laws make more than 10 times (over 1000%) the federal poverty level. (15000). So my question then is if the representatives of the people are so far out of touch with them, on what basis are they arguing against these laws?
> 
> The system you seem to approve of has consistently passed laws that grant the Federal government the power to detain Americans without trial. The NDAA. Ever heard of it? Now tell me how due process means life with no trial in a court and how that is constitutional.
> 
> AND NO DODGING. Please.
Click to expand...


You assume that anyone should have the right to break any law that they want to because their interpretation of the Constitution outlaws that law. 

Doing that would not be any different than just discarding the Constitution and all of the laws based on it and declaring anarchy.  Which, I suspect,  is your real agenda.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted.  Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's against our Constitution,  as are you.
Click to expand...



Your blanketed statement makes no sense.  Be specific and explain why.  Failure to do so will confirm you are trolling the thread.  Your unsubstantiated insulting remarks are not appreciated. 


JWK


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the executive branch tries to enforce a law that someone believes is unconstitutional it is referred to the Federal Court system for a ruling. The lower courts rule as to Constitutionality, but their ruling can be appealed up to the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
> 
> If it is ruled unConstitutional it cannot be enforced by any court in the land.
> 
> The relevant interpretation of the Constitution is based on the original words in it, it's amendments, and the precedents set by Federal Court systems through the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS interprets laws referred to them written by we the people, as you put it, and rules on those. It seems that the Federal government would be we the peoples representative? That's my assumption of your position of course.
> 
> Would it then mean that out of 300 million people that 200 correctly represent them and all their views? All the while  holding only two parties providing two options to any solution? That's the system you defend? Or am I missing something?
> 
> You know what I'm missing? The salaries of we the people.those writing our laws make more than 10 times (over 1000%) the federal poverty level. (15000). So my question then is if the representatives of the people are so far out of touch with them, on what basis are they arguing against these laws?
> 
> The system you seem to approve of has consistently passed laws that grant the Federal government the power to detain Americans without trial. The NDAA. Ever heard of it? Now tell me how due process means life with no trial in a court and how that is constitutional.
> 
> AND NO DODGING. Please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume that anyone should have the right to break any law that they want to because their interpretation of the Constitution outlaws that law.
> 
> Doing that would not be any different than just discarding the Constitution and all of the laws based on it and declaring anarchy.  Which, I suspect,  is your real agenda.
Click to expand...



No PMZ you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no agenda. I'm not a politician. And you dodged darn it! Didn't address anything I said. Tsk.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted.  Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> *  "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.* ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's against our Constitution,  as are you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your blanketed statement makes no sense.  Be specific and explain why.  Failure to do so will confirm you are trolling the thread.  Your unsubstantiated insulting remarks are not appreciated.
> 
> 
> JWK
Click to expand...


Because you think that any persons opinion of what the Constitution implies is valid.  The word for that is anarchy.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the SCOTUS interprets laws referred to them written by we the people, as you put it, and rules on those. It seems that the Federal government would be we the peoples representative? That's my assumption of your position of course.
> 
> Would it then mean that out of 300 million people that 200 correctly represent them and all their views? All the while  holding only two parties providing two options to any solution? That's the system you defend? Or am I missing something?
> 
> You know what I'm missing? The salaries of we the people.those writing our laws make more than 10 times (over 1000%) the federal poverty level. (15000). So my question then is if the representatives of the people are so far out of touch with them, on what basis are they arguing against these laws?
> 
> The system you seem to approve of has consistently passed laws that grant the Federal government the power to detain Americans without trial. The NDAA. Ever heard of it? Now tell me how due process means life with no trial in a court and how that is constitutional.
> 
> AND NO DODGING. Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that anyone should have the right to break any law that they want to because their interpretation of the Constitution outlaws that law.
> 
> Doing that would not be any different than just discarding the Constitution and all of the laws based on it and declaring anarchy.  Which, I suspect,  is your real agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No PMZ you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no agenda. I'm not a politician. And you dodged darn it! Didn't address anything I said. Tsk.
Click to expand...


I addressed everything that you've said,  a truth very inconvenient for you.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that anyone should have the right to break any law that they want to because their interpretation of the Constitution outlaws that law.
> 
> Doing that would not be any different than just discarding the Constitution and all of the laws based on it and declaring anarchy.  Which, I suspect,  is your real agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No PMZ you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no agenda. I'm not a politician. And you dodged darn it! Didn't address anything I said. Tsk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed everything that you've said,  a truth very inconvenient for you.
Click to expand...



You can't make assumptions about my personal positions when all I've done is ask questions. You've dodged almost all my posts.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No PMZ you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no agenda. I'm not a politician. And you dodged darn it! Didn't address anything I said. Tsk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed everything that you've said,  a truth very inconvenient for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make assumptions about my personal positions when all I've done is ask questions. You've dodged almost all my posts.
Click to expand...


I don't have to make assumptions at all.  You ask questions,  you expect the answer you got from Republican propaganda,  but that's rarely the best answer. 

That's not dodging your posts.  It's expanding your mind.  That's frequently painful.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An extremist to you is everyone that wants to stop the government from taking 60% of their money that they worked 65 hours a week to earn.
> We call those folks good citizens that are independent and do not ask others to pay their expenses.
> You despise all of us that are not dependent on government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been dependent on government. I believe in America because it gives even people like you a chance.
Click to expand...


LOL, now that is pretty good! HAHA very funny.
Back to reality.
There is a very big difference between you and I.
I believe you should be able to keep more of the money you earn and increase the payments you make to government if you believe they need more money.
You believe you have the right to vote for government to legally steal more of the money I make to give to people you believe deserve it more than I do.
And that is morally wrong.


----------



## Gadawg73

It is true. PMZ and the liberal only have insults and juvenile analogies to offer.
He has no facts left to argue.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An extremist to you is everyone that wants to stop the government from taking 60% of their money that they worked 65 hours a week to earn.
> We call those folks good citizens that are independent and do not ask others to pay their expenses.
> You despise all of us that are not dependent on government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been dependent on government. I believe in America because it gives even people like you a chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, now that is pretty good! HAHA very funny.
> Back to reality.
> There is a very big difference between you and I.
> I believe you should be able to keep more of the money you earn and increase the payments you make to government if you believe they need more money.
> You believe you have the right to vote for government to legally steal more of the money I make to give to people you believe deserve it more than I do.
> And that is morally wrong.
Click to expand...


I believe that gasoline costs what it does,  healthcare what it does,  milk what it does,  and government what it does.  So,  I try to live within my means with an eye on future possibilities.  And I pay all my bills.  

I don't want more than I can afford.  I get satisfaction from what I can afford,  and give thanks for being born in the best place at the best time to the best parents and the for the gift of great curiosity and love of learning. 

I have always expected to work hard and live responsibly. 

I have little patience for people who need more than they can afford.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed everything that you've said,  a truth very inconvenient for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make assumptions about my personal positions when all I've done is ask questions. You've dodged almost all my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to make assumptions at all.  You ask questions,  you expect the answer you got from Republican propaganda,  but that's rarely the best answer.
> 
> That's not dodging your posts.  It's expanding your mind.  That's frequently painful.
Click to expand...



You tried to put words in my mouth. You could've given me leftist propaganda. Yet all you do is dodge.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make assumptions about my personal positions when all I've done is ask questions. You've dodged almost all my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to make assumptions at all.  You ask questions,  you expect the answer you got from Republican propaganda,  but that's rarely the best answer.
> 
> That's not dodging your posts.  It's expanding your mind.  That's frequently painful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to put words in my mouth. You could've given me leftist propaganda. Yet all you do is dodge.
Click to expand...


I don't have any leftist propaganda.  Just my own thoughts and opinions.  In fact, I'm a centrist,  not a leftist,  something that you can't distinguish from the extreme right.


----------



## PMZ

jeffer said:


> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Order Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> RESEARCH CHEMICALS
> Mephedrone, Ketamine, Ephedrine Hcl,Methylone, Online USA,UK,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,Methadrone, Pseudoephedrine, Etizolam,MAM-2201,HU-210,HU-211
> HU-239,HU-243,HU-308,HU-320,HU-331,HU-336,HU-345,Phenazepam,
> STS-135,MDPV,BAY 38-7271,Pentylone,5-MeO-MiPT,a-pvp,
> A-796260,A-834735,BZ-6378
> AM-2233,A-PVP,5-MeO-DALT,tribe 3g incense,JTE-907,Methaqualone, (Quaaludes),fire n ice, afghan incense,Methoxetamine(MXE),metallic mercury,Methamphetamine,Naphyrone,4-Meo-PCP,4-Ho-MIPT,4-Aco-DMT,
> 5-Meo-DMT,TCB-2,Bromo Dragonfly,DOI,DOC,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,2C-T-2,2C-I,2C-N,2C-C,2C-P,2C-B,
> 2C-E,2C-I,TFMPP,JWH-019,JWH-203,JWH-200,PENTEDRONE,4-CAB,4-MEC CRYSTAL,ZZ-1,ZZ-2,JWH-018,JWH-250,JWH-307,JWH-249,4-FA,RCS-4,URB-597,URB-754,4-Mec,ZZ-1,4-DMMC,FLEPHEDRONE,4-CAB,CB-1,CB-2,4-Fluoromethamphetamine,Sudafed,ALD-52,Methcathinone,Methoxamine,Methiopropamine,TMA-6,3-MeO-PCP,Methedrone,Pentedrone,a-pvp,pb-135
> 3,4-DMMC,6-APB,SAB-378,CB-13,JWH-073,UR-144,5FUR-144,URB-602,MAM-2201,AM-2201,AM-1248,AM-1220,4-EMC,2-FMA,2-FA,aMT,NRG-2,NRG-1,MDAT,
> JWH-251,JWH-210,WIN 55,225,JWH-133,JWH-122,JWH-073,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,JWH-051,JWH-015,Eric-2,Diphenylprolinol (D2PM),Dimethocaine
> CP 55,244,bk-MBDB,Butylone,Buphedrone,bk-MDMA,AM-694,Ethylphenidate Crystal,BenzoFury,6APB,4-mmc,4-fmc,4-FMA,3-fmc,5-IAI AND MORE AVAILABLE.
> 
> 
> Buy Actavis Promethazine Codeine Cough Syrup in USA
> bk-MDMA buy bk-MDMA for sale in USA,UK,FRANCE,GERMANY,BELGIUM,POLAND
> high quality methylone crystals for sale online buy methylone in USA
> 3,4-DMMC,Dimethylone,THJ-2201,THJ-018,MPA ,Dimethylone,4-HO-MET,PRO-LAD,ETH-LAD,THJ-2201,THJ-018,
> 4-FA  a-pvp,MXE,Ethylphenidate,MPA ,
> 5FAB-PIINACA,AB-PIANCA,5FAB-PIINACA, Methylone
> 
> PARTY PILLS AND BATH SALTS
> Xplode Party Pills,Rave Party Pills,Frozen Party Pills,TNT Party Pills,Mello Man Party Pills,Space Trips Party Pills,Arctic Blast Bath Salts,Aura Bath Salts,Bayou Ivory Flower Bath Salts,Bliss Bath Salts,
> Blizzard Bath Salts,Bloom Bath Salts,Blue Magic Bath Salts,Online USA,UK,EUROPE,Blue Silk Bath Salts,Bolivian Bath Salts,Bonsai Winter Boost Bath Salts,Bonsai Grow Bath Salts,C Original Bath Salts,Charge + Bath Salts
> Charley Sheene Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Bath Salts,Tranquility Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Ultra Bath Salts,Cloud 9 Bath Salts,Cotton Cloud Bath Salts,Dynamite Plus Bath Salts,Eight Ballz Bath Salts,Eurhoria Bath Salt,
> 
> 
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE



Another conservative entrepreneur working long hours.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to make assumptions at all.  You ask questions,  you expect the answer you got from Republican propaganda,  but that's rarely the best answer.
> 
> That's not dodging your posts.  It's expanding your mind.  That's frequently painful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to put words in my mouth. You could've given me leftist propaganda. Yet all you do is dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any leftist propaganda.  Just my own thoughts and opinions.  In fact, I'm a centrist,  not a leftist,  something that you can't distinguish from the extreme right.
Click to expand...



Well you didn't give me any centrist ideas either PMZ. I don't believe in the right or the left. Or the middle for that matter.

All I'm asking for is direct responses and the only time you answer directly is when I say you don't!


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> jeffer said:
> 
> 
> 
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Order Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> RESEARCH CHEMICALS
> Mephedrone, Ketamine, Ephedrine Hcl,Methylone, Online USA,UK,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,Methadrone, Pseudoephedrine, Etizolam,MAM-2201,HU-210,HU-211
> HU-239,HU-243,HU-308,HU-320,HU-331,HU-336,HU-345,Phenazepam,
> STS-135,MDPV,BAY 38-7271,Pentylone,5-MeO-MiPT,a-pvp,
> A-796260,A-834735,BZ-6378
> AM-2233,A-PVP,5-MeO-DALT,tribe 3g incense,JTE-907,Methaqualone, (Quaaludes),fire n ice, afghan incense,Methoxetamine(MXE),metallic mercury,Methamphetamine,Naphyrone,4-Meo-PCP,4-Ho-MIPT,4-Aco-DMT,
> 5-Meo-DMT,TCB-2,Bromo Dragonfly,DOI,DOC,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,2C-T-2,2C-I,2C-N,2C-C,2C-P,2C-B,
> 2C-E,2C-I,TFMPP,JWH-019,JWH-203,JWH-200,PENTEDRONE,4-CAB,4-MEC CRYSTAL,ZZ-1,ZZ-2,JWH-018,JWH-250,JWH-307,JWH-249,4-FA,RCS-4,URB-597,URB-754,4-Mec,ZZ-1,4-DMMC,FLEPHEDRONE,4-CAB,CB-1,CB-2,4-Fluoromethamphetamine,Sudafed,ALD-52,Methcathinone,Methoxamine,Methiopropamine,TMA-6,3-MeO-PCP,Methedrone,Pentedrone,a-pvp,pb-135
> 3,4-DMMC,6-APB,SAB-378,CB-13,JWH-073,UR-144,5FUR-144,URB-602,MAM-2201,AM-2201,AM-1248,AM-1220,4-EMC,2-FMA,2-FA,aMT,NRG-2,NRG-1,MDAT,
> JWH-251,JWH-210,WIN 55,225,JWH-133,JWH-122,JWH-073,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,JWH-051,JWH-015,Eric-2,Diphenylprolinol (D2PM),Dimethocaine
> CP 55,244,bk-MBDB,Butylone,Buphedrone,bk-MDMA,AM-694,Ethylphenidate Crystal,BenzoFury,6APB,4-mmc,4-fmc,4-FMA,3-fmc,5-IAI AND MORE AVAILABLE.
> 
> 
> Buy Actavis Promethazine Codeine Cough Syrup in USA
> bk-MDMA buy bk-MDMA for sale in USA,UK,FRANCE,GERMANY,BELGIUM,POLAND
> high quality methylone crystals for sale online buy methylone in USA
> 3,4-DMMC,Dimethylone,THJ-2201,THJ-018,MPA ,Dimethylone,4-HO-MET,PRO-LAD,ETH-LAD,THJ-2201,THJ-018,
> 4-FA  a-pvp,MXE,Ethylphenidate,MPA ,
> 5FAB-PIINACA,AB-PIANCA,5FAB-PIINACA, Methylone
> 
> PARTY PILLS AND BATH SALTS
> Xplode Party Pills,Rave Party Pills,Frozen Party Pills,TNT Party Pills,Mello Man Party Pills,Space Trips Party Pills,Arctic Blast Bath Salts,Aura Bath Salts,Bayou Ivory Flower Bath Salts,Bliss Bath Salts,
> Blizzard Bath Salts,Bloom Bath Salts,Blue Magic Bath Salts,Online USA,UK,EUROPE,Blue Silk Bath Salts,Bolivian Bath Salts,Bonsai Winter Boost Bath Salts,Bonsai Grow Bath Salts,C Original Bath Salts,Charge + Bath Salts
> Charley Sheene Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Bath Salts,Tranquility Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Ultra Bath Salts,Cloud 9 Bath Salts,Cotton Cloud Bath Salts,Dynamite Plus Bath Salts,Eight Ballz Bath Salts,Eurhoria Bath Salt,
> 
> 
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative entrepreneur working long hours.
Click to expand...



Another assumption made. You can in no way prove his political affiliation.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffer said:
> 
> 
> 
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Order Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> RESEARCH CHEMICALS
> Mephedrone, Ketamine, Ephedrine Hcl,Methylone, Online USA,UK,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,Methadrone, Pseudoephedrine, Etizolam,MAM-2201,HU-210,HU-211
> HU-239,HU-243,HU-308,HU-320,HU-331,HU-336,HU-345,Phenazepam,
> STS-135,MDPV,BAY 38-7271,Pentylone,5-MeO-MiPT,a-pvp,
> A-796260,A-834735,BZ-6378
> AM-2233,A-PVP,5-MeO-DALT,tribe 3g incense,JTE-907,Methaqualone, (Quaaludes),fire n ice, afghan incense,Methoxetamine(MXE),metallic mercury,Methamphetamine,Naphyrone,4-Meo-PCP,4-Ho-MIPT,4-Aco-DMT,
> 5-Meo-DMT,TCB-2,Bromo Dragonfly,DOI,DOC,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,2C-T-2,2C-I,2C-N,2C-C,2C-P,2C-B,
> 2C-E,2C-I,TFMPP,JWH-019,JWH-203,JWH-200,PENTEDRONE,4-CAB,4-MEC CRYSTAL,ZZ-1,ZZ-2,JWH-018,JWH-250,JWH-307,JWH-249,4-FA,RCS-4,URB-597,URB-754,4-Mec,ZZ-1,4-DMMC,FLEPHEDRONE,4-CAB,CB-1,CB-2,4-Fluoromethamphetamine,Sudafed,ALD-52,Methcathinone,Methoxamine,Methiopropamine,TMA-6,3-MeO-PCP,Methedrone,Pentedrone,a-pvp,pb-135
> 3,4-DMMC,6-APB,SAB-378,CB-13,JWH-073,UR-144,5FUR-144,URB-602,MAM-2201,AM-2201,AM-1248,AM-1220,4-EMC,2-FMA,2-FA,aMT,NRG-2,NRG-1,MDAT,
> JWH-251,JWH-210,WIN 55,225,JWH-133,JWH-122,JWH-073,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,JWH-051,JWH-015,Eric-2,Diphenylprolinol (D2PM),Dimethocaine
> CP 55,244,bk-MBDB,Butylone,Buphedrone,bk-MDMA,AM-694,Ethylphenidate Crystal,BenzoFury,6APB,4-mmc,4-fmc,4-FMA,3-fmc,5-IAI AND MORE AVAILABLE.
> 
> 
> Buy Actavis Promethazine Codeine Cough Syrup in USA
> bk-MDMA buy bk-MDMA for sale in USA,UK,FRANCE,GERMANY,BELGIUM,POLAND
> high quality methylone crystals for sale online buy methylone in USA
> 3,4-DMMC,Dimethylone,THJ-2201,THJ-018,MPA ,Dimethylone,4-HO-MET,PRO-LAD,ETH-LAD,THJ-2201,THJ-018,
> 4-FA  a-pvp,MXE,Ethylphenidate,MPA ,
> 5FAB-PIINACA,AB-PIANCA,5FAB-PIINACA, Methylone
> 
> PARTY PILLS AND BATH SALTS
> Xplode Party Pills,Rave Party Pills,Frozen Party Pills,TNT Party Pills,Mello Man Party Pills,Space Trips Party Pills,Arctic Blast Bath Salts,Aura Bath Salts,Bayou Ivory Flower Bath Salts,Bliss Bath Salts,
> Blizzard Bath Salts,Bloom Bath Salts,Blue Magic Bath Salts,Online USA,UK,EUROPE,Blue Silk Bath Salts,Bolivian Bath Salts,Bonsai Winter Boost Bath Salts,Bonsai Grow Bath Salts,C Original Bath Salts,Charge + Bath Salts
> Charley Sheene Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Bath Salts,Tranquility Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Ultra Bath Salts,Cloud 9 Bath Salts,Cotton Cloud Bath Salts,Dynamite Plus Bath Salts,Eight Ballz Bath Salts,Eurhoria Bath Salt,
> 
> 
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative entrepreneur working long hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another assumption made. You can in no way prove his political affiliation.
Click to expand...


You are right.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> jeffer said:
> 
> 
> 
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Order Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> RESEARCH CHEMICALS
> Mephedrone, Ketamine, Ephedrine Hcl,Methylone, Online USA,UK,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,Methadrone, Pseudoephedrine, Etizolam,MAM-2201,HU-210,HU-211
> HU-239,HU-243,HU-308,HU-320,HU-331,HU-336,HU-345,Phenazepam,
> STS-135,MDPV,BAY 38-7271,Pentylone,5-MeO-MiPT,a-pvp,
> A-796260,A-834735,BZ-6378
> AM-2233,A-PVP,5-MeO-DALT,tribe 3g incense,JTE-907,Methaqualone, (Quaaludes),fire n ice, afghan incense,Methoxetamine(MXE),metallic mercury,Methamphetamine,Naphyrone,4-Meo-PCP,4-Ho-MIPT,4-Aco-DMT,
> 5-Meo-DMT,TCB-2,Bromo Dragonfly,DOI,DOC,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,2C-T-2,2C-I,2C-N,2C-C,2C-P,2C-B,
> 2C-E,2C-I,TFMPP,JWH-019,JWH-203,JWH-200,PENTEDRONE,4-CAB,4-MEC CRYSTAL,ZZ-1,ZZ-2,JWH-018,JWH-250,JWH-307,JWH-249,4-FA,RCS-4,URB-597,URB-754,4-Mec,ZZ-1,4-DMMC,FLEPHEDRONE,4-CAB,CB-1,CB-2,4-Fluoromethamphetamine,Sudafed,ALD-52,Methcathinone,Methoxamine,Methiopropamine,TMA-6,3-MeO-PCP,Methedrone,Pentedrone,a-pvp,pb-135
> 3,4-DMMC,6-APB,SAB-378,CB-13,JWH-073,UR-144,5FUR-144,URB-602,MAM-2201,AM-2201,AM-1248,AM-1220,4-EMC,2-FMA,2-FA,aMT,NRG-2,NRG-1,MDAT,
> JWH-251,JWH-210,WIN 55,225,JWH-133,JWH-122,JWH-073,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,JWH-051,JWH-015,Eric-2,Diphenylprolinol (D2PM),Dimethocaine
> CP 55,244,bk-MBDB,Butylone,Buphedrone,bk-MDMA,AM-694,Ethylphenidate Crystal,BenzoFury,6APB,4-mmc,4-fmc,4-FMA,3-fmc,5-IAI AND MORE AVAILABLE.
> 
> 
> Buy Actavis Promethazine Codeine Cough Syrup in USA
> bk-MDMA buy bk-MDMA for sale in USA,UK,FRANCE,GERMANY,BELGIUM,POLAND
> high quality methylone crystals for sale online buy methylone in USA
> 3,4-DMMC,Dimethylone,THJ-2201,THJ-018,MPA ,Dimethylone,4-HO-MET,PRO-LAD,ETH-LAD,THJ-2201,THJ-018,
> 4-FA  a-pvp,MXE,Ethylphenidate,MPA ,
> 5FAB-PIINACA,AB-PIANCA,5FAB-PIINACA, Methylone
> 
> PARTY PILLS AND BATH SALTS
> Xplode Party Pills,Rave Party Pills,Frozen Party Pills,TNT Party Pills,Mello Man Party Pills,Space Trips Party Pills,Arctic Blast Bath Salts,Aura Bath Salts,Bayou Ivory Flower Bath Salts,Bliss Bath Salts,
> Blizzard Bath Salts,Bloom Bath Salts,Blue Magic Bath Salts,Online USA,UK,EUROPE,Blue Silk Bath Salts,Bolivian Bath Salts,Bonsai Winter Boost Bath Salts,Bonsai Grow Bath Salts,C Original Bath Salts,Charge + Bath Salts
> Charley Sheene Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Bath Salts,Tranquility Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Ultra Bath Salts,Cloud 9 Bath Salts,Cotton Cloud Bath Salts,Dynamite Plus Bath Salts,Eight Ballz Bath Salts,Eurhoria Bath Salt,
> 
> 
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative entrepreneur working long hours.
Click to expand...


Your point?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffer said:
> 
> 
> 
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Order Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> RESEARCH CHEMICALS
> Mephedrone, Ketamine, Ephedrine Hcl,Methylone, Online USA,UK,CANADA,AUSTRALIA,Methadrone, Pseudoephedrine, Etizolam,MAM-2201,HU-210,HU-211
> HU-239,HU-243,HU-308,HU-320,HU-331,HU-336,HU-345,Phenazepam,
> STS-135,MDPV,BAY 38-7271,Pentylone,5-MeO-MiPT,a-pvp,
> A-796260,A-834735,BZ-6378
> AM-2233,A-PVP,5-MeO-DALT,tribe 3g incense,JTE-907,Methaqualone, (Quaaludes),fire n ice, afghan incense,Methoxetamine(MXE),metallic mercury,Methamphetamine,Naphyrone,4-Meo-PCP,4-Ho-MIPT,4-Aco-DMT,
> 5-Meo-DMT,TCB-2,Bromo Dragonfly,DOI,DOC,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,2C-T-2,2C-I,2C-N,2C-C,2C-P,2C-B,
> 2C-E,2C-I,TFMPP,JWH-019,JWH-203,JWH-200,PENTEDRONE,4-CAB,4-MEC CRYSTAL,ZZ-1,ZZ-2,JWH-018,JWH-250,JWH-307,JWH-249,4-FA,RCS-4,URB-597,URB-754,4-Mec,ZZ-1,4-DMMC,FLEPHEDRONE,4-CAB,CB-1,CB-2,4-Fluoromethamphetamine,Sudafed,ALD-52,Methcathinone,Methoxamine,Methiopropamine,TMA-6,3-MeO-PCP,Methedrone,Pentedrone,a-pvp,pb-135
> 3,4-DMMC,6-APB,SAB-378,CB-13,JWH-073,UR-144,5FUR-144,URB-602,MAM-2201,AM-2201,AM-1248,AM-1220,4-EMC,2-FMA,2-FA,aMT,NRG-2,NRG-1,MDAT,
> JWH-251,JWH-210,WIN 55,225,JWH-133,JWH-122,JWH-073,Online USA,UK,CANADA,EUROPE,JWH-051,JWH-015,Eric-2,Diphenylprolinol (D2PM),Dimethocaine
> CP 55,244,bk-MBDB,Butylone,Buphedrone,bk-MDMA,AM-694,Ethylphenidate Crystal,BenzoFury,6APB,4-mmc,4-fmc,4-FMA,3-fmc,5-IAI AND MORE AVAILABLE.
> 
> 
> Buy Actavis Promethazine Codeine Cough Syrup in USA
> bk-MDMA buy bk-MDMA for sale in USA,UK,FRANCE,GERMANY,BELGIUM,POLAND
> high quality methylone crystals for sale online buy methylone in USA
> 3,4-DMMC,Dimethylone,THJ-2201,THJ-018,MPA ,Dimethylone,4-HO-MET,PRO-LAD,ETH-LAD,THJ-2201,THJ-018,
> 4-FA  a-pvp,MXE,Ethylphenidate,MPA ,
> 5FAB-PIINACA,AB-PIANCA,5FAB-PIINACA, Methylone
> 
> PARTY PILLS AND BATH SALTS
> Xplode Party Pills,Rave Party Pills,Frozen Party Pills,TNT Party Pills,Mello Man Party Pills,Space Trips Party Pills,Arctic Blast Bath Salts,Aura Bath Salts,Bayou Ivory Flower Bath Salts,Bliss Bath Salts,
> Blizzard Bath Salts,Bloom Bath Salts,Blue Magic Bath Salts,Online USA,UK,EUROPE,Blue Silk Bath Salts,Bolivian Bath Salts,Bonsai Winter Boost Bath Salts,Bonsai Grow Bath Salts,C Original Bath Salts,Charge + Bath Salts
> Charley Sheene Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Bath Salts,Tranquility Bath Salts,Cloud 10 Ultra Bath Salts,Cloud 9 Bath Salts,Cotton Cloud Bath Salts,Dynamite Plus Bath Salts,Eight Ballz Bath Salts,Eurhoria Bath Salt,
> 
> 
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> info(at)dezchemsonline(dot)com
> Call Us Now +1-207-809-3137
> Online USA,UK,AUSTRALIA CANADA,EUROPE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative entrepreneur working long hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point?
Click to expand...


You're the one that believes that mankind's highest calling is make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's against our Constitution,  as are you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your blanketed statement makes no sense.  Be specific and explain why.  Failure to do so will confirm you are trolling the thread.  Your unsubstantiated insulting remarks are not appreciated.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you think that any persons opinion of what the Constitution implies is valid.  The word for that is anarchy.
Click to expand...

Well, I see you once again post an unsubstantiated charge.

Stop trolling the thread.  


JWK

*Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.  *


----------



## johnwk

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make assumptions about my personal positions when all I've done is ask questions. You've dodged almost all my posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to make assumptions at all.  You ask questions,  you expect the answer you got from Republican propaganda,  but that's rarely the best answer.
> 
> That's not dodging your posts.  It's expanding your mind.  That's frequently painful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to put words in my mouth. You could've given me leftist propaganda. Yet all you do is dodge.
Click to expand...



That is exactly what a troll does ___ constantly avoids a discussion, engages in adolescent personal attacks and name calling, and refuses to acknowledge documented facts, not to mention switching the subject and going off topic.


JWK


*America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.*


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another conservative entrepreneur working long hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one that believes that mankind's highest calling is make more money regardless of the cost to others.
Click to expand...


Really?  Where have I said that?


----------



## Gadawg73

Amazing how ignorant the left is. They believe that when someone becomes wealthy that somehow they stole the money from someone else and others have less.
They do not understand that growing the economy is always good as there is not a fixed limited amount of assets and money in this economic system.
The pie is always growing and all ships go higher with a rising tide.


----------



## JoeNormal

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how ignorant the left is. They believe that when someone becomes wealthy that somehow they stole the money from someone else and others have less.
> They do not understand that growing the economy is always good as there is not a fixed limited amount of assets and money in this economic system.
> The pie is always growing and all ships go higher with a rising tide.



So you've apparently missed all of the hundreds of references to the stagnant wages of the middle class and the exponentially rising wealth of the already wealthy?


----------



## dcraelin

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how ignorant the left is. They believe that when someone becomes wealthy that somehow they stole the money from someone else and others have less.
> They do not understand that growing the economy is always good as there is not a fixed limited amount of assets and money in this economic system.
> The pie is always growing and all ships go higher with a rising tide.



this from the guy that didnt understand how taxation worked.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Amazing how ignorant the left is. They believe that when someone becomes wealthy that somehow they stole the money from someone else and others have less.
> They do not understand that growing the economy is always good as there is not a fixed limited amount of assets and money in this economic system.
> The pie is always growing and all ships go higher with a rising tide.



Growing the economy is great for everyone.  It's not related to wealth.  It's related to work and innovation and customer focus.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to make assumptions at all.  You ask questions,  you expect the answer you got from Republican propaganda,  but that's rarely the best answer.
> 
> That's not dodging your posts.  It's expanding your mind.  That's frequently painful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You tried to put words in my mouth. You could've given me leftist propaganda. Yet all you do is dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what a troll does ___ constantly avoids a discussion, engages in adolescent personal attacks and name calling, and refuses to acknowledge documented facts, not to mention switching the subject and going off topic.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> *America will not regain her honor and splendor until the blood of tyrants is made to flow in our streets.*
Click to expand...


A first.  A troll confession.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> "The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."
> 
> As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.



That's because you are ignorant of how American government works.

The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution. I know you Marxians dream of one more Elena Kagan on the court, so the 1st and 2nd amendments can be ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how ignorant the left is. They believe that when someone becomes wealthy that somehow they stole the money from someone else and others have less.
> They do not understand that growing the economy is always good as there is not a fixed limited amount of assets and money in this economic system.
> The pie is always growing and all ships go higher with a rising tide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing the economy is great for everyone.  It's not related to wealth.  It's related to work and innovation and customer focus.
Click to expand...


Meaningless babble.  As if more wealth isn't desirable.  Only a liberal worm would ever say something as stupid and mealy-mouthed as that.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how ignorant the left is. They believe that when someone becomes wealthy that somehow they stole the money from someone else and others have less.
> They do not understand that growing the economy is always good as there is not a fixed limited amount of assets and money in this economic system.
> The pie is always growing and all ships go higher with a rising tide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Growing the economy is great for everyone.  It's not related to wealth.  It's related to work and innovation and customer focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.  As if more wealth isn't desirable.  Only a liberal worm would ever say something like that.
Click to expand...


What are you disagreeing with?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been dependent on government. I believe in America because it gives even people like you a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, now that is pretty good! HAHA very funny.
> Back to reality.
> There is a very big difference between you and I.
> I believe you should be able to keep more of the money you earn and increase the payments you make to government if you believe they need more money.
> You believe you have the right to vote for government to legally steal more of the money I make to give to people you believe deserve it more than I do.
> And that is morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that gasoline costs what it does,  healthcare what it does,  milk what it does,  and government what it does.  So,  I try to live within my means with an eye on future possibilities.  And I pay all my bills.
> 
> I don't want more than I can afford.  I get satisfaction from what I can afford,  and give thanks for being born in the best place at the best time to the best parents and the for the gift of great curiosity and love of learning.
> 
> I have always expected to work hard and live responsibly.
> 
> I have little patience for people who need more than they can afford.
Click to expand...


I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."
> 
> As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of how American government works.
> 
> The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution. I know you Marxians dream of one more Elena Kagan on the court, so the 1st and 2nd amendments can be ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


PMS claims the Constitution gives the SCOTUS that authority.  How does he know?  The SCOTUS says so.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Growing the economy is great for everyone.  It's not related to wealth.  It's related to work and innovation and customer focus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless babble.  As if more wealth isn't desirable.  Only a liberal worm would ever say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you disagreeing with?
Click to expand...


"It's not related to wealth.  It's related to work and innovation and customer focus."


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."
> 
> As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of how American government works.
> 
> The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution. I know you Marxians dream of one more Elena Kagan on the court, so the 1st and 2nd amendments can be ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


"The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."

Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution as amended by the Supreme Court is a fascist piece of crap."
> 
> As unAmerican a statement as I've ever heard. You're lucky to have not lived in Joe McCarthy's era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of how American government works.
> 
> The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution. I know you Marxians dream of one more Elena Kagan on the court, so the 1st and 2nd amendments can be ruled unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.
Click to expand...



So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, now that is pretty good! HAHA very funny.
> Back to reality.
> There is a very big difference between you and I.
> I believe you should be able to keep more of the money you earn and increase the payments you make to government if you believe they need more money.
> You believe you have the right to vote for government to legally steal more of the money I make to give to people you believe deserve it more than I do.
> And that is morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that gasoline costs what it does,  healthcare what it does,  milk what it does,  and government what it does.  So,  I try to live within my means with an eye on future possibilities.  And I pay all my bills.
> 
> I don't want more than I can afford.  I get satisfaction from what I can afford,  and give thanks for being born in the best place at the best time to the best parents and the for the gift of great curiosity and love of learning.
> 
> I have always expected to work hard and live responsibly.
> 
> I have little patience for people who need more than they can afford.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
> Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?
Click to expand...


The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.  

My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.



An _authority_ not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that gasoline costs what it does,  healthcare what it does,  milk what it does,  and government what it does.  So,  I try to live within my means with an eye on future possibilities.  And I pay all my bills.
> 
> I don't want more than I can afford.  I get satisfaction from what I can afford,  and give thanks for being born in the best place at the best time to the best parents and the for the gift of great curiosity and love of learning.
> 
> I have always expected to work hard and live responsibly.
> 
> I have little patience for people who need more than they can afford.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
> Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
Click to expand...


Democrats don't solve problems.  They create them.  They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit.  Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.

If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic.  Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida.  Leave now.  You won't be missed.


----------



## P@triot

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An _authority_ not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...


Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!

It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.

I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.


----------



## JoeNormal

Rottweiler said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An _authority_ not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!
> 
> It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.
> 
> I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.
Click to expand...


You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions?  I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that gasoline costs what it does,  healthcare what it does,  milk what it does,  and government what it does.  So,  I try to live within my means with an eye on future possibilities.  And I pay all my bills.
> 
> I don't want more than I can afford.  I get satisfaction from what I can afford,  and give thanks for being born in the best place at the best time to the best parents and the for the gift of great curiosity and love of learning.
> 
> I have always expected to work hard and live responsibly.
> 
> I have little patience for people who need more than they can afford.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
> Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
Click to expand...


Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
> Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats don't solve problems.  They create them.  They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit.  Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.
> 
> If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic.  Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida.  Leave now.  You won't be missed.
Click to expand...


I live in a people's republic.  A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.  

You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An _authority_ not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!
> 
> It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.
> 
> I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that Constitutional challenges like the Republican assault on Obamacare don't happen?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
> Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
> I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
> I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?
Click to expand...


What do you produce?


----------



## johnwk

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't solve problems.  They create them.  They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit.  Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.
> 
> If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic.  Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida.  Leave now.  You won't be missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in a people's republic.  A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.
> 
> You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.
Click to expand...


Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.


JWK


_*"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*____ Hamilton


----------



## dcraelin

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a people's republic.  A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.
> You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.
> JWK
Click to expand...

you have shown again you cant comprehend what you read. The constitution guarantees to the STATES a republican form of government. It says nothing about the federal government itself.


----------



## PMZ

johnwk said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't solve problems.  They create them.  They get some Paul to start whining and the rob Peter for Paul's benefit.  Along the way they create some vast bureaucracy that will never go away.
> 
> If you want to live in some People's Republic, then move to a People's Republic.  Cuba is only 80 miles from Florida.  Leave now.  You won't be missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a people's republic.  A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.
> 
> You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.
> 
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> _*"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."*____ Hamilton
Click to expand...


I said we are a Republic.  No monarch.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a people's republic.  A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.
> You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you finally have unwittingly divulged to the world the fact that you have never read our Constitution, or retained what you have read ___ a constitution which guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" ___ see Article 4, Section 4.
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have shown again you cant comprehend what you read. The constitution guarantees to the STATES a republican form of government. It says nothing about the federal government itself.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is the bylaws for federal government.  It says that the federal government will not have a monarch.


----------



## P@triot

JoeNormal said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An _authority_ not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!
> 
> It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.
> 
> I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions?  I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.
Click to expand...


There are no "issues" on the Constitution. It's the *law*, _stupid_. If the law is open to interpretation, there would be no way for citizens to obey it. That's why laws are written in black & white. The Constitution says exactly what it says and is as clear as 25mph posted on a speed limit.

The fact that you believe there are "issues" is a clear indication that you are an ignorant liberal desperate to pervert the law because you are desperate for your liberal fascist utopia where government controls everything and everyone.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> The Democrats in government solve problems



You mean like Obamacare - which costs $3 trillion we *don't* have and has forced millions of people out of their health insurance? 



PMZ said:


> while Republicans avoid them



Republicans don't "avoid" problems, they just recognize the fact that the Constitution dictates that anything outside of their 18 enumerated powers is none of their fucking business and illegal for them to intervene in (such as healthcare). By the way, I'm _still_ waiting for you to explain to me where there was a "problem" with healthcare. I had the #1 healthcare in the world and it barely cost me a damn dime. The overwhelming majority of America was happy with their healthcare. And then the Dumbocrats did what they do best - fucked it all up with their greed and hunger for power & control.



PMZ said:


> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.



My recommendation for parasites like you who can't obey the highest law in the land (that would be the U.S. Constitution you ignorant partisan hack) would be to find one of the many communist countries out there that you crave and move there. I hear Cuba is beautiful and they have the exact healthcare you are looking for. Of course, it's a third-world country shit hole. But that's what you Dumbocrats love to build - as witnesses by what you guys did in Detroit.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An _authority_ not derived from said constitution, but rather absconded by Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!
> 
> It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.
> 
> I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Constitutional challenges like the Republican assault on Obamacare don't happen?
Click to expand...


Obamacare is unconstitutional and we _all_ know it (including assholes like Elana Kagen and Sonya Sotomayor). Controlling or otherwise intervening in healthcare is not an enumerated power of the federal government. As always PMZ, you lose (but that's to be expected of someone so ignorant about the subject they are arguing).

By the way - to answer your ignorant question - are you saying people don't commit murder and break the speed limit? Yes folks, PMZ really is this _stupid_.

That's the point of the Supreme Court. They were supposed to act like law enforcement officers of the Constitution and stop people who violated the highest law of the land. Unfortunately, they failed to do their job and have been for about 100 years now. Ever since the rise of the cancer known as liberalism.


----------



## P@triot

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have little patience for people who WANT more than they can afford and expect me to pay for it.
> Who determines what people need? You, I, GOVERNMENT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
> I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
> I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?
Click to expand...


He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people _owe_ him.

In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the *civic* *duty* of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").

When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a *civic duty* - but not for _him_. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.

He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!
> 
> It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.
> 
> I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions?  I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no "issues" on the Constitution. It's the *law*, _stupid_. If the law is open to interpretation, there would be no way for citizens to obey it. That's why laws are written in black & white. The Constitution says exactly what it says and is as clear as 25mph posted on a speed limit.
> 
> The fact that you believe there are "issues" is a clear indication that you are an ignorant liberal desperate to pervert the law because you are desperate for your liberal fascist utopia where government controls everything and everyone.
Click to expand...


So why did Republicans spend millions trying to kill Obamacare in the Federal Courts?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Obamacare - which costs $3 trillion we *don't* have and has forced millions of people out of their health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> while Republicans avoid them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans don't "avoid" problems, they just recognize the fact that the Constitution dictates that anything outside of their 18 enumerated powers is none of their fucking business and illegal for them to intervene in (such as healthcare). By the way, I'm _still_ waiting for you to explain to me where there was a "problem" with healthcare. I had the #1 healthcare in the world and it barely cost me a damn dime. The overwhelming majority of America was happy with their healthcare. And then the Dumbocrats did what they do best - fucked it all up with their greed and hunger for power & control.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My recommendation for parasites like you who can't obey the highest law in the land (that would be the U.S. Constitution you ignorant partisan hack) would be to find one of the many communist countries out there that you crave and move there. I hear Cuba is beautiful and they have the exact healthcare you are looking for. Of course, it's a third-world country shit hole. But that's what you Dumbocrats love to build - as witnesses by what you guys did in Detroit.
Click to expand...


Here's the typical Rotweiner asshole approach.  We don't need the Supreme Court if we just let him decided what's Constitutional.  If we just assume like he dies,  every day,  that the Republican media propaganda is always right,  and it's just common sense to impose it on everyone,  then what's to worry about their tyranny?


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats in government solve problems while Republicans avoid them. Some problems,  like Aid to Dependent Children and corporate welfare and the military cost money raised from taxpayers.
> 
> My recommendation if you don't support America is to find another country that you can support.  And move there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
> I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
> I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people _owe_ him.
> 
> In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the *civic* *duty* of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").
> 
> When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a *civic duty* - but not for _him_. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.
> 
> He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).
Click to expand...


Most people with sense,  common or otherwise,  would question any position of theirs that required lying to support.  Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blanket statements about either party are bogus.
> I support AmericaNS. You support a partisan ideology.
> I already have plans to move to another country. What will you do when all the producers and their money are gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people _owe_ him.
> 
> In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the *civic* *duty* of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").
> 
> When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a *civic duty* - but not for _him_. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.
> 
> He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people with sense,  common or otherwise,  would question any position of theirs that required lying to support.  Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.
Click to expand...


Apparently you are not like most people.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will do what he's always done - sit in on his ass and cry while insisting other people _owe_ him.
> 
> In another thread he made the outrageous and absurd claim that it is the *civic* *duty* of people to provide high paying jobs (or what he deems "living wages").
> 
> When I asked how many jobs he created he admitted none. You get that? It's a *civic duty* - but not for _him_. It's a civic duty for other people. Typical Dumbocrat. Their rules apply to everyone else, but never to them.
> 
> He then tried to back-track and state he has "created jobs" from his actions (ie being a welfare recipient - that need creates government jobs for the welfare workers in his mind ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people with sense,  common or otherwise,  would question any position of theirs that required lying to support.  Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not like most people.
Click to expand...


Definitely not like most Texans.  Clearly like most Americans.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people with sense,  common or otherwise,  would question any position of theirs that required lying to support.  Apparently that level of thinking is quite beyond Rotweiner and his cadre of loyal goose steppers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not like most people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitely not like most Texans.  Clearly like most Americans.
Click to expand...


I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you are not like most people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely not like most Texans.  Clearly like most Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL
Click to expand...


The Republican Party switched from centrist to right wing extremism.  I haven't changed at all.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely not like most Texans.  Clearly like most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party switched from centrist to right wing extremism.  I haven't changed at all.
Click to expand...


The pubs moved left you "fucking moron."


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so that's why you switched from republican to democrat, to be like most Americans. ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republican Party switched from centrist to right wing extremism.  I haven't changed at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pubs moved left you "fucking moron."
Click to expand...


There's no evidence of that at all.  Rush Limbaugh said, all of you Dittoheads goose step with me, and the blank heads said yessir,  yessir, in true Dittohead fashion.  They've been goose stepping to the right ever since.  They're out of sight and mostly forgotten now and totally irrelevant.  But Rush gets wealthier every day so he's sure not going to turn down the media evangelism.


----------



## ShawnChris13

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant of how American government works.
> 
> The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution. I know you Marxians dream of one more Elena Kagan on the court, so the 1st and 2nd amendments can be ruled unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?
Click to expand...



PMZ I'm still waiting.


----------



## JoeNormal

Rottweiler said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then authority is _not_ the right term to use - because a Supreme Court ruling does *not* create Constitutional authority in _any_ capacity. Only the ignorant Dumbocrats believe that!
> 
> It never ceases to be comical how Dumbocrats try the narrative that the Constitution is "open" to interpretation because they don't like how it prevents their push for fascism and they can't get the votes to legally amend it for their fascist utopia.
> 
> I once killed Oops_I_poo-poo in a thread when I first brought the "Supremacy Clause" to his attention (proving that the Constitution was not only law, but the highest law in the land) and then asked that if lower laws such as the speed limit and murder are _not_ open to "interpretation", how could the highest *law* in the land possibly be open to it? As you can imagine, he absolutely had no intelligent response for that *fact*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that most issues on Constitutionality are as straightforward as murder or speed limit infractions?  I'll bet you also believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Bible should be interpreted literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no "issues" on the Constitution. It's the *law*, _stupid_. If the law is open to interpretation, there would be no way for citizens to obey it. That's why laws are written in black & white. The Constitution says exactly what it says and is as clear as 25mph posted on a speed limit.
> 
> The fact that you believe there are "issues" is a clear indication that you are an ignorant liberal desperate to pervert the law because you are desperate for your liberal fascist utopia where government controls everything and everyone.
Click to expand...


Every law ever written has issues.  Otherwise, we wouldn't need courts and verdicts could be rendered by a clerk.  Of course, being a hard core right winger as you are, I'm sure you see the world in black and white.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The SCOTUS has no authority to amend the Constitution."
> 
> Correct.  The Federal Courts authority is only to determine if challenged laws are or are not enforceable based on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...


ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.  

SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable. 

Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ I'm still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
> 
> SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable.
> 
> Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.
Click to expand...



No PMZ they changed the law in order to deem it constitutional. You claim their responsibility is to interpret. Yet they redefined provisions in the law. Next time you're going to place an argument pay attention.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain SCOTUS amending ACA in order to make it constitutional. How is that in their bounds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ I'm still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
> 
> SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable.
> 
> Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.
Click to expand...

ROFL

Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill.  They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation.  Those other elements are making their way through the court system.


----------



## ShawnChris13

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ I'm still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable.
> 
> 
> 
> Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill.  They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation.  Those other elements are making their way through the court system.
Click to expand...



They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ I'm still waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
> 
> SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable.
> 
> Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill.  They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation.  Those other elements are making their way through the court system.
Click to expand...


They ruled on what was in the complaint that the lawyers chose to argue.  On the appeal of the lower court ruling.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
> 
> SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable.
> 
> Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill.  They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation.  Those other elements are making their way through the court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ruled on what was in the complaint that the lawyers chose to argue.  On the appeal of the lower court ruling.
Click to expand...



Which changed the law.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ACA is legislation.  Thats the responsibility of the Legislative branch.
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch.  They ruled,  and explained why,  that the legislation passed by the Legislative and Executive branches did not violate the bylaws for government in the Constitution,  and therefore was enforceable.
> 
> 
> 
> Next time that you're in fifth grade,  pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill.  They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation.  Those other elements are making their way through the court system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.
Click to expand...


They have no authority or responsibility to legislate regardless how your propaganda chose to report their actions.  

Your problem is that you choose to pay attention to,  and believe,  Republican self serving propaganda.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, they ruled on the taxing element of the bill.  They explicitly avoided the other elements of the legislation.  Those other elements are making their way through the court system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have no authority or responsibility to legislate regardless how your propaganda chose to report their actions.
> 
> Your problem is that you choose to pay attention to,  and believe,  Republican self serving propaganda.
Click to expand...



Republicans never reported on this. I'm not a Republican, so why would I listen to their propaganda. You're throwing up blinders and letting CNN keep telling you that SCOTUS upheld it like there was never an issue.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> I live in a people's republic.



Santa Monica, huh?



> A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.



Yet you demand all power to the state.



> You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.



The Aristocracy is our ruling federal overlords and their corporate lackeys. Those whom you promote, PMZ.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They changed the penalty into a tax. That was their written statement given. Did you read it? They amended the law. They didn't interpret it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have no authority or responsibility to legislate regardless how your propaganda chose to report their actions.
> 
> Your problem is that you choose to pay attention to,  and believe,  Republican self serving propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans never reported on this. I'm not a Republican, so why would I listen to their propaganda. You're throwing up blinders and letting CNN keep telling you that SCOTUS upheld it like there was never an issue.
Click to expand...


"SCOTUS upheld it like there was never an issue."

That's the truth.  Anything else is Republican propaganda.  Where did you get it from?


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a people's republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Santa Monica, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A democracy of we,  the people,  empowered by our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you demand all power to the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd like to change that to an aristocracy,  but that's not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Aristocracy is our ruling federal overlords and their corporate lackeys. Those whom you promote, PMZ.
Click to expand...


The American aristocracy are the wealthy here just like everywhere and every when,  else. You choose to be among their underlings and minions and you aren't even aware of it. 

Pathetic.


----------



## dcraelin

Stadium subsidies are a good example of the hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to government spending. 

In Cobb Co. Georgia, the 4 republicans on the commission voted for over 300million in subsidies for a stadium, the one Democrat voted no, although she said she just wanted more time to consider terms. The Republicans were all for the subsidy. 

Cobb County commissioners approve plan for Braves stadium


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> Stadium subsidies are a good example of the hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to government spending.
> 
> In Cobb Co. Georgia, the 4 republicans on the commission voted for over 300million in subsidies for a stadium, the one Democrat voted no, although she said she just wanted more time to consider terms. The Republicans were all for the subsidy.
> 
> Cobb County commissioners approve plan for Braves stadium



There is no better example of welfare for the wealthy.


----------



## ShawnChris13

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part IIIB that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.

Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part IIIB that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
> 
> Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.



How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all?  YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.  You are taxed if you don't.  Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating.  This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dcraelin said:


> Stadium subsidies are a good example of the hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to government spending.
> 
> In Cobb Co. Georgia, the 4 republicans on the commission voted for over 300million in subsidies for a stadium, the one Democrat voted no, although she said she just wanted more time to consider terms. The Republicans were all for the subsidy.
> 
> Cobb County commissioners approve plan for Braves stadium



You may be a mindless partisan hack, but at least.

Wait, there is no "at least," you're just a hack.

{Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has decided to spend $1 million in federal grants  money that had been avidly sought by residents of Skid Row  to instead o instead help out San Franciscobased Gensler, a 2,800-employee giant that enjoyed $463 million in revenue last year.

The mayor has vowed that the NFL stadium wont get a dollar from taxpayers, but the $1 million would go to the lead architectural firm for the stadium.}

Huge Subsidy for Stadium Architect - Page 1 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

You remember Villaraigosa? Opened up the convention for you shameful democrats?


----------



## ShawnChris13

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part IIIB that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all?  YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.  You are taxed if you don't.  Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating.  This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.
Click to expand...



You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!

No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part IIIB that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
> 
> Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.



A law consists of the specific words recoded in Congressional records that are exactly what was voted on when the law passed.  Those words can't be changed by anyone but Congress with an amendment.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part IIIB that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
> 
> Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all?  YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.  You are taxed if you don't.  Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating.  This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.
Click to expand...


You can argue that every law is exactly like that.  What you can be forced to do is not comply with the law but,  rather,  suffer the consequences prescribed by the law for infractions.


----------



## dcraelin

Uncensored2008 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stadium subsidies are a good example of the hypocrisy of Republicans when it comes to government spending.
> 
> In Cobb Co. Georgia, the 4 republicans on the commission voted for over 300million in subsidies for a stadium, the one Democrat voted no, although she said she just wanted more time to consider terms. The Republicans were all for the subsidy.
> 
> Cobb County commissioners approve plan for Braves stadium
> 
> 
> 
> You may be a mindless partisan hack, but at least.
> Wait, there is no "at least," you're just a hack.
> {Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has decided to spend $1 million in federal grants  money that had been avidly sought by residents of Skid Row  to instead o instead help out San Franciscobased Gensler, a 2,800-employee giant that enjoyed $463 million in revenue last year.
> The mayor has vowed that the NFL stadium wont get a dollar from taxpayers, but the $1 million would go to the lead architectural firm for the stadium.}
> Huge Subsidy for Stadium Architect - Page 1 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly
> You remember Villaraigosa? Opened up the convention for you shameful democrats?
Click to expand...


I disapprove of democrats subsidizing too but it is less hypocritical because some of them get elected supporting greater public spending on such projects. Most Republicans don't.

That's what makes it hypocritical.


----------



## Uncensored2008

dcraelin said:


> I disapprove of democrats subsidizing too but it is less hypocritical because some of them get elected supporting greater public spending on such projects. Most Republicans don't.
> 
> That's what makes it hypocritical.



ROFL

It's wrong for Republicans, but right for our GLORIOUS PEOPLES democrats...


----------



## dcraelin

Uncensored2008 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disapprove of democrats subsidizing too but it is less hypocritical because some of them get elected supporting greater public spending on such projects. Most Republicans don't.
> 
> That's what makes it hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> It's wrong for Republicans, but right for our GLORIOUS PEOPLES democrats...
Click to expand...


CAN YOU READ??????  Didnt say it was right, said it was less hypocritical....look up the word after your done rolling on the floor.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III&#8211;B that the individ- ual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Straight from SCOTUS PMZ. They changed the law and defined it as a tax. No matter how roundabout they did it, they didn't rule it unconstitutional and they changed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all?  YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.  You are taxed if you don't.  Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating.  This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!
> 
> No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.
Click to expand...


Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.

Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all?  YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.  You are taxed if you don't.  Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating.  This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!
> 
> No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
Click to expand...


If you are too irresponsible to provide for your own health care,  chances are the day will come when we will have to bail you out.  Using your money to bail you out is infinitely more sensible.


----------



## ShawnChris13

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does making the obvious statement that the chit they called a mandate is not a mandate at all?  YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY INSURANCE.  You are taxed if you don't.  Perhaps you are just confused by the difference between use of the term mandate and use of the term mandating.  This is a typical confusion of many to not get the subtle difference between the name of a thing and the actions of the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!
> 
> No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
Click to expand...



You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you. 

If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.

If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.

If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.

But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!
> 
> No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are too irresponsible to provide for your own health care,  chances are the day will come when we will have to bail you out.  Using your money to bail you out is infinitely more sensible.
Click to expand...


Many people are able to provide and pay for all of their own health care without insurance. That is how it was done for hundreds of years.
Tens of millions will still be UNINSURED 10 years from now.
NO LAW makes people buy insurance. Only the gullible and naive believes that.
Sad that the low information voter is just that and has elected their man twice.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!
> 
> No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
Click to expand...


Inaccurate.  

You are required to buy health care insurance because we almost all have health care expenses. And,  as a society, we've decided that we would rather pay for emergency care than have people dying in the streets. Or allow you to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay your bills.  

So if you decide to be irresponsible,  we will collect funds from you  to cover your virtually inevitable  expenses. 

We will avoid rewarding irresponsibility and will require personal responsibility. 

Just like every other law does.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are too irresponsible to provide for your own health care,  chances are the day will come when we will have to bail you out.  Using your money to bail you out is infinitely more sensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people are able to provide and pay for all of their own health care without insurance. That is how it was done for hundreds of years.
> Tens of millions will still be UNINSURED 10 years from now.
> NO LAW makes people buy insurance. Only the gullible and naive believes that.
> Sad that the low information voter is just that and has elected their man twice.
Click to expand...


Perhaps it's escaped you that health care costs and technology has been going up faster than inflation for decades. 

And that very few people have liquid  assets sufficient to cover worst case health care costs.  And only a few of them would choose to self insure. 

No law can make anyone do anything.  Every law imposes consequences for non compliance. 

So ACA imposes consequences for the irresponsible behavior of putting others at risk for having to pay your medical bills.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inaccurate.
> 
> You are required to buy health care insurance because we almost all have health care expenses. And,  as a society, we've decided that we would rather pay for emergency care than have people dying in the streets. Or allow you to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay your bills.
> 
> So if you decide to be irresponsible,  we will collect funds from you  to cover your virtually inevitable  expenses.
> 
> We will avoid rewarding irresponsibility and will require personal responsibility.
> 
> Just like every other law does.
Click to expand...



I have health insurance. You have propaganda and buy into whatever it is that comes out of the left.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inaccurate.
> 
> You are required to buy health care insurance because we almost all have health care expenses. And,  as a society, we've decided that we would rather pay for emergency care than have people dying in the streets. Or allow you to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay your bills.
> 
> So if you decide to be irresponsible,  we will collect funds from you  to cover your virtually inevitable  expenses.
> 
> We will avoid rewarding irresponsibility and will require personal responsibility.
> 
> Just like every other law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have health insurance. You have propaganda and buy into whatever it is that comes out of the left.
Click to expand...


You need  health care insurance adequate to insure that you've put yourself in a position to be personally responsible for your health care costs.  The advantage to you is to reduce the likelihood that you will have to pay for other's health care in your insurance bill.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inaccurate.
> 
> You are required to buy health care insurance because we almost all have health care expenses. And,  as a society, we've decided that we would rather pay for emergency care than have people dying in the streets. Or allow you to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay your bills.
> 
> So if you decide to be irresponsible,  we will collect funds from you  to cover your virtually inevitable  expenses.
> 
> We will avoid rewarding irresponsibility and will require personal responsibility.
> 
> Just like every other law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have health insurance. You have propaganda and buy into whatever it is that comes out of the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need  health care insurance adequate to insure that you've put yourself in a position to be personally responsible for your health care costs.  The advantage to you is to reduce the likelihood that you will have to pay for other's health care in your insurance bill.
Click to expand...



Bro that's not how it works. People get bills whether or not they have their insurance. 

And you still haven't explained your contradiction about the SCOTUS.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have health insurance. You have propaganda and buy into whatever it is that comes out of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need  health care insurance adequate to insure that you've put yourself in a position to be personally responsible for your health care costs.  The advantage to you is to reduce the likelihood that you will have to pay for other's health care in your insurance bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bro that's not how it works. People get bills whether or not they have their insurance.
> 
> And you still haven't explained your contradiction about the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...


Thats exactly how it works.  Inconvenient for those who want ACA to fail for political reasons. 

I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to mean.


----------



## Gadawg73

The law in every state is YOU are responsible for ALL of your health care bills. YOU have to pay them.
The relationship between you and your insurance company HAS NOTHING to do with the relationship between you and ALL health care providers regardless of what financial arrangement insurers have with medical providers. If you have health insurance that does not mean YOU are not responsible for 100% of all of the health care bills you run up. Your agreement with your health insurance company is 100% separate from your agreement with health care providers and each are a third NON party to each other in all financial agreements, arrangements and contracts. 
Too bad Democrats and most Republicans do not know this.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> The law in every state is YOU are responsible for ALL of your health care bills. YOU have to pay them.
> The relationship between you and your insurance company HAS NOTHING to do with the relationship between you and ALL health care providers regardless of what financial arrangement insurers have with medical providers. If you have health insurance that does not mean YOU are not responsible for 100% of all of the health care bills you run up. Your agreement with your health insurance company is 100% separate from your agreement with health care providers and each are a third NON party to each other in all financial agreements, arrangements and contracts.
> Too bad Democrats and most Republicans do not know this.



What you are trying desperately to ignore is emergency room and urgent care treatment and medical bankruptcy. The two things that allow people to avoid responsibility for their own healthcare costs.  That allow them to get others to pay their bills.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law in every state is YOU are responsible for ALL of your health care bills. YOU have to pay them.
> The relationship between you and your insurance company HAS NOTHING to do with the relationship between you and ALL health care providers regardless of what financial arrangement insurers have with medical providers. If you have health insurance that does not mean YOU are not responsible for 100% of all of the health care bills you run up. Your agreement with your health insurance company is 100% separate from your agreement with health care providers and each are a third NON party to each other in all financial agreements, arrangements and contracts.
> Too bad Democrats and most Republicans do not know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are trying desperately to ignore is emergency room and urgent care treatment and medical bankruptcy. The two things that allow people to avoid responsibility for their own healthcare costs.  That allow them to get others to pay their bills.
Click to expand...


ACA does nothing to address that or stop those that go there now.
You are the one ignoring that fact.
Tens of millions will STILL be uninsured and going there 10 years from now ACA or not.
You have this pipe dream that ACA changes people's behavior.
Show me where ONE, JUST ONE government program has changed the behavior of citizens.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law in every state is YOU are responsible for ALL of your health care bills. YOU have to pay them.
> The relationship between you and your insurance company HAS NOTHING to do with the relationship between you and ALL health care providers regardless of what financial arrangement insurers have with medical providers. If you have health insurance that does not mean YOU are not responsible for 100% of all of the health care bills you run up. Your agreement with your health insurance company is 100% separate from your agreement with health care providers and each are a third NON party to each other in all financial agreements, arrangements and contracts.
> Too bad Democrats and most Republicans do not know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are trying desperately to ignore is emergency room and urgent care treatment and medical bankruptcy. The two things that allow people to avoid responsibility for their own healthcare costs.  That allow them to get others to pay their bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA does nothing to address that or stop those that go there now.
> You are the one ignoring that fact.
> Tens of millions will STILL be uninsured and going there 10 years from now ACA or not.
> You have this pipe dream that ACA changes people's behavior.
> Show me where ONE, JUST ONE government program has changed the behavior of citizens.
Click to expand...


Every law changes people's behavior by placing undesirable consequences on the behavior that it makes illegal.  

Same with ACA.  If you're an irresponsible person who'd just as soon let others pay for your healthcare should medical attention be needed,  there are now financial consequences.  

Conservatives are so afraid of personal responsibility that they've wasted five years of time,  energy and money fighting it with every dirty trick in politics.  

But,  they failed.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are charged a penalty if you don't buy insurance. A tax is something easily definable. Just because the IRS charges you money doesn't mean it's tax. You think the late fee for not paying taxes is a tax? Is the interest on a mortgage a tax? Tax tax tax everything's a tax!
> 
> No. You are mandated to buy insurance and if you don't you pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
Click to expand...


How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?  

It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?
> 
> It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL
Click to expand...


If I were you I'd drop my health insurance in protest.  You're right.  Nobody can make you do anything.  

And I think that exposure to the choices that poor people face daily would teach you some good useful lessons.


----------



## dcraelin

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inaccurate.
> 
> You are required to buy health care insurance because we almost all have health care expenses. And,  as a society, we've decided that we would rather pay for emergency care than have people dying in the streets. Or allow you to declare bankruptcy if you can't pay your bills.
> 
> So if you decide to be irresponsible,  we will collect funds from you  to cover your virtually inevitable  expenses.
> 
> We will avoid rewarding irresponsibility and will require personal responsibility.
> 
> Just like every other law does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have health insurance. You have propaganda and buy into whatever it is that comes out of the left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need  health care insurance adequate to insure that you've put yourself in a position to be personally responsible for your health care costs.  The advantage to you is to reduce the likelihood that you will have to pay for other's health care in your insurance bill.
Click to expand...


The use of Government power to provide private profit can be abusive. 

one of the contributing factors of the Revolution in France was the contracting out of taxes and the monopolies on commodities like salt. 

(from wikipedia) 
Collections of taxes, such as the extremely unpopular salt tax, the gabelle, were contracted to private collectors ("tax farmers"), who, like all farmers, preoccupied themselves with making their holdings grow. So, they collected, quite legitimately, far more than required, remitted the tax to the State, and pocketed the remainder. 

at a certain point people where buying a lot of salt on the black market. So the government said you have to buy salt.


----------



## PMZ

Here's an insightful video of what the actual results are of electing Republicans to Congress.  

If it makes you proud, vote Republican. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...retirement-kimmel-colbert-punchlines/3876951/


----------



## ShawnChris13

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said another way you are free to buy insurance or not.  If you don't buy insurance you get taxed, if you do buy insurance you are are exempted from this new tax just like all the other taxes you are exempted from if you meet other exemptions. This one called the mandate(-tax) is but one of six new taxes on health care in the "affordable health care act" that is not affordable either.  Should we say it's UN-constitutional because they lied about it being affordable?  This fascination with the term mandate is really quite silly.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I mandated to buy a house?  Why not? If I don't borrow money for a house have to pay more in taxes, which is in effect a mandate that we get loans for houses or face the home loan mandate in the the form of additional taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> 
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL
Click to expand...



If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.

Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.

Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> 
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.
> 
> Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
Click to expand...


The BOGEYMAN!  If the country acts in personally responsible ways,  the Republican closet monsters will burst out and consume us all.  Millions of walking dead sucking our souls right out our eyeballs and leaving our soulless empty husk forever conservative.  A fate much worse than death.


----------



## PMZ

A little insight into the health insurance industry.  

I called several insurance companies recently asking questions about their Medicare Advantage plans.  One took my questions as an opportunity,  unbeknownst to me,  to enroll me in their plan for next year and disenroll me in my preferred plan from another company.  It took me half a day yesterday and talking to a couple of dozen people,  to undo what their shenanigans did,  and restore my choice. 

There are some people my age and older that would have been unable to understand and solve that problem. 

A consequence of make more money regardless of the cost to others.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.
> 
> Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BOGEYMAN!  If the country acts in personally responsible ways,  the Republican closet monsters will burst out and consume us all.  Millions of walking dead sucking our souls right out our eyeballs and leaving our soulless empty husk forever conservative.  A fate much worse than death.
Click to expand...



Republicans can say whatever they want, or whatever it is you want them to say. Just remember your bogeyman take when health care costs skyrocket in a few quarters.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.
> 
> Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BOGEYMAN!  If the country acts in personally responsible ways,  the Republican closet monsters will burst out and consume us all.  Millions of walking dead sucking our souls right out our eyeballs and leaving our soulless empty husk forever conservative.  A fate much worse than death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans can say whatever they want, or whatever it is you want them to say. Just remember your bogeyman take when health care costs skyrocket in a few quarters.
Click to expand...


How does insurance regulation affect health care delivery costs?


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BOGEYMAN!  If the country acts in personally responsible ways,  the Republican closet monsters will burst out and consume us all.  Millions of walking dead sucking our souls right out our eyeballs and leaving our soulless empty husk forever conservative.  A fate much worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans can say whatever they want, or whatever it is you want them to say. Just remember your bogeyman take when health care costs skyrocket in a few quarters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does insurance regulation affect health care delivery costs?
Click to expand...



Regulation has never been proven to affect the costs of the products being regulated? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that health insurance isn't related to the health industry, therefore having no effect from one to the other?

Because both are incorrect.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans can say whatever they want, or whatever it is you want them to say. Just remember your bogeyman take when health care costs skyrocket in a few quarters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does insurance regulation affect health care delivery costs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation has never been proven to affect the costs of the products being regulated? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Or are you saying that health insurance isn't related to the health industry, therefore having no effect from one to the other?
> 
> Because both are incorrect.
Click to expand...


The impact that the ACA will have on health care costs is to reduce emergency room and urgent care treatment of non emergencies as that is the most expensive and least effective approach.  And to get people who had no access to health care prior to ACA,  in the mainstream of preventative and effective care. 

It will reduce medical bankruptcies. 

It will lower insurance cost by spreading insurance company overhead over a broader base and empower competitive shopping through the Exchanges.  Which,  I would judge after using similar capabilities on Medicare.gov, as very effective.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does insurance regulation affect health care delivery costs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation has never been proven to affect the costs of the products being regulated? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Or are you saying that health insurance isn't related to the health industry, therefore having no effect from one to the other?
> 
> Because both are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impact that the ACA will have on health care costs is to reduce emergency room and urgent care treatment of non emergencies as that is the most expensive and least effective approach.  And to get people who had no access to health care prior to ACA,  in the mainstream of preventative and effective care.
> 
> It will reduce medical bankruptcies.
> 
> It will lower insurance cost by spreading insurance company overhead over a broader base and empower competitive shopping through the Exchanges.  Which,  I would judge after using similar capabilities on Medicare.gov, as very effective.
Click to expand...



Agree to disagree then. They mathed wrong with this law and the numbers aren't going to add up.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regulation has never been proven to affect the costs of the products being regulated? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Or are you saying that health insurance isn't related to the health industry, therefore having no effect from one to the other?
> 
> Because both are incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The impact that the ACA will have on health care costs is to reduce emergency room and urgent care treatment of non emergencies as that is the most expensive and least effective approach.  And to get people who had no access to health care prior to ACA,  in the mainstream of preventative and effective care.
> 
> It will reduce medical bankruptcies.
> 
> It will lower insurance cost by spreading insurance company overhead over a broader base and empower competitive shopping through the Exchanges.  Which,  I would judge after using similar capabilities on Medicare.gov, as very effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree then. They mathed wrong with this law and the numbers aren't going to add up.
Click to expand...


And the evidence of this prophesy is?


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get a credit on taxes the year you but a house. Incredibly out of context point by you.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy a car, you buy car insurance for he car. You don't face a tax penalty for not buying car insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy a house, you can buy flood insurance. You don't face a penalty for not buying flood insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy an expensive antique you buy insurance in case it's ever broken.  You don't face a tax penalty for not buying accident insurance for antiques.
> 
> 
> 
> But wait! If you are healthy and don't feel you need insurance, you face a "tax" penalty. Why? Because you've been mandated to do it so that those less fortunate can receive tax subsidies. My 'fascination' appears only to be that I point out the obvious while you allow yourself to think that not borrowing money for a house (which means you paid cash if you bought the house) is the same as being forced to pay for other peoples insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.
> 
> Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
Click to expand...


Wrong it's not a parking ticket which is a minor offense.  A parking ticket goes on your record.  Not paying insurance does not go on your record.  There is no crime.  It is not a mandate in the crime sense, it is a mandate in the tax deduction sense.  If you adhere to the mandated behavior you pay less tax, if you don't adhere to the mandated behavior you pay more tax. You are trying to invent that it is a criminal act if you don't buy insurance, but that's just not true.  Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."  Just because they called the act the affordable care act, does not mean it's affordable.  Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance. Just as there is no mandate forcing you to work.  However, if you do work you pay personal income taxes at the specified rates that now includes a check box for whether or not you purchased insurance, just like the check box for dependents.  If you don't have dependents you don't get the exemptions, if you did not buy insurance your tax rate is higher than if you did buy insurance.  Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates.  This is the same thing.  You are being punished with additional taxes if you do not adhere to the government recommended behavior of earning less and spending more in government approved ways. 

Further you don't have to buy insurance.  If you have no income there is no fine. There is only a fine based on your amount of income, further they will give you subsidy checks for your health insurance if your income is low just like any other form of welfare.


----------



## RKMBrown

ShawnChris13 said:


> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.



Sort of off topic.  But this data is already being used in aggregate by the feds, and is already being accessed illegally by the feds in certain situations with and without court orders/approvals.   We can thank the Un-Patriotic act for letting that cat out of the bag.

We need a Reagan to fix this, that or there will likely be bloodshed and marshal law in our time.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The impact that the ACA will have on health care costs is to reduce emergency room and urgent care treatment of non emergencies as that is the most expensive and least effective approach.  And to get people who had no access to health care prior to ACA,  in the mainstream of preventative and effective care.
> 
> It will reduce medical bankruptcies.
> 
> It will lower insurance cost by spreading insurance company overhead over a broader base and empower competitive shopping through the Exchanges.  Which,  I would judge after using similar capabilities on Medicare.gov, as very effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree then. They mathed wrong with this law and the numbers aren't going to add up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the evidence of this prophesy is?
Click to expand...



I offer the same evidence given by the counter argument to my points: time will tell. 

I cannot predict the future, only make assumptions based on what I see.

Such as: a large number of young enrolled must purchase insurance in order to lower costs. 18-26 remains under their parents' coverage which will give that age group better rates. Cutting out that many young people isn't going to help their math. We will have to wait for the market to adjust before I can be deemed correct or incorrect for surety.


----------



## ShawnChris13

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of off topic.  But this data is already being used in aggregate by the feds, and is already being accessed illegally by the feds in certain situations with and without court orders/approvals.   We can thank the Un-Patriotic act for letting that cat out of the bag.
> 
> 
> 
> We need a Reagan to fix this, that or there will likely be bloodshed and marshal law in our time.
Click to expand...



Definitely off topic and I agree with your points. I would prefer an Andrew Jackson (not because of his party affiliation but his merits of action) rather than a Reagan.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are *tax deductions* out of context when talking about the new ACA *income tax *that you are *exempt* from if you purchased health insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a "CRIMINAL" act to not buy health insurance, the fine is not for a crime, or traffic offense, or other type of offense.  Further if you have no "INCOME" you are not subject to this new personal income tax.  Just because they gave it the retarded name "mandate" does not mean there is a law forcing you to buy insurance, any more than they are forcing you to work by taxing your income.  If you are stupid enough to work you have to pay the tax on it.  If you borrow money for a house you can deduct interest from your taxes, if you have proof of health insurance you can deduct that from your taxes.  Out of context?  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.
> 
> Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong it's not a parking ticket which is a minor offense.  A parking ticket goes on your record.  Not paying insurance does not go on your record.  There is no crime.  It is not a mandate in the crime sense, it is a mandate in the tax deduction sense.  If you adhere to the mandated behavior you pay less tax, if you don't adhere to the mandated behavior you pay more tax. You are trying to invent that it is a criminal act if you don't buy insurance, but that's just not true.  Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."  Just because they called the act the affordable care act, does not mean it's affordable.  Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance. Just as there is no mandate forcing you to work.  However, if you do work you pay personal income taxes at the specified rates that now includes a check box for whether or not you purchased insurance, just like the check box for dependents.  If you don't have dependents you don't get the exemptions, if you did not buy insurance your tax rate is higher than if you did buy insurance.  Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates.  This is the same thing.  You are being punished with additional taxes if you do not adhere to the government recommended behavior of earning less and spending more in government approved ways.
> 
> Further you don't have to buy insurance.  If you have no income there is no fine. There is only a fine based on your amount of income, further they will give you subsidy checks for your health insurance if your income is low just like any other form of welfare.
Click to expand...



Lots of made up stuff here.

"Not paying insurance does not go on your record."

So you are saying that the mandate will not be enforced? I think that it will be when you pay your income tax. And what you will be taxed will be part of IRS records.

"Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."

A mandate means something that you are required to or suffer the consequences. All laws are mandates.

"Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance."

No law can force anyone to do anything. That's why, for instance, there are murders. After a crime has been committed, the convicted perp is forced into paying the prescribed penalty.

"Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates."

You made the choice to make more despite the fact that you knew the you'd have to share it with your country. You knew that up front. If you object, you have clear alternatives. Don't make the money or make it somewhere else. 

"Further you don't have to buy insurance."

You don't have to refrain from murder either.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't buy insurance, you pay a 'tax'. If you do buy insurance, you pay taxes on that insurance, plus the cost of the insurance. Just like your cell phone bill when you take at those small charges that provide free phones for people.
> 
> Buying insurance doesn't mean you're exempt from a tax because you're still paying taxes every time you pay your insurance premium. You're not exempt from anything. There is no extra check in the box that says "I have insurance and it's tax free". Instead you pay a FINE no different than a parking ticket for not having health insurance. It's a mandate which creates a penalty that is issued as a fine by the IRS which funds more government programs with each person that doesn't buy health insurance.
> 
> Soon your medical records are going to be part of your tax return as well. Once this ACA takes root and people keep having brilliant ideas that will happen. Right now you need a secret clearance in the military to view medical records, but I guarantee that the left will soon make those records available to anybody for some public health BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong it's not a parking ticket which is a minor offense.  A parking ticket goes on your record.  Not paying insurance does not go on your record.  There is no crime.  It is not a mandate in the crime sense, it is a mandate in the tax deduction sense.  If you adhere to the mandated behavior you pay less tax, if you don't adhere to the mandated behavior you pay more tax. You are trying to invent that it is a criminal act if you don't buy insurance, but that's just not true.  Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."  Just because they called the act the affordable care act, does not mean it's affordable.  Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance. Just as there is no mandate forcing you to work.  However, if you do work you pay personal income taxes at the specified rates that now includes a check box for whether or not you purchased insurance, just like the check box for dependents.  If you don't have dependents you don't get the exemptions, if you did not buy insurance your tax rate is higher than if you did buy insurance.  Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates.  This is the same thing.  You are being punished with additional taxes if you do not adhere to the government recommended behavior of earning less and spending more in government approved ways.
> 
> Further you don't have to buy insurance.  If you have no income there is no fine. There is only a fine based on your amount of income, further they will give you subsidy checks for your health insurance if your income is low just like any other form of welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of made up stuff here.
> 
> "Not paying insurance does not go on your record."
> 
> So you are saying that the mandate will not be enforced? I think that it will be when you pay your income tax. And what you will be taxed will be part of IRS records.
> 
> "Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."
> 
> A mandate means something that you are required to or suffer the consequences. All laws are mandates.
> 
> "Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance."
> 
> No law can force anyone to do anything. That's why, for instance, there are murders. After a crime has been committed, the convicted perp is forced into paying the prescribed penalty.
> 
> "Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates."
> 
> You made the choice to make more despite the fact that you knew the you'd have to share it with your country. You knew that up front. If you object, you have clear alternatives. Don't make the money or make it somewhere else.
> 
> "Further you don't have to buy insurance."
> 
> You don't have to refrain from murder either.
Click to expand...


Yes you do have to refrain from murder.  Murder is a capital offense for which in some states you can get the death sentence and in others life in prison.

Not buying health insurance is not a a crime. Nor is it a minor offense.

And NO you don't have to pay the fine unless you have income and oddly, also have a return coming to you.  Apparently this will be a tax that is only applied as a deduction to your rebate check.  Very odd this tax.  I suspect they had to do it that way to go around potential filibusters in the House.  Of course we won't see the new process for this new type of tax / rebate deduction till the final 2013 IRS forms come out.  Then after someone gets their rebate deducted they can then sue for damages, and the SCOTUS may eventually rule on the constitutionality of taxing by reducing a legally determined income tax deduction amount, essentially resulting in double taxation on the same income, similar to AMT.  I think I remember somewhere that when AMT hit it had to be done a certain way and this is a new way that is just as freakishly odd as AMT was.  Something about due process.    I suspect people will eventually just be able to say yes they had health insurance without proof and that insurance was their own bank account and the proof that they don't have any outstanding unpaid health care bills.


----------



## Gadawg73

Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
Where?
Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.


----------



## Gadawg73

IRS has already announced they do not fully know what their role is in all of this other than GATHERING the information which is VOLUNTARY to give.
Amazing the people that have voted in a law and have no clue what is in it.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong it's not a parking ticket which is a minor offense.  A parking ticket goes on your record.  Not paying insurance does not go on your record.  There is no crime.  It is not a mandate in the crime sense, it is a mandate in the tax deduction sense.  If you adhere to the mandated behavior you pay less tax, if you don't adhere to the mandated behavior you pay more tax. You are trying to invent that it is a criminal act if you don't buy insurance, but that's just not true.  Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."  Just because they called the act the affordable care act, does not mean it's affordable.  Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance. Just as there is no mandate forcing you to work.  However, if you do work you pay personal income taxes at the specified rates that now includes a check box for whether or not you purchased insurance, just like the check box for dependents.  If you don't have dependents you don't get the exemptions, if you did not buy insurance your tax rate is higher than if you did buy insurance.  Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates.  This is the same thing.  You are being punished with additional taxes if you do not adhere to the government recommended behavior of earning less and spending more in government approved ways.
> 
> Further you don't have to buy insurance.  If you have no income there is no fine. There is only a fine based on your amount of income, further they will give you subsidy checks for your health insurance if your income is low just like any other form of welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of made up stuff here.
> 
> "Not paying insurance does not go on your record."
> 
> So you are saying that the mandate will not be enforced? I think that it will be when you pay your income tax. And what you will be taxed will be part of IRS records.
> 
> "Just because they called it a "mandate" does not mean it's a "mandate."
> 
> A mandate means something that you are required to or suffer the consequences. All laws are mandates.
> 
> "Again there is no mandate forcing you to buy insurance."
> 
> No law can force anyone to do anything. That's why, for instance, there are murders. After a crime has been committed, the convicted perp is forced into paying the prescribed penalty.
> 
> "Same goes for AMT if you sinned by earning to much money you get penalized with additional taxes above and beyond the basic rates."
> 
> You made the choice to make more despite the fact that you knew the you'd have to share it with your country. You knew that up front. If you object, you have clear alternatives. Don't make the money or make it somewhere else.
> 
> "Further you don't have to buy insurance."
> 
> You don't have to refrain from murder either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do have to refrain from murder.  Murder is a capital offense for which in some states you can get the death sentence and in others life in prison.
> 
> Not buying health insurance is not a a crime. Nor is it a minor offense.
> 
> And NO you don't have to pay the fine unless you have income and oddly, also have a return coming to you.  Apparently this will be a tax that is only applied as a deduction to your rebate check.  Very odd this tax.  I suspect they had to do it that way to go around potential filibusters in the House.  Of course we won't see the new process for this new type of tax / rebate deduction till the final 2013 IRS forms come out.  Then after someone gets their rebate deducted they can then sue for damages, and the SCOTUS may eventually rule on the constitutionality of taxing by reducing a legally determined income tax deduction amount, essentially resulting in double taxation on the same income, similar to AMT.  I think I remember somewhere that when AMT hit it had to be done a certain way and this is a new way that is just as freakishly odd as AMT was.  Something about due process.    I suspect people will eventually just be able to say yes they had health insurance without proof and that insurance was their own bank account and the proof that they don't have any outstanding unpaid health care bills.
Click to expand...


"Yes you do have to refrain from murder."

There are murders every day. No way they can be prevented. So, you don't have to refrain from it. You do have to accept the legal consequences of it.

"Not buying health insurance is not a a crime. Nor is it a minor offense."

That's why the consequence is a tax, not a fine. It's not punishment but rather required reimbursement for the cost that you are likely to impose, one way or the other, on other people. Like all taxes, there is no sense in charging it to people who just don't have the means to pay it.

"I suspect people will eventually just be able to say yes they had health insurance without proof and that insurance was their own bank account"

This is like volunteer taxes that you advocate. It will never happen. It's just as easy for the government to confirm your health insurance as to confirm your income.

"and the proof that they don't have any outstanding unpaid health care bills."

Insurance is purchased before you have bills, not after. No outstanding bills is not, in any way, evidence that you've acted responsibly relative to health care costs.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
> Where?
> Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.



If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.

"Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."

Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> IRS has already announced they do not fully know what their role is in all of this other than GATHERING the information which is VOLUNTARY to give.
> Amazing the people that have voted in a law and have no clue what is in it.



Clearly you don't know what's in it.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
> Where?
> Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.
> 
> "Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."
> 
> Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?
Click to expand...



If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
> Where?
> Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.
> 
> "Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."
> 
> Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.
Click to expand...


They can if there is no emergency.

From Wikipedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.
> 
> "Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."
> 
> Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can if there is no emergency.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
> EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
> The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]
Click to expand...



So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have insurance, and you go to an emergency room, they can't turn you away. Most people don't know the rules of insurance even if they buy it. The reduction of emergency services will not be significant simply because many people just go to the emergency room and that's what they're used to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can if there is no emergency.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
> EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
> The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.
Click to expand...


What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can if there is no emergency.
> 
> From Wikipedia
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment with the informed consent of the patient, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]
> EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
> The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[7] Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.
Click to expand...



Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing in ACA changes that. Anyone who was previously turned away is still turned away. ACA does not address Emergency room care at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.
Click to expand...


You certainly confuse easily. 

6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay. 

People with no means to pay for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line. 

With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices. 

In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
Click to expand...



Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.
Click to expand...


$43B in 2008 and rising every year. 

The individual mandate is Constitutional. 

You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $43B in 2008 and rising every year.
> 
> The individual mandate is Constitutional.
> 
> You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.
Click to expand...



Bloated numbers to justify a law. 

It is not constitutional.

Throwing out baseless accusations is juvenile and exactly what should be expected when one runs out of partisan rhetoric.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $43B in 2008 and rising every year.
> 
> The individual mandate is Constitutional.
> 
> You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bloated numbers to justify a law.
> 
> It is not constitutional.
> 
> Throwing out baseless accusations is juvenile and exactly what should be expected when one runs out of partisan rhetoric.
Click to expand...


How about some evidence of "Bloated numbers" or "not constitutional" or "baseless accusations".


----------



## RKMBrown

Gadawg73 said:


> IRS has already announced they do not fully know what their role is in all of this other than GATHERING the information which is VOLUNTARY to give.
> Amazing the people that have voted in a law and have no clue what is in it.



Eggzactly, I suspect it will be an IQ test to tell them to reduce your rebate check because you did not buy health insurance.


----------



## PMZ

Goodbye Nelson Mandela. A gift to the world.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
> Where?
> Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.
> 
> "Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."
> 
> Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?
Click to expand...


It's amazing how [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] illustrates his own ignorance... If you didn't have the money for health insurance before the ACA you won't magically have money for health insurance _after_ the ACA 

PMZ loves the ACA because I now have to provide health insurance for him since he's too fuck'n lazy to work and spends his money on frivolous items like high-speed internet instead of on necessities.


----------



## P@triot

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently don't like America much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
Click to expand...


You mean people like you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? I refer to them as assholes. I also refer to them as parasites. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service and *you know it*. But your desire to live as a parasite and receive freebies trumps your integrity to be honest about what you know is true (and painfully obviously so).


----------



## PMZ

Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is there any evidence that the ACA will "reduce emergency room visits"?
> Where?
> Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.
> 
> "Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."
> 
> Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's amazing how [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] illustrates his own ignorance... If you didn't have the money for health insurance before the ACA you won't magically have money for health insurance _after_ the ACA
> 
> PMZ loves the ACA because I now have to provide health insurance for him since he's too fuck'n lazy to work and spends his money on frivolous items like high-speed internet instead of on necessities.
Click to expand...


The only way that Rottweiner's story holds up is if he gets to imagine who those who disagree are.  Propaganda 101.


----------



## PMZ

I 





Rottweiler said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes great argument. Every time I point out so etching true you can't refute you resort to platitudes that mean nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean people like you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? I refer to them as assholes. I also refer to them as parasites. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service and *you know it*. But your desire to live as a parasite and receive freebies trumps your integrity to be honest about what you know is true (and painfully obviously so).
Click to expand...


Your opinion would count if you were a Supreme Court Justice.  Unfortunately you were born dumber than a box of hammers,  and are determined to remain that way through life. 

You made your bed,  now lie in it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you refer to people who stand against our Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people like you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? I refer to them as assholes. I also refer to them as parasites. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service and *you know it*. But your desire to live as a parasite and receive freebies trumps your integrity to be honest about what you know is true (and painfully obviously so).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion would count if you were a Supreme Court Justice.  Unfortunately you were born dumber than a box of hammers,  and are determined to remain that way through life.
> 
> You made your bed,  now lie in it.
Click to expand...


So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?

Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have no money, and no health insurance, the only alternative that you have for health care is emergency room treatment. If you have insurance, you are not allowed to use the emergency room fonon emergency treatment.
> 
> "Amazing the left believes everything they hear if it feels good."
> 
> Did it make you feel good to believe that ACA won't reduce emergency room treatment before finding out that you were wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] illustrates his own ignorance... If you didn't have the money for health insurance before the ACA you won't magically have money for health insurance _after_ the ACA
> 
> PMZ loves the ACA because I now have to provide health insurance for him since he's too fuck'n lazy to work and spends his money on frivolous items like high-speed internet instead of on necessities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way that Rottweiner's story holds up is if he gets to imagine who those who disagree are.  Propaganda 101.
Click to expand...


He doesn't have to imagine a thing.  He simply has to observe the idiocies you post in this forum.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people like you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? I refer to them as assholes. I also refer to them as parasites. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service and *you know it*. But your desire to live as a parasite and receive freebies trumps your integrity to be honest about what you know is true (and painfully obviously so).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion would count if you were a Supreme Court Justice.  Unfortunately you were born dumber than a box of hammers,  and are determined to remain that way through life.
> 
> You made your bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?
> 
> Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.
Click to expand...


Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government.  We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok. So you're saying that 6% is a huge problem that must be addressed by over regulation and unconstitutional mandates. Well, hopefully we can hit at least 4%. That would make all this stuff worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $43B in 2008 and rising every year.
> 
> The individual mandate is Constitutional.
> 
> You probably believe that murder is over regulated. I don't.
Click to expand...


You're equating not buying insurance to murder?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid remark. ACA gives people with no alternative but the emergency today, a better option. Go to a PCP and use your insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
Click to expand...


So we have to pay 80% more for insurance that has a deductible 2 or 3 times higher so we can avoid paying 6% more on our hospital bills?

Don't ever try to start a business, PMS.  You're obviously the world's biggest sucker.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is that people that don't have insurance go to the emergency room and get turned down because they don't have insurance so we have to stop that because of the rising cost of people who do t get medical service because they don't have insurance and that causes bankruptcies because they didn't get care because they don't have insurance and everyone has to pay for the care they didn't receive after getting turned down because they don't have insurance and that costs too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we have to pay 80% more for insurance that has a deductible 2 or 3 times higher so we can avoid paying 6% more on our hospital bills?
> 
> Don't ever try to start a business, PMS.  You're obviously the world's biggest sucker.
Click to expand...


Every guess by propagandists of the premium increases due to Obamacare gets higher. Where will it stop? 

The truth is that Obamacare doesn't effect most Republicans at all.  They get their insurance from group plans from their employers. 

But there's no sense in not trying another lie campaign to try to get elected some day again.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Your opinion would count if you were a Supreme Court Justice.  Unfortunately you were born dumber than a box of hammers,  and are determined to remain that way through life.
> 
> You made your bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?
> 
> Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government.  We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yeah, actually, we do.  However, Lincoln murdered anyone who tried and thereby set a bad precedent.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You certainly confuse easily.
> 
> 6%, on the average, of every hospital bill is from president Reagan's EMTALA act which requires hospital emergency rooms to perform emergency treatment on anyone who requires it regardless of their ability to pay.
> 
> People with no means to pay for health care use that for both emergency and non emergency treatments because hospitals are reluctant to draw the line.
> 
> With ACA, people are required to have health insurance, and those who can't afford it are subsidized. That gives everyone the option to take advantage of more effective treatment of non emergency conditions at regular doctors offices.
> 
> In a perfect world that would reduce every hospital bill 6%. It's not a perfect world so experience suggests the actual savings would be somewhat less than 6%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have to pay 80% more for insurance that has a deductible 2 or 3 times higher so we can avoid paying 6% more on our hospital bills?
> 
> Don't ever try to start a business, PMS.  You're obviously the world's biggest sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every guess by propagandists of the premium increases due to Obamacare gets higher. Where will it stop? .
Click to expand...


They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.



PMZ said:


> [The truth is that Obamacare doesn't effect most Republicans at all.  They get their insurance from group plans from their employers. .



Which will become illegal next year.



PMZ said:


> But there's no sense in not trying another lie campaign to try to get elected some day again.



Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?

Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean people like you [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]? I refer to them as assholes. I also refer to them as parasites. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force citizens to purchase a good or service and *you know it*. But your desire to live as a parasite and receive freebies trumps your integrity to be honest about what you know is true (and painfully obviously so).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion would count if you were a Supreme Court Justice.  Unfortunately you were born dumber than a box of hammers,  and are determined to remain that way through life.
> 
> You made your bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?
> 
> Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.
Click to expand...


If you want your opinion to matter replace Representatives with Proposals.
You still expose yourself to the losing side of a Proposal.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Your opinion would count if you were a Supreme Court Justice.  Unfortunately you were born dumber than a box of hammers,  and are determined to remain that way through life.
> 
> You made your bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?
> 
> Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want your opinion to matter replace Representatives with Proposals.
> You still expose yourself to the losing side of a Proposal.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?
> 
> Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want your opinion to matter replace Representatives with Proposals.
> You still expose yourself to the losing side of a Proposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...


How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
California uses Proposals all the time.
And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.

So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So under this democracy the opinions of citizens doesn't matter?
> 
> Don't answer that.  We already know the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government.  We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually, we do.  However, Lincoln murdered anyone who tried and thereby set a bad precedent.
Click to expand...


This is extreme,  extreme,  extremism.  Not surprising,  but almost completely un-American.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we have to pay 80% more for insurance that has a deductible 2 or 3 times higher so we can avoid paying 6% more on our hospital bills?
> 
> Don't ever try to start a business, PMS.  You're obviously the world's biggest sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every guess by propagandists of the premium increases due to Obamacare gets higher. Where will it stop? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The truth is that Obamacare doesn't effect most Republicans at all.  They get their insurance from group plans from their employers. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which will become illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's no sense in not trying another lie campaign to try to get elected some day again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?
> 
> Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?
Click to expand...


I didn't think that he was making promises for private insurance companies.  I always assumed that he was addressing his responsibilities,  including the ACA provision for grandfathering,  which private insurance companies chose not to offer. 

Clearly he underestimated Republican ability to spin shit from gold.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we have to pay 80% more for insurance that has a deductible 2 or 3 times higher so we can avoid paying 6% more on our hospital bills?
> 
> Don't ever try to start a business, PMS.  You're obviously the world's biggest sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every guess by propagandists of the premium increases due to Obamacare gets higher. Where will it stop? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The truth is that Obamacare doesn't effect most Republicans at all.  They get their insurance from group plans from their employers. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which will become illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's no sense in not trying another lie campaign to try to get elected some day again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?
> 
> Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?
Click to expand...


Tell us more about group plans becoming illegal next year.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want your opinion to matter replace Representatives with Proposals.
> You still expose yourself to the losing side of a Proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
> Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
> California uses Proposals all the time.
> And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.
> 
> So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?
Click to expand...


I would eliminate government entirely.  However, if government remains, then I would simply give the states the right to approve or reject any law passed by Congress.  That's how things worked before the Civil War.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
> Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
> California uses Proposals all the time.
> And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.
> 
> So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would eliminate government entirely.  However, if government remains, then I would simply give the states the right to approve or reject any law passed by Congress.  That's how things worked before the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Pure unadulterated un-Americanism.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every guess by propagandists of the premium increases due to Obamacare gets higher. Where will it stop? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> Which will become illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's no sense in not trying another lie campaign to try to get elected some day again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?
> 
> Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell us more about group plans becoming illegal next year.
Click to expand...


Groups plans aren't going to be illegal, but the plans currently in force will almost all become illegal.

You really don't know squat about Obamacare, do you?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
> Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
> California uses Proposals all the time.
> And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.
> 
> So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would eliminate government entirely.  However, if government remains, then I would simply give the states the right to approve or reject any law passed by Congress.  That's how things worked before the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure unadulterated un-Americanism.
Click to expand...


What the hell is Americanism, raping, murdering and pillaging people in states who don't like the laws you want to impose on them?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> Which will become illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?
> 
> Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us more about group plans becoming illegal next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Groups plans aren't going to be illegal, but the plans currently in force will almost all become illegal.
> 
> You really don't know squat about Obamacare, do you?
Click to expand...


They will remain what they always have been.  Inadequate to insure personal responsibility for one's own health care costs.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every guess by propagandists of the premium increases due to Obamacare gets higher. Where will it stop? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> Which will become illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there's no sense in not trying another lie campaign to try to get elected some day again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?
> 
> Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think that he was making promises for private insurance companies.  I always assumed that he was addressing his responsibilities,  including the ACA provision for grandfathering,  which private insurance companies chose not to offer.
> 
> Clearly he underestimated Republican ability to spin shit from gold.
Click to expand...


He lied, dipshit, and you're lying now.  Only a complete moron would fall for the shit you just spewed.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government.  We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually, we do.  However, Lincoln murdered anyone who tried and thereby set a bad precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is extreme,  extreme,  extremism.  Not surprising,  but almost completely un-American.
Click to expand...


The Civil War was "un-American?"

I agree.  It was cold blooded murder.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us more about group plans becoming illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Groups plans aren't going to be illegal, but the plans currently in force will almost all become illegal.
> 
> You really don't know squat about Obamacare, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will remain what they always have been.  Inadequate to insure personal responsibility for one's own health care costs.
Click to expand...


No, they will be illegal, and about 130 million Americans will have an Obamacare approved plan imposed on them.

Please quite demonstrating your ignorance of the law.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't guesses, PMS.  Those are the kinds or increases people who signed up at healthcare.org are experiencing.  Man analysts have predicted similar increases once the mandate on business is enforced.
> 
> 
> 
> Which will become illegal next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't a "lie campaign" exactly the way Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare?
> 
> Remember this lie: "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, period."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think that he was making promises for private insurance companies.  I always assumed that he was addressing his responsibilities,  including the ACA provision for grandfathering,  which private insurance companies chose not to offer.
> 
> Clearly he underestimated Republican ability to spin shit from gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lied, dipshit, and you're lying now.  Only a complete moron would fall for the shit you just spewed.
Click to expand...


You are unable to distinguish truth from lies.  That's why Republican propaganda owns your "mind".


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually, we do.  However, Lincoln murdered anyone who tried and thereby set a bad precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is extreme,  extreme,  extremism.  Not surprising,  but almost completely un-American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Civil War was "un-American?"
> 
> I agree.  It was cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...


It saved America.  If the Confederacy had prevailed,  they would be a third world poverty stricken,  outcast of a country now.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think that he was making promises for private insurance companies.  I always assumed that he was addressing his responsibilities,  including the ACA provision for grandfathering,  which private insurance companies chose not to offer.
> 
> Clearly he underestimated Republican ability to spin shit from gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lied, dipshit, and you're lying now.  Only a complete moron would fall for the shit you just spewed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are unable to distinguish truth from lies.  That's why Republican propaganda owns your "mind".
Click to expand...


Wrong again. I can distinguish truth from lies.  And although Americans are pretty dumb, they are smart enough to know that Obama lied repeatedly about Obamacare.

You're lying now.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is extreme,  extreme,  extremism.  Not surprising,  but almost completely un-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was "un-American?"
> 
> I agree.  It was cold blooded murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It saved America.  If the Confederacy had prevailed,  they would be a third world poverty stricken,  outcast of a country now.
Click to expand...


The only thing it saved America from is freedom.  Instead we got an Empire populated by serfs who withheld their consent to be ruled by Yankee carpet baggers.

Lincoln's claim that the war saved "government of the people, by the people and for the people" is one of the biggest lies ever foisted on the American public.

Even if the Confederacy would have ended up as you describe, that wouldn't have justified invading it and subjugating it -  not if you believe that "consent of the governed" is a basic principle of legitimate government.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lied, dipshit, and you're lying now.  Only a complete moron would fall for the shit you just spewed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to distinguish truth from lies.  That's why Republican propaganda owns your "mind".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. I can distinguish truth from lies.  And although Americans are pretty dumb, they are smart enough to know the Obama lied repeatedly about Obamacare.
> 
> You're lying now.
Click to expand...


Nobody who respects truth will support Republicans who have made a shambles of it. Most certainly,  you are a prime example.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to distinguish truth from lies.  That's why Republican propaganda owns your "mind".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. I can distinguish truth from lies.  And although Americans are pretty dumb, they are smart enough to know the Obama lied repeatedly about Obamacare.
> 
> You're lying now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody who respects truth will support Republicans who have made a shambles of it. Most certainly,  you are a prime example.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  How does that prove that Obama didn't lie?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. I can distinguish truth from lies.  And although Americans are pretty dumb, they are smart enough to know the Obama lied repeatedly about Obamacare.
> 
> You're lying now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody who respects truth will support Republicans who have made a shambles of it. Most certainly,  you are a prime example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL!  How does that prove that Obama didn't lie?
Click to expand...


I've explained that to you many times including just now.  When ever you read the truth your head aches from cognitive dissonance caused by the propaganda that you've embraced versus the truth of reality.


----------



## ShawnChris13

Either way both parties are constantly lying to the American public. So much so that no one is arguing against people being jailed without due process. Or against spying on citizens without a warrant.

Obama lied, it's proven. But every politician lies and the public allows them to remain in office.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody who respects truth will support Republicans who have made a shambles of it. Most certainly,  you are a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  How does that prove that Obama didn't lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've explained that to you many times including just now.  When ever you read the truth your head aches from cognitive dissonance caused by the propaganda that you've embraced versus the truth of reality.
Click to expand...


Your "explanation" was an obvious lie.

Reading patent lies is what makes my head hurt.


----------



## Indeependent

How does any of this relate to the OP's Fair Share question?


----------



## JamesInFlorida

Get this what people were saying to me the other day:

They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more. 

I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share. 

I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.

Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.

But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.

But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.

If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.


/end rant LOL


----------



## zeke

Dude. I am absolutely positive that you don't make enough money to be considered a "plutocrat".

When you have 500 million in the bank and are making at least 25 million a year, then come back and bitch.

You friends have a problem with the plutocracy in this country. Not the small business man making 100k a year. Or at least that is who they should have a problem with.

If they have a problem with you doing something like making 100k a year, I would find some new friends.

You know how I know you are not among the ultra wealthy? You are posting on here. Proof positive.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

zeke said:


> Dude. I am absolutely positive that you don't make enough money to be considered a "plutocrat".
> 
> When you have 500 million in the bank and are making at least 25 million a year, then come back and bitch.
> 
> You friends have a problem with the plutocracy in this country. Not the small business man making 100k a year. Or at least that is who they should have a problem with.
> 
> If they have a problem with you doing something like making 100k a year, I would find some new friends.
> 
> You know how I know you are not among the ultra wealthy? You are posting on here. Proof positive.



Never claimed I was "ultra wealthy", or that they were my "friends".


----------



## P@triot

JamesInFlorida said:


> Get this what people were saying to me the other day:
> 
> They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more.
> 
> I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share.
> 
> I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.
> 
> Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.
> 
> But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.
> 
> But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.
> 
> If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> /end rant LOL



You did get there on your own and the Dumbocrats *know* it. They just need a false narrative in order to explain a really fucked up ideology which they cannot justify with honest rational thought.

The reality is, you're already paying _way_ more than they are. If anyone should be forced to pay more, it's the same assholes who are bitching that the wealthy don't pay enough. They are the one's receiving _all_ of the benefits of our new, unconstitutional government.


----------



## PMZ

JamesInFlorida said:


> Get this what people were saying to me the other day:
> 
> They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more.
> 
> I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share.
> 
> I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.
> 
> Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.
> 
> But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.
> 
> But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.
> 
> If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> /end rant LOL



When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options. 

Move. 

Stop earning so much money. 

You're in control.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

PMZ said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get this what people were saying to me the other day:
> 
> They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more.
> 
> I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share.
> 
> I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.
> 
> Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.
> 
> But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.
> 
> But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.
> 
> If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> /end rant LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
Click to expand...


I have no problem paying a flat tax (and specific percentage that everybody pays). Let's say it's 10%-everybody pays 10%, I have no problems if my 10% is higher than somebody elses. I think that's as "fair" as you can get-everybody gives up the same proportion of their earnings. If that's what happens-you'll see no complaints out of me.

But how about my "fair share" in the benefits of paying taxes? I have NEVER received a penny form the government in the form of food stamps, wellfare, etc. Shouldn't I receive my "fair share" of tax dollars? Or is that something that nobody wants to address?

I have no problem with my money helping other people-I wish more of it went to Hurricane Katrina aide for example. No problems with even temporary unemployment, let's say 6 months. You lose your job-you're on the dole for 6 months. Even that I have no complaints. But how is it fair for me to pay people for extended unemployment-and then when that runs out they simple switch over to disability (on a bogus claim).

But ultimately....*I pay more into the system, and receive less in return. So where is my "fair share"?* Or are the leeches of society only concerned about themselves?


----------



## PMZ

JamesInFlorida said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get this what people were saying to me the other day:
> 
> They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more.
> 
> I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share.
> 
> I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.
> 
> Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.
> 
> But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.
> 
> But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.
> 
> If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> /end rant LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem paying a flat tax (and specific percentage that everybody pays). Let's say it's 10%-everybody pays 10%, I have no problems if my 10% is higher than somebody elses. I think that's as "fair" as you can get-everybody gives up the same proportion of their earnings. If that's what happens-you'll see no complaints out of me.
> 
> But how about my "fair share" in the benefits of paying taxes? I have NEVER received a penny form the government in the form of food stamps, wellfare, etc. Shouldn't I receive my "fair share" of tax dollars? Or is that something that nobody wants to address?
> 
> I have no problem with my money helping other people-I wish more of it went to Hurricane Katrina aide for example. No problems with even temporary unemployment, let's say 6 months. You lose your job-you're on the dole for 6 months. Even that I have no complaints. But how is it fair for me to pay people for extended unemployment-and then when that runs out they simple switch over to disability (on a bogus claim).
> 
> But ultimately....*I pay more into the system, and receive less in return. So where is my "fair share"?* Or are the leeches of society only concerned about themselves?
Click to expand...


Who told you that life is fair? What's not fair is people living on the edge of poverty despite full time jobs.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get this what people were saying to me the other day:
> 
> They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more.
> 
> I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share.
> 
> I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.
> 
> Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.
> 
> But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.
> 
> But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.
> 
> If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> /end rant LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
Click to expand...


The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem paying a flat tax (and specific percentage that everybody pays). Let's say it's 10%-everybody pays 10%, I have no problems if my 10% is higher than somebody elses. I think that's as "fair" as you can get-everybody gives up the same proportion of their earnings. If that's what happens-you'll see no complaints out of me.
> 
> But how about my "fair share" in the benefits of paying taxes? I have NEVER received a penny form the government in the form of food stamps, wellfare, etc. Shouldn't I receive my "fair share" of tax dollars? Or is that something that nobody wants to address?
> 
> I have no problem with my money helping other people-I wish more of it went to Hurricane Katrina aide for example. No problems with even temporary unemployment, let's say 6 months. You lose your job-you're on the dole for 6 months. Even that I have no complaints. But how is it fair for me to pay people for extended unemployment-and then when that runs out they simple switch over to disability (on a bogus claim).
> 
> But ultimately....*I pay more into the system, and receive less in return. So where is my "fair share"?* Or are the leeches of society only concerned about themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you that life is fair? What's not fair is people living on the edge of poverty despite full time jobs.
Click to expand...


So if you don't give a damn whether life is fair to him, then why should he give a damn about the poor?  You can't seem to make up your mind whether fairness is a principle of democratic government or not.  Apparently only losers are entitled to fairness.  Furthermore, they are entitled to fairness from life, while the rest of us aren't even entitled to be treated fairly by the government.

You're the most servile kind of bootlicker on this forum, PMS.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem paying a flat tax (and specific percentage that everybody pays). Let's say it's 10%-everybody pays 10%, I have no problems if my 10% is higher than somebody elses. I think that's as "fair" as you can get-everybody gives up the same proportion of their earnings. If that's what happens-you'll see no complaints out of me.
> 
> But how about my "fair share" in the benefits of paying taxes? I have NEVER received a penny form the government in the form of food stamps, wellfare, etc. Shouldn't I receive my "fair share" of tax dollars? Or is that something that nobody wants to address?
> 
> I have no problem with my money helping other people-I wish more of it went to Hurricane Katrina aide for example. No problems with even temporary unemployment, let's say 6 months. You lose your job-you're on the dole for 6 months. Even that I have no complaints. But how is it fair for me to pay people for extended unemployment-and then when that runs out they simple switch over to disability (on a bogus claim).
> 
> But ultimately....*I pay more into the system, and receive less in return. So where is my "fair share"?* Or are the leeches of society only concerned about themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you that life is fair? What's not fair is people living on the edge of poverty despite full time jobs.
Click to expand...


I believe that would be the leftists, blithering on and on about "fair shares".  Anytime you dipshits want to stop throwing around kindergarten buzzwords, you may THEN demand that people stop holding you to them.  Until then, the phrase "hoist with your own petard" springs to mind.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get this what people were saying to me the other day:
> 
> They claimed that I wasn't paying my "fair share of taxes", because I could afford to pay more.
> 
> I informed them that last year I probably paid more in taxes than any of them netted (individually). Still not my fair share.
> 
> I then informed them that I have most likely paid more in dollars to the IRS than they have over our lives. Still not my fair share.
> 
> Their rebuttal was (that STUPID): you didn't get there on your own. Really? I received exactly $0.00 in tuition, $0.00 in any foodstamps/wellfare, etc. growing up. I run my own business that I built out of my bedroom while I was living at home when I was 15 (no exaggeration). I'm not "rich" or anything like that-but I do well.
> 
> But the income inequality isn't "fair" to them. So I explain to them if my business goes under-I'm bankrupt. If their business (where they work) goes under: they simply get another job. My job has much responsibility and accountability than theirs do. In other words: their risk is minimal, while mine is great.
> 
> But they go to work, collect a 9-5 paycheck (which there's nothing wrong with that). But don't turn around and bitch out of jealously while others eventually make more than you do-because that's not the path you went down.
> 
> If you think that you're underpaid: go get a better job. If you can't: MAKE one (hint: start your own business; but I promise it's harder than it seems). If there's no way that you make more money: than you're currently get paid what you're worth. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> /end rant LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.
Click to expand...


How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem paying a flat tax (and specific percentage that everybody pays). Let's say it's 10%-everybody pays 10%, I have no problems if my 10% is higher than somebody elses. I think that's as "fair" as you can get-everybody gives up the same proportion of their earnings. If that's what happens-you'll see no complaints out of me.
> 
> But how about my "fair share" in the benefits of paying taxes? I have NEVER received a penny form the government in the form of food stamps, wellfare, etc. Shouldn't I receive my "fair share" of tax dollars? Or is that something that nobody wants to address?
> 
> I have no problem with my money helping other people-I wish more of it went to Hurricane Katrina aide for example. No problems with even temporary unemployment, let's say 6 months. You lose your job-you're on the dole for 6 months. Even that I have no complaints. But how is it fair for me to pay people for extended unemployment-and then when that runs out they simple switch over to disability (on a bogus claim).
> 
> But ultimately....*I pay more into the system, and receive less in return. So where is my "fair share"?* Or are the leeches of society only concerned about themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that life is fair? What's not fair is people living on the edge of poverty despite full time jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you don't give a damn whether life is fair to him, then why should he give a damn about the poor?  You can't seem to make up your mind whether fairness is a principle of democratic government or not.  Apparently only losers are entitled to fairness.  Furthermore, they are entitled to fairness from life, while the rest of us aren't even entitled to be treated fairly by the government.
> 
> You're the most servile kind of bootlicker on this forum, PMS.
Click to expand...


I don't need or care to lick anyone's boots.  You recite Republican propaganda daily.  You are addicted to it.  There is never an indication of any actual originality on your part except for your extremist hate for America and Confederate nationalism.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
Click to expand...



What if the earth flooded and we all had to live like Kevin Costner? Asking theoretical moot points is a waste of time. As you love saying, life isn't fair and he did well. Those poor who refuse or are unable should just lie down and die, right? Life's not fair.

I would help people, but life just isn't fair. Sure I could go and hand out waters to the homeless, but life isn't fair so screw em. 

Your broken record of life isn't fair is a terrible counterpoint to valid questions of overreaching government. Common sense should rule and dictate that government should be trying its best to achieve fairness for its citizens. All of them. Then you'll see progress made for the betterment of Americans. 

Change the political process and the politicians. Refocus on America and quit trying to help countries that hate us. No more foreign aid. Send out loans to be repaid. Fair taxes and fair policies. Then you can go out and buy a new vinyl.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you get sick of the privilege of paying taxes to the country that allowed you success,  you have at least two options.
> 
> Move.
> 
> Stop earning so much money.
> 
> You're in control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
Click to expand...


I don't support lawlessness.  I just don't support government.  Somalia isn't an example of what I advocate.  Somalia is a failed example of what you advocate: a Marxist collective.

Furthermore, the fact that people can make more money doesn't mean the government is entitled to any of it.  People can make money here only because of the restraints placed on government.


----------



## bripat9643

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What if the earth flooded and we all had to live like Kevin Costner? Asking theoretical moot points is a waste of time. As you love saying, life isn't fair and he did well. Those poor who refuse or are unable should just lie down and die, right? Life's not fair.
> 
> I would help people, but life just isn't fair. Sure I could go and hand out waters to the homeless, but life isn't fair so screw em.
> 
> Your broken record of life isn't fair is a terrible counterpoint to valid questions of overreaching government. Common sense should rule and dictate that government should be trying its best to achieve fairness for its citizens. All of them. Then you'll see progress made for the betterment of Americans.
> 
> Change the political process and the politicians. Refocus on America and quit trying to help countries that hate us. No more foreign aid. Send out loans to be repaid. Fair taxes and fair policies. Then you can go out and buy a new vinyl.
Click to expand...


The same morons who bleat constantly that life isn't fair whine in their next breath that not allowing homosexuals to marry is unjust.

You can't make up this kind of stuff.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that life is fair? What's not fair is people living on the edge of poverty despite full time jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't give a damn whether life is fair to him, then why should he give a damn about the poor?  You can't seem to make up your mind whether fairness is a principle of democratic government or not.  Apparently only losers are entitled to fairness.  Furthermore, they are entitled to fairness from life, while the rest of us aren't even entitled to be treated fairly by the government.
> 
> You're the most servile kind of bootlicker on this forum, PMS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need or care to lick anyone's boots.  You recite Republican propaganda daily.  You are addicted to it.  There is never an indication of any actual originality on your part except for your extremist hate for America and Confederate nationalism.
Click to expand...


You don't lick boots, but you suck Obama's dick.  Talk about reciting propaganda.   You're a one man propaganda megaphone for the Administration's policies.  If you actually paid attention, you'd understand that my views differ significantly from the talking heads on FOX.  But, hey, you've already admitted that.

BTW, I don't hate America.  I hate the government.  Of course, a servile brainwashed toady like yourself doesn't understand the difference.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What if the earth flooded and we all had to live like Kevin Costner? Asking theoretical moot points is a waste of time. As you love saying, life isn't fair and he did well. Those poor who refuse or are unable should just lie down and die, right? Life's not fair.
> 
> I would help people, but life just isn't fair. Sure I could go and hand out waters to the homeless, but life isn't fair so screw em.
> 
> Your broken record of life isn't fair is a terrible counterpoint to valid questions of overreaching government. Common sense should rule and dictate that government should be trying its best to achieve fairness for its citizens. All of them. Then you'll see progress made for the betterment of Americans.
> 
> Change the political process and the politicians. Refocus on America and quit trying to help countries that hate us. No more foreign aid. Send out loans to be repaid. Fair taxes and fair policies. Then you can go out and buy a new vinyl.
Click to expand...


I see that you have no argument that life is fair.  Of course not.  It's a childhood fantasy. We all know that. 

And don't give me the standard conservative BS that you'd help the people that folks like you keep poor voluntarily but don't want to through taxes. 

20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.  It just can't get more extreme then that.  

Why can't the wealthy back off now.  Is it really essential for them to have all of it?  What would they even do with 15% more?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The country "ALLOWED him success?"  Where does the federal government get the authority to determine who is successful and who isn't?  Your belief that our property and incomes are a gift from the government is fascist to the bone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support lawlessness.  I just don't support government.  Somalia isn't an example of what I advocate.  Somalia is a failed example of what you advocate: a Marxist collective.
> 
> Furthermore, the fact that people can make more money doesn't mean the government is entitled to any of it.  People can make money here only because of the restraints placed on government.
Click to expand...


It is logically impossible to support no government and not support lawlessness.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support lawlessness.  I just don't support government.  Somalia isn't an example of what I advocate.  Somalia is a failed example of what you advocate: a Marxist collective.
> 
> Furthermore, the fact that people can make more money doesn't mean the government is entitled to any of it.  People can make money here only because of the restraints placed on government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is logically impossible to support no government and not support lawlessness.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm . . .  wrong. Common law is not a creation of the government.  It existed prior to government made law.  The common people had to develop a system for resolving disputes and punishing wrong doers, because the king didn't do it for them.

You'll note the Constitution refers to "common law."  That's where ideas like trial by jury came from.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't give a damn whether life is fair to him, then why should he give a damn about the poor?  You can't seem to make up your mind whether fairness is a principle of democratic government or not.  Apparently only losers are entitled to fairness.  Furthermore, they are entitled to fairness from life, while the rest of us aren't even entitled to be treated fairly by the government.
> 
> You're the most servile kind of bootlicker on this forum, PMS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need or care to lick anyone's boots.  You recite Republican propaganda daily.  You are addicted to it.  There is never an indication of any actual originality on your part except for your extremist hate for America and Confederate nationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't lick boots, but you suck Obama's dick.  Talk about reciting propaganda.   You're a one man propaganda megaphone for the Administration's policies.  If you actually paid attention, you'd understand that my views differ significantly from the talking heads on FOX.  But, hey, you've already admitted that.
> 
> BTW, I don't hate America.  I hate the government.  Of course, a servile brainwashed toady like yourself doesn't understand the difference.
Click to expand...


You're the last Confederate soldier,  and the only one still left that isn't glad that you lost.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need or care to lick anyone's boots.  You recite Republican propaganda daily.  You are addicted to it.  There is never an indication of any actual originality on your part except for your extremist hate for America and Confederate nationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't lick boots, but you suck Obama's dick.  Talk about reciting propaganda.   You're a one man propaganda megaphone for the Administration's policies.  If you actually paid attention, you'd understand that my views differ significantly from the talking heads on FOX.  But, hey, you've already admitted that.
> 
> BTW, I don't hate America.  I hate the government.  Of course, a servile brainwashed toady like yourself doesn't understand the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the last Confederate soldier,  and the only one still left that isn't glad that you lost.
Click to expand...


You're dead wrong about that.  There are millions of people like me - more and more every year.  Any honest scholar understands that Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution and violated every principle he claimed to believe in and that this nation was founded on.

It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people about the truth, doesn't it?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't lick boots, but you suck Obama's dick.  Talk about reciting propaganda.   You're a one man propaganda megaphone for the Administration's policies.  If you actually paid attention, you'd understand that my views differ significantly from the talking heads on FOX.  But, hey, you've already admitted that.
> 
> BTW, I don't hate America.  I hate the government.  Of course, a servile brainwashed toady like yourself doesn't understand the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the last Confederate soldier,  and the only one still left that isn't glad that you lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dead wrong about that.  There are millions of people like me - more and more every year.  Any honest scholar understands that Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution and violated every principle he claimed to believe in and that this nation was founded on.
> 
> It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people about the truth, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


"It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people"

Absolutely.  Just like it did when Communists tried the same thing using the same propaganda tactics. 

If you think that Lincoln was a tarrant, that explains your hatred for the country under Obama.  They were cut from the same bolt of cloth.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the last Confederate soldier,  and the only one still left that isn't glad that you lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dead wrong about that.  There are millions of people like me - more and more every year.  Any honest scholar understands that Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution and violated every principle he claimed to believe in and that this nation was founded on.
> 
> It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people about the truth, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people"
> 
> Absolutely.  Just like it did when Communists tried the same thing using the same propaganda tactics.
> 
> If you think that Lincoln was a tarrant, that explains your hatred for the country under Obama.  They were cut from the same bolt of cloth.
Click to expand...


You are a communist, PMS, so it's amusing that you claim to be afraid of communism

Obama is cut from the same cloth as Lincoln, and also Stalin and Hitler.  Brutally imposing their agenda on the unwilling is what they are all about.


----------



## JamesInFlorida

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> How successful would he have been in Somalia where the lawlessness is as you wish for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if the earth flooded and we all had to live like Kevin Costner? Asking theoretical moot points is a waste of time. As you love saying, life isn't fair and he did well. Those poor who refuse or are unable should just lie down and die, right? Life's not fair.
> 
> I would help people, but life just isn't fair. Sure I could go and hand out waters to the homeless, but life isn't fair so screw em.
> 
> Your broken record of life isn't fair is a terrible counterpoint to valid questions of overreaching government. Common sense should rule and dictate that government should be trying its best to achieve fairness for its citizens. All of them. Then you'll see progress made for the betterment of Americans.
> 
> Change the political process and the politicians. Refocus on America and quit trying to help countries that hate us. No more foreign aid. Send out loans to be repaid. Fair taxes and fair policies. Then you can go out and buy a new vinyl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you have no argument that life is fair.  Of course not.  It's a childhood fantasy. We all know that.
> 
> And don't give me the standard conservative BS that you'd help the people that folks like you keep poor voluntarily but don't want to through taxes.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.  It just can't get more extreme then that.
> 
> Why can't the wealthy back off now.  Is it really essential for them to have all of it?  What would they even do with 15% more?
Click to expand...


I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?

And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:

roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?

Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.

But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).

So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.


----------



## itfitzme

JamesInFlorida said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the earth flooded and we all had to live like Kevin Costner? Asking theoretical moot points is a waste of time. As you love saying, life isn't fair and he did well. Those poor who refuse or are unable should just lie down and die, right? Life's not fair.
> 
> I would help people, but life just isn't fair. Sure I could go and hand out waters to the homeless, but life isn't fair so screw em.
> 
> Your broken record of life isn't fair is a terrible counterpoint to valid questions of overreaching government. Common sense should rule and dictate that government should be trying its best to achieve fairness for its citizens. All of them. Then you'll see progress made for the betterment of Americans.
> 
> Change the political process and the politicians. Refocus on America and quit trying to help countries that hate us. No more foreign aid. Send out loans to be repaid. Fair taxes and fair policies. Then you can go out and buy a new vinyl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you have no argument that life is fair.  Of course not.  It's a childhood fantasy. We all know that.
> 
> And don't give me the standard conservative BS that you'd help the people that folks like you keep poor voluntarily but don't want to through taxes.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.  It just can't get more extreme then that.
> 
> Why can't the wealthy back off now.  Is it really essential for them to have all of it?  What would they even do with 15% more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?
> 
> And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:
> 
> roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?
> 
> Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.
> 
> But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).
> 
> So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...


So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're dead wrong about that.  There are millions of people like me - more and more every year.  Any honest scholar understands that Lincoln was a tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution and violated every principle he claimed to believe in and that this nation was founded on.
> 
> It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people about the truth, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It really scares you that people like me are allowed to educate people"
> 
> Absolutely.  Just like it did when Communists tried the same thing using the same propaganda tactics.
> 
> If you think that Lincoln was a tarrant, that explains your hatred for the country under Obama.  They were cut from the same bolt of cloth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a communist, PMS, so it's amusing that you claim to be afraid of communism
> 
> Obama is cut from the same cloth as Lincoln, and also Stalin and Hitler.  Brutally imposing their agenda on the unwilling is what they are all about.
Click to expand...


I'm not a Communist but your first loyalty is to the Confederacy rather than America.  That makes you a traitor to your country.


----------



## PMZ

JamesInFlorida said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the earth flooded and we all had to live like Kevin Costner? Asking theoretical moot points is a waste of time. As you love saying, life isn't fair and he did well. Those poor who refuse or are unable should just lie down and die, right? Life's not fair.
> 
> I would help people, but life just isn't fair. Sure I could go and hand out waters to the homeless, but life isn't fair so screw em.
> 
> Your broken record of life isn't fair is a terrible counterpoint to valid questions of overreaching government. Common sense should rule and dictate that government should be trying its best to achieve fairness for its citizens. All of them. Then you'll see progress made for the betterment of Americans.
> 
> Change the political process and the politicians. Refocus on America and quit trying to help countries that hate us. No more foreign aid. Send out loans to be repaid. Fair taxes and fair policies. Then you can go out and buy a new vinyl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you have no argument that life is fair.  Of course not.  It's a childhood fantasy. We all know that.
> 
> And don't give me the standard conservative BS that you'd help the people that folks like you keep poor voluntarily but don't want to through taxes.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.  It just can't get more extreme then that.
> 
> Why can't the wealthy back off now.  Is it really essential for them to have all of it?  What would they even do with 15% more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?
> 
> And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:
> 
> roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?
> 
> Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.
> 
> But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).
> 
> So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...


The 50% that you constantly whine about are those that corporations choose not to pay a living wage to and so the value that they add through the work that they do is given to executives who don't create any value. 

The only solution to extreme wealth inequality is more progressive taxes, and income from work and from wealth the same.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you have no argument that life is fair.  Of course not.  It's a childhood fantasy. We all know that.
> 
> And don't give me the standard conservative BS that you'd help the people that folks like you keep poor voluntarily but don't want to through taxes.
> 
> 20% of the people have 85% of the wealth.  It just can't get more extreme then that.
> 
> Why can't the wealthy back off now.  Is it really essential for them to have all of it?  What would they even do with 15% more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?
> 
> And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:
> 
> roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?
> 
> Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.
> 
> But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).
> 
> So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?
Click to expand...


If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?
> 
> And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:
> 
> roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?
> 
> Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.
> 
> But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).
> 
> So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
Click to expand...


But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that 20% having 85% is a problem. BUT what's the solution? Is it really having the government stepping in?
> 
> And speaking that life's not fair: we all know that. But most liberals/democrats only care about the fairness of the poor, not the rich, and not 100% in the middle class. For example:
> 
> roughly 50% of Americans currently don't pay federal income tax (they get it back) right? So then tell me how it's fair for them to complain about the people who actually pay income tax, and complain that they're not paying enough? Especially with the 50% not paying income tax tends to receives more of the benefits?
> 
> Life's not fair-and I agree. I have NO problem paying more in actual dollars than somebody who makes less than I do-as long as they're giving up a proportional amount of their pie. I give up 10% and somebody who nets let's say 30% less than I do also gives up 10%--I have no problem with that.
> 
> But some people want to continue giving up nothing, reap the benefits, complain that others who're more successful don't pay more (mainly from opportunities that they took advantage of-and others didn't).
> 
> So do they really care about being "fair", or do they only care about being "fair" when it benefits them? The answer is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
Click to expand...


Here is the IRS tax tables.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

They apply to everyone.


----------



## bripat9643

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the IRS tax tables.
> 
> www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
> 
> They apply to everyone.
Click to expand...


Only fools are buying that crap.  Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.

What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color?  The darker the color, the more you pay.


----------



## itfitzme

bripat9643 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the IRS tax tables.
> 
> www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
> 
> They apply to everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only fools are buying that crap.  Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.
> 
> What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color?  The darker the color, the more you pay.
Click to expand...


Income level isn't an intrinsic property of people.

The money supply is a social tool used to make the economy efficient.  It is better than bartering.

Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize".  That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.


----------



## PMZ

itfitzme said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the IRS tax tables.
> 
> www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
> 
> They apply to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools are buying that crap.  Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.
> 
> What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color?  The darker the color, the more you pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income level isn't an intrinsic property of people.
> 
> The money supply is a social tool used to make the economy efficient.  It is better than bartering.
> 
> Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize".  That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.
Click to expand...


BriPat is unable to learn.  He's stuck where he is.  Forever.


----------



## itfitzme

PMZ said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools are buying that crap.  Marginal tax rates are designed to penalize some more than others.
> 
> What if we had a law that says the tax rate you pay is proportional to your skin color?  The darker the color, the more you pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Income level isn't an intrinsic property of people.
> 
> The money supply is a social tool used to make the economy efficient.  It is better than bartering.
> 
> Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize".  That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BriPat is unable to learn.  He's stuck where he is.  Forever.
Click to expand...


The problem is that I've seen no objective measure of this "penalized" at a macro level.  Spot taxes can be demonstrated as such.  But income taxes have no demonstratable indication of this "penalized".  It is all within the context of an essentially closed macro economy.  

The problem arrises from picking and choosing from macro and micro theory.  Classical macroeconomics, when taken in completion, demonstrates that all taxes do, being across board, is change the nominal prices.  The typical response is the stupid, "then let's taxes everyone at 100%" That just demonstrates no actual economic understanding as economics is, if nothing else, at the margin.  And there is not demonstratable empirical evidence to support this "lowing tax margins" bs.

The money supply and taxes should be whatever they should be to optimize the performance of the markets.  Why would we do any differently?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes you believe that a 10% flat tax is somehow "fair"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?
Click to expand...


Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Listening

itfitzme said:


> Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize".  That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.



Subjective or not, it is certainly one way to look at things.

I don't believe people look at the rich and say "We are going to make you pay a penalty for being rich".  

I do believe people look at the rich and say "You should pay a higher percentage of your income (when I say rich...I mean high income earners) towards taxes".

In effect, they do pay something of a penalty for making more money.


----------



## Listening

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If fairness means anything, it means applying the same rules to everyone.  Apply different rules to different people is the reason we overthrew the aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
Click to expand...


You need a copy of Asshole from RosettaStone in order to understand this fool.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...



The only thing it conveyed is proof that you're an imbecile.


----------



## dcraelin

Listening said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize".  That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective or not, it is certainly one way to look at things.
> I don't believe people look at the rich and say "We are going to make you pay a penalty for being rich".
> I do believe people look at the rich and say "You should pay a higher percentage of your income (when I say rich...I mean high income earners) towards taxes".
> In effect, they do pay something of a penalty for making more money.
Click to expand...


a lot of the rich get rich due to government interference in the market.  Movie stars and singers benefit from protectionist copyright law. Big corporations patent the most idiotic of "innovations". The justice department looks the other way on mergers and acquisitions that are monopolistic. Big corporations dont allow say-on-pay to their shareholders. Tax loopholes and shelters to no end.  Finance people benefit from lower rates on capital gains. Clean up all of this and the differences between the super-rich and the rest of us would narrow, But their would still be the ability to make money from having money, to 'put your money to work for you", this should be taxed higher than wage rates in my opinion.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing it conveyed is proof that you're an imbecile.
Click to expand...


That's the only thing that it conveyed to you.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marginal tax rates aren't "designed to penalize".  That is a subjective interpretation based on your own paranoid delusional mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective or not, it is certainly one way to look at things.
> I don't believe people look at the rich and say "We are going to make you pay a penalty for being rich".
> I do believe people look at the rich and say "You should pay a higher percentage of your income (when I say rich...I mean high income earners) towards taxes".
> In effect, they do pay something of a penalty for making more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a lot of the rich get rich due to government interference in the market.  Movie stars and singers benefit from protectionist copyright law. Big corporations patent the most idiotic of "innovations". The justice department looks the other way on mergers and acquisitions that are monopolistic. Big corporations dont allow say-on-pay to their shareholders. Tax loopholes and shelters to no end.  Finance people benefit from lower rates on capital gains. Clean up all of this and the differences between the super-rich and the rest of us would narrow, But their would still be the ability to make money from having money, to 'put your money to work for you", this should be taxed higher than wage rates in my opinion.
Click to expand...


While I agree that,  ultimately,  the only thing that keeps society alive and vital,  functional,  is government,  I also remember the day of responsible business that served with much less police work required. 

Perhaps it's just wishful thinking of a voluntary return to those times,  but policing is a very expensive way to get there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


It failed rather spectacularly.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government.  We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.



Actually retard, that would be a Republic - under a democracy, you could indeed "fire" the constitution and all rights therein. 

{The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.}

James Madison, Federalist #10


----------



## Uncensored2008

Indeependent said:


> If you want your opinion to matter replace Representatives with Proposals.
> You still expose yourself to the losing side of a Proposal.



"If you like your Constitution, you can keep your Constitution, Period." - The magnificent exalted lord of all, Dear Leader Barack Obama.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Indeependent said:


> How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
> Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
> California uses Proposals all the time.
> And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.
> 
> So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?



Do you mean "propositions," sparky?


----------



## BillyZane

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.



There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.

I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.

If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.

No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.

I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.

As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.



What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes? 

What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?

Nothing, that's what.


----------



## PMZ

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under democracy we hire and fire our representatives in government.  We don't get to hire and fire our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually retard, that would be a Republic - under a democracy, you could indeed "fire" the constitution and all rights therein.
> 
> {The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
> 
> The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
> 
> In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
> 
> In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.}
> 
> James Madison, Federalist #10
Click to expand...


What you are trying to say,  idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch,  and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.  

The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.


----------



## PMZ

BillyZane said:


> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
> 
> I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
> 
> If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
> 
> No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
> 
> I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
> 
> As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
> 
> 
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
> 
> Nothing, that's what.
Click to expand...


"Fair" is in the same category  as Santa Claus,  the Easter Bunny,  and the Tooth Fairy,  but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them,  on others.


----------



## PMZ

Listening said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> But fairness doesn't mean anything.  Look at you.  Dumb as a box of hammers but not starving.  WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a copy of Asshole from RosettaStone in order to understand this fool.
Click to expand...


Clearly what I post is way above your pay grade.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It failed rather spectacularly.
Click to expand...


I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.


----------



## Indeependent

Uncensored2008 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much so you want YOUR opinion to matter?
> Proposals must pass the muster of the State Supreme Court.
> California uses Proposals all the time.
> And as you just stated yourself, no matter how much freedom you think you have as deemed by the Federal and State Constitutions, in the end it comes down to ideologues in robes.
> 
> So to be concrete, would you eliminate Judicial Review?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "propositions," sparky?
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PMZ said:


> What you are trying to say,  idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch,  and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.
> 
> The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.



Actually, shit fer brains, I let James Madison do the talking.

HAD you read his words, instead of again running to ThinkProgress for orders, you would have grasped that a Republic is a REPRESENTATIVE form of government where the people elect representatives to represent them. 

Democracy is direct government by the people. Madison goes on to explain the folly in Athens where the people voted to execute four generals who had successfully repelled the Persian army. Naturally, they did not live to regret their decision when next the Persians invaded. Democracy is the purvey of the mob, whipped into frenzy by demagogues.

The reason you are a leftist is because you are stupid and uneducated, without a foundation in history, logic, and reason. So you turn to the demagogues on the hate sites to form your thoughts for you.


----------



## dcraelin

Uncensored2008 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are trying to say,  idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch,  and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.
> The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, shit fer brains, I let James Madison do the talking.
> HAD you read his words, instead of again running to ThinkProgress for orders, you would have grasped that a Republic is a REPRESENTATIVE form of government where the people elect representatives to represent them.
> Democracy is direct government by the people. Madison goes on to explain the folly in Athens where the people voted to execute four generals who had successfully repelled the Persian army. Naturally, they did not live to regret their decision when next the Persians invaded. Democracy is the purvey of the mob, whipped into frenzy by demagogues.
> The reason you are a leftist is because you are stupid and uneducated, without a foundation in history, logic, and reason. So you turn to the demagogues on the hate sites to form your thoughts for you.
Click to expand...


Madison first defines his talk on republics and democracies by differentiating "pure" democracys from Republics, "by which I mean" he says, those using the representation. The very fact that he has to do that shows it was not the common understanding. Indeed this is shown by Federalist #9 where Hamilton uses the same criticism of Republics as he has of Democracies.  IN short, Madison was wrong.....but no matter, the Federalist papers are over-hyped today and probably were not even that well read at the time even in New York. 

I will try and link a pic of one of the most learned of our Founders and how he defined the terms. See my pictures if doesnt link.


----------



## PMZ

dcraelin said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are trying to say,  idiot, is that in the English language a republic is a country without a monarch,  and the best example if a democracy is the US where all critical decisions are made by majority rule.
> The fact that you don't know simple English definitions is a measure of your unamericanism and addiction to conservative media.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, shit fer brains, I let James Madison do the talking.
> HAD you read his words, instead of again running to ThinkProgress for orders, you would have grasped that a Republic is a REPRESENTATIVE form of government where the people elect representatives to represent them.
> Democracy is direct government by the people. Madison goes on to explain the folly in Athens where the people voted to execute four generals who had successfully repelled the Persian army. Naturally, they did not live to regret their decision when next the Persians invaded. Democracy is the purvey of the mob, whipped into frenzy by demagogues.
> The reason you are a leftist is because you are stupid and uneducated, without a foundation in history, logic, and reason. So you turn to the demagogues on the hate sites to form your thoughts for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Madison first defines his talk on republics and democracies by differentiating "pure" democracys from Republics, "by which I mean" he says, those using the representation. The very fact that he has to do that shows it was not the common understanding. Indeed this is shown by Federalist #9 where Hamilton uses the same criticism of Republics as he has of Democracies.  IN short, Madison was wrong.....but no matter, the Federalist papers are over-hyped today and probably were not even that well read at the time even in New York.
> 
> I will try and link a pic of one of the most learned of our Founders and how he defined the terms. See my pictures if doesnt link.
Click to expand...


He should have consulted the dictionary first.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
> 
> I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
> 
> If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
> 
> No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
> 
> I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
> 
> As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
> 
> 
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
> 
> Nothing, that's what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fair" is in the same category  as Santa Claus,  the Easter Bunny,  and the Tooth Fairy,  but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them,  on others.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.

Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It failed rather spectacularly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.
Click to expand...


Try clearer thought.  Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It failed rather spectacularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try clearer thought.  Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.
Click to expand...


More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.

If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
> 
> I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
> 
> If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
> 
> No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
> 
> I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
> 
> As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
> 
> 
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
> 
> Nothing, that's what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is in the same category  as Santa Claus,  the Easter Bunny,  and the Tooth Fairy,  but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them,  on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
> 
> Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
Click to expand...


People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids? 

Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.

The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is in the same category  as Santa Claus,  the Easter Bunny,  and the Tooth Fairy,  but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them,  on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
> 
> Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
Click to expand...


If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
Not you and others.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
> 
> Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
> Not you and others.
Click to expand...


I agree. Then they grow up.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
> Not you and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Then they grow up.
Click to expand...



Wait. Define grow up. Because apparently that means 27.


----------



## PMZ

It seems like conservatism oscillates between two poles.

That everybody is a criminal, or nobody is. 

We have laws to define which behaviors are criminal, and which aren't. We have enforcement to impose the prescribed penalty on those who break our laws. 

Some people never do, so the laws have no impact on them. That's a decision that they make every day. 

Some do often and seem oblivious to the high cost on their lives.

That's how personal responsibility works. 

All laws restrict behavior that allows the criminal to impose his will on his victims. 

ADA restricts, by consequences, people who can afford to pay for their own health care, from dumping their bills on others. It allows those who business does or cannot pay enough to afford health care, to afford responsibility. 

All, apparently, not the world that Republicans support.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try shorter words and simpler sentences for you next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try clearer thought.  Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
> 
> If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
Click to expand...


Blither, blither, blither.  You can keep trying to fling insults at me, vainly hoping to someday come out even, but it's never going to happen.  Watching you get farther and farther behind is frankly not even entertaining any more.  It's just vaguely depressing.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try clearer thought.  Believe me, dumbing yourself down would require a rewriting of the laws of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
> 
> If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blither, blither, blither.  You can keep trying to fling insults at me, vainly hoping to someday come out even, but it's never going to happen.  Watching you get farther and farther behind is frankly not even entertaining any more.  It's just vaguely depressing.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly in what field are you ahead of me?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Fair" is in the same category  as Santa Claus,  the Easter Bunny,  and the Tooth Fairy,  but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them,  on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
> 
> Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
Click to expand...


Blither, blither, blither.  "Conservatives want to impose what they think is best on people . . . but leftists just want to Mommy everyone because they need it.  What do you mean, I just  sounded like a complete, nonsensical moron?!"

You are soooo done, little leftist.  Move along.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
> 
> If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blither, blither, blither.  You can keep trying to fling insults at me, vainly hoping to someday come out even, but it's never going to happen.  Watching you get farther and farther behind is frankly not even entertaining any more.  It's just vaguely depressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly in what field are you ahead of me?
Click to expand...


Judging from the evidence, that would be . . . all of existence.


----------



## BillyZane

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's conservatives who blather on endlessly about "fair", and pass reams of ridiculously intrusive laws about what people can eat and drink and what kind of light bulbs and toilets they can buy.
> 
> Don't look now, Delusion Boy (If you're a girl, I don't care, just FYI), but Santa and the Easter Bunny just ran through whatever misty dimension you're inhabiting right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blither, blither, blither.  "Conservatives want to impose what they think is best on people . . . but leftists just want to Mommy everyone because they need it.  What do you mean, I just  sounded like a complete, nonsensical moron?!"
> 
> You are soooo done, little leftist.  Move along.
Click to expand...


I think he meant to say that America can't afford to not be conservative. Well, real conservatives anyway. Not the fake crap that so many claim is conservative today.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> It seems like conservatism oscillates between two poles.
> 
> That everybody is a criminal, or nobody is.
> 
> We have laws to define which behaviors are criminal, and which aren't. We have enforcement to impose the prescribed penalty on those who break our laws.
> 
> Some people never do, so the laws have no impact on them. That's a decision that they make every day.
> 
> Some do often and seem oblivious to the high cost on their lives.
> 
> That's how personal responsibility works.
> 
> All laws restrict behavior that allows the criminal to impose his will on his victims.
> 
> ADA restricts, by consequences, people who can afford to pay for their own health care, from dumping their bills on others. It allows those who business does or cannot pay enough to afford health care, to afford responsibility.
> 
> All, apparently, not the world that Republicans support.




The ACA generates revenue for government with increased taxes and more revenue for the medical field by forcing everyone to pay in. It burdens the middle class with more cost and using their money to help executives get bonuses.


----------



## PMZ

ShawnChris13 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
> Not you and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Then they grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Define grow up. Because apparently that means 27.
Click to expand...


One of the many differences between today and your day is the amount of education that is table stakes for responsible living. Every day here we read of people who are not up to that current standard. 

It's a problem that our education system is desperately avoiding, and they are way ahead of many parents in finding solutions. 

Other countries are ahead of us in that, the most critical factor in economic success. 

We've got some catching up to do.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my kids fuck up then me and my family are responsible for them.
> Not you and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. Then they grow up.
Click to expand...


And family is still responsible for them.
Not you and your family and others.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Then they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Define grow up. Because apparently that means 27.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the many differences between today and your day is the amount of education that is table stakes for responsible living. Every day here we read of people who are not up to that current standard.
> 
> It's a problem that our education system is desperately avoiding, and they are way ahead of many parents in finding solutions.
> 
> Other countries are ahead of us in that, the most critical factor in economic success.
> 
> We've got some catching up to do.
Click to expand...


"other countries"
I have traveled the world. We are better off here than most everywhere else except Dubai and other commodity rich countries.
I have worked for law firms and with attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement, medical examiners, bankers, corporations and well educated folks all my life.
Most all of them are far, far educated beyond their intelligence. I have 2 degrees and in many instances I am educated beyond my intelligence so I defer to someone with EXPERIENCE. 
For everything there is there is always someone else smarter than you in the world at it.
Other countries are ahead of us in math and science because we graduate over 50% of college graduates that can not find work in their liberal arts course of study.
Not knocking a liberal arts degree.
The problem is the colleges and universities ARE FULL.
And HVAC, plumbing, IT, auto repair, marine repair, aircraft repair and 100s of other skilled jobs go UNFILLED. 
Other countries do not do it the way we do. They do not fill their colleges and universities and support it with tax payer dollars to graduate people with useless degrees.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BillyZane said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who like to do stupid things need to be cared for. Did you raise any kids?
> 
> Throwing away resources getting more scarce every day is no more affordable than Bush was.
> 
> The country sees clearly now that we just cannot afford conservatism. Not then, not now, not ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blither, blither, blither.  "Conservatives want to impose what they think is best on people . . . but leftists just want to Mommy everyone because they need it.  What do you mean, I just  sounded like a complete, nonsensical moron?!"
> 
> You are soooo done, little leftist.  Move along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he meant to say that America can't afford to not be conservative. Well, real conservatives anyway. Not the fake crap that so many claim is conservative today.
Click to expand...


Oh, no, he meant to say exactly what he said.  He tends to say a lot of utter bullshit unsupported by reality.


----------



## ShawnChris13

PMZ said:


> ShawnChris13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. Then they grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Define grow up. Because apparently that means 27.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the many differences between today and your day is the amount of education that is table stakes for responsible living. Every day here we read of people who are not up to that current standard.
> 
> It's a problem that our education system is desperately avoiding, and they are way ahead of many parents in finding solutions.
> 
> Other countries are ahead of us in that, the most critical factor in economic success.
> 
> We've got some catching up to do.
Click to expand...



Today and my day? I'm in my twenties bro. It's still very much my day. The education system has been the spawning grounds for the left since it's inception. The left has only itself to blame with its failure to dissolve teachers unions and poor curriculum.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> BillyZane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tooAlive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is, and never will be, anything fair about our tax system. It needs a complete overhaul.
> 
> I would prefer a nice neat national sales tax, 10% at the retail level. You buy it you pay taxes on it. I would exempt food,utilities,housing costs and tax every other purchase.
> 
> If you buy a vehicle/ship/plane out of the country and bring it into the US you pay the tax when you license it same as currently if you buy a vehicle out of state.
> 
> No deductions, no loop holes, no exemptions beyond the 3 listed. Simple and done.
> 
> I know the popular whine is that that tax hurts the poor more than the rich, but I say too bad. It's just like dining out, if you can't afford the tip, stick to McDonalds, same thing here, if you can't afford the 10% tax, don't buy it.
> 
> As an added bonus , the iRS would need to be about 1/5th of it's current size.
> 
> 
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that lets people collect a "refund" that is larger than the amount they paid in taxes?
> 
> What is "fair" about a system that allows rich people to spend tens of thousands of dollars to someone who's entire job is to make sure their clients pay as little in taxes on their millions in income as possible?
> 
> Nothing, that's what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Fair" is in the same category  as Santa Claus,  the Easter Bunny,  and the Tooth Fairy,  but conservatives never give up wanting to impose what's best for them,  on others.
Click to expand...


Since we don't give a damn about fairness, then why bother with Obamacare?  Who cares if some people don't have insurance when we can just all adopt that "tough shit" attitude of yours?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was this supposed to convey some kind of comprehensible thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a copy of Asshole from RosettaStone in order to understand this fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly what I post is way above your pay grade.
Click to expand...


What you post is grade level reading for the intellectually challenged.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> More insight into the massive intellect behind conservatism.
> 
> If I were equipped as you, I would seriously consider having others think for me too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blither, blither, blither.  You can keep trying to fling insults at me, vainly hoping to someday come out even, but it's never going to happen.  Watching you get farther and farther behind is frankly not even entertaining any more.  It's just vaguely depressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly in what field are you ahead of me?
Click to expand...


For one thing, she can write a coherent sentence.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Anything but the same rate for everyone is obviously unjust. Dunno what the sweet spot is but 10-15% sounds about right.


----------



## Gadawg73

The left confuses fiscal conservatism with the bastardization of conservatism by the right wing religious kooks. 
Anyone that opposes fiscal conservatism in government is ignorant, self serving and does not care about what they leave for their kids and grandkids.


----------



## Gadawg73

Is it fair that I drove old cars for 30 years to be able to have something and pay off my house?
My relative drives 2 brand new cars, a $65,000 one and a $50,000 one. He lives in a $450,000 home with a high mortgage. He has a beach condo worth $400,000 with a large mortgage on it. Their credit cards are maxed out. He and his wife work when they want to and barely get by, mainly by an inheritance.
I drive old cars, one with 299,000 miles on it, paid off my 3BR, 2BA house in 1992. I have NO car payment and no Florida condo. I saved my money for 21 years and have a few hundred grand in the bank and more in stocks.
My relatives' kids qualify for Pell grants for their kids for college because they are deemed more in need than me! 
All because they are irresponsible with their money buying high ticket items and a big mortgage and I am not and have money in the bank.
Under the Federal guidelines you are allowed to own a second home and it does not hurt your formula for the means test.
That is the world of means test benefits for the "poor and needy" for at least 40% of the money doled out. 
And the liberal claims this system is "fair".


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> It seems like conservatism oscillates between two poles.
> 
> That everybody is a criminal, or nobody is.
> 
> We have laws to define which behaviors are criminal, and which aren't. We have enforcement to impose the prescribed penalty on those who break our laws.
> 
> Some people never do, so the laws have no impact on them. That's a decision that they make every day.
> 
> Some do often and seem oblivious to the high cost on their lives.
> 
> That's how personal responsibility works.
> 
> All laws restrict behavior that allows the criminal to impose his will on his victims.
> 
> ADA restricts, by consequences, people who can afford to pay for their own health care, from dumping their bills on others. It allows those who business does or cannot pay enough to afford health care, to afford responsibility.
> 
> All, apparently, not the world that Republicans support.



You are nothing but a tiny little retarded ass hole.


----------



## PMZ

I enjoy the reaction of conservatives to the utter failure of their dogma in practice. 

Zero learning.  Maximum blaming of "other"  conservatives.  

So,  I guess that we have to add to the long list of groups that conservatives hate,  other conservatives. 

And they are truly surprised at the extent of their political failure!  Surprised! 

That's bizarre beyond belief.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> Is it fair that I drove old cars for 30 years to be able to have something and pay off my house?
> My relative drives 2 brand new cars, a $65,000 one and a $50,000 one. He lives in a $450,000 home with a high mortgage. He has a beach condo worth $400,000 with a large mortgage on it. Their credit cards are maxed out. He and his wife work when they want to and barely get by, mainly by an inheritance.
> I drive old cars, one with 299,000 miles on it, paid off my 3BR, 2BA house in 1992. I have NO car payment and no Florida condo. I saved my money for 21 years and have a few hundred grand in the bank and more in stocks.
> My relatives' kids qualify for Pell grants for their kids for college because they are deemed more in need than me!
> All because they are irresponsible with their money buying high ticket items and a big mortgage and I am not and have money in the bank.
> Under the Federal guidelines you are allowed to own a second home and it does not hurt your formula for the means test.
> That is the world of means test benefits for the "poor and needy" for at least 40% of the money doled out.
> And the liberal claims this system is "fair".



It sounds like you are living a life that you hate. 

I've tried to do the opposite.  The secret is to spend your time doing what you enjoy accomplishing,  learn every day,  don't sweat the small stuff.  Materialism is absolutely no different than drugs.  Addictive,  frustrating,  a false world,  expensive,  a cruel,  cruel master.   

Look at the repressed rage expressed here daily by goods addicts. 

Life's too short to spend even a minute in a futile race to nowhere.


----------



## Gadawg73

A single American can make up to $46,000 a year and qualify for a subsidy for their health insurance premium.
Just plain wrong to borrow money and pass that on to our kids and grandkids to pay so someone can get a break on their health insurance today when they make $46,000 a year with no spouse or children.
40% or more of all these means test programs hand out cash and/or subsidies to people that pass the means test set by government but are not truly needy.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair that I drove old cars for 30 years to be able to have something and pay off my house?
> My relative drives 2 brand new cars, a $65,000 one and a $50,000 one. He lives in a $450,000 home with a high mortgage. He has a beach condo worth $400,000 with a large mortgage on it. Their credit cards are maxed out. He and his wife work when they want to and barely get by, mainly by an inheritance.
> I drive old cars, one with 299,000 miles on it, paid off my 3BR, 2BA house in 1992. I have NO car payment and no Florida condo. I saved my money for 21 years and have a few hundred grand in the bank and more in stocks.
> My relatives' kids qualify for Pell grants for their kids for college because they are deemed more in need than me!
> All because they are irresponsible with their money buying high ticket items and a big mortgage and I am not and have money in the bank.
> Under the Federal guidelines you are allowed to own a second home and it does not hurt your formula for the means test.
> That is the world of means test benefits for the "poor and needy" for at least 40% of the money doled out.
> And the liberal claims this system is "fair".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are living a life that you hate.
> 
> I've tried to do the opposite.  The secret is to spend your time doing what you enjoy accomplishing,  learn every day,  don't sweat the small stuff.  Materialism is absolutely no different than drugs.  Addictive,  frustrating,  a false world,  expensive,  a cruel,  cruel master.
> 
> Look at the repressed rage expressed here daily by goods addicts.
> 
> Life's too short to spend even a minute in a futile race to nowhere.
Click to expand...


No sir, there is no other life I would have lived. 
You changed the subject like all liberals do.
I would change your ability and power in supporting government to legally steal my money to give it to you or your friends.
What is a "goods addict"? Who determines what one should have and not have? You? Government?


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> I enjoy the reaction of conservatives to the utter failure of their dogma in practice.
> 
> Zero learning.  Maximum blaming of "other"  conservatives.
> 
> So,  I guess that we have to add to the long list of groups that conservatives hate,  other conservatives.
> 
> And they are truly surprised at the extent of their political failure!  Surprised!
> 
> That's bizarre beyond belief.



How have I failed being a fiscal conservative?
My net worth with cash, stocks and property is 2 million.
And I have never made over 100K in one year in my life.
Fiscal conservatism is GOOD for everyone.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> A single American can make up to $46,000 a year and qualify for a subsidy for their health insurance premium.
> Just plain wrong to borrow money and pass that on to our kids and grandkids to pay so someone can get a break on their health insurance today when they make $46,000 a year with no spouse or children.
> 40% or more of all these means test programs hand out cash and/or subsidies to people that pass the means test set by government but are not truly needy.



It sounds like you are a big fan of richer rich and poorer poor like India and China.  The poor there really know their place.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it fair that I drove old cars for 30 years to be able to have something and pay off my house?
> My relative drives 2 brand new cars, a $65,000 one and a $50,000 one. He lives in a $450,000 home with a high mortgage. He has a beach condo worth $400,000 with a large mortgage on it. Their credit cards are maxed out. He and his wife work when they want to and barely get by, mainly by an inheritance.
> I drive old cars, one with 299,000 miles on it, paid off my 3BR, 2BA house in 1992. I have NO car payment and no Florida condo. I saved my money for 21 years and have a few hundred grand in the bank and more in stocks.
> My relatives' kids qualify for Pell grants for their kids for college because they are deemed more in need than me!
> All because they are irresponsible with their money buying high ticket items and a big mortgage and I am not and have money in the bank.
> Under the Federal guidelines you are allowed to own a second home and it does not hurt your formula for the means test.
> That is the world of means test benefits for the "poor and needy" for at least 40% of the money doled out.
> And the liberal claims this system is "fair".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are living a life that you hate.
> 
> I've tried to do the opposite.  The secret is to spend your time doing what you enjoy accomplishing,  learn every day,  don't sweat the small stuff.  Materialism is absolutely no different than drugs.  Addictive,  frustrating,  a false world,  expensive,  a cruel,  cruel master.
> 
> Look at the repressed rage expressed here daily by goods addicts.
> 
> Life's too short to spend even a minute in a futile race to nowhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, there is no other life I would have lived.
> You changed the subject like all liberals do.
> I would change your ability and power in supporting government to legally steal my money to give it to you or your friends.
> What is a "goods addict"? Who determines what one should have and not have? You? Government?
Click to expand...


You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.


----------



## Gadawg73

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are living a life that you hate.
> 
> I've tried to do the opposite.  The secret is to spend your time doing what you enjoy accomplishing,  learn every day,  don't sweat the small stuff.  Materialism is absolutely no different than drugs.  Addictive,  frustrating,  a false world,  expensive,  a cruel,  cruel master.
> 
> Look at the repressed rage expressed here daily by goods addicts.
> 
> Life's too short to spend even a minute in a futile race to nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, there is no other life I would have lived.
> You changed the subject like all liberals do.
> I would change your ability and power in supporting government to legally steal my money to give it to you or your friends.
> What is a "goods addict"? Who determines what one should have and not have? You? Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
Click to expand...


I do not pay taxes. You do not pay taxes. *NO ONE PAYS TAXES*

The government *TAKES TAXES*


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, there is no other life I would have lived.
> You changed the subject like all liberals do.
> I would change your ability and power in supporting government to legally steal my money to give it to you or your friends.
> What is a "goods addict"? Who determines what one should have and not have? You? Government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not pay taxes. You do not pay taxes. *NO ONE PAYS TAXES*
> 
> The government *TAKES TAXES*
Click to expand...


Just like stores take your money. 

If you choose to go in a store and buy stuff you have to pay. And you can't just pay for your stuff.  You have to pay for the space,  the heat or AC,  the lights,  the parking lot,  the clerk,  the profit,  the decor,  it's endless. 

If you choose to live here and use our services you have to pay.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not pay taxes. You do not pay taxes. *NO ONE PAYS TAXES*
> 
> The government *TAKES TAXES*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like stores take your money.
> 
> If you choose to go in a store and buy stuff you have to pay. And you can't just pay for your stuff.  You have to pay for the space,  the heat or AC,  the lights,  the parking lot,  the clerk,  the profit,  the decor,  it's endless.
> 
> If you choose to live here and use our services you have to pay.
Click to expand...


Your analogy fails because the federal government doesn't own the United States.  My house isn't property of the federal government.  Only the store owner is allowed to charge you money for your purchase, not the clerk who works the cash register, nor the security guard, nor that janitor.  

I didn't choose to "go into the store," bootlicker.  I was born here.

You and all the other bootlickers who worship government can kiss my ass.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not pay taxes. You do not pay taxes. *NO ONE PAYS TAXES*
> 
> The government *TAKES TAXES*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like stores take your money.
> 
> If you choose to go in a store and buy stuff you have to pay. And you can't just pay for your stuff.  You have to pay for the space,  the heat or AC,  the lights,  the parking lot,  the clerk,  the profit,  the decor,  it's endless.
> 
> If you choose to live here and use our services you have to pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because the federal government doesn't own the United States.  My house isn't property of the federal government.  Only the store owner is allowed to charge you money for your purchase, not the clerk who works the cash register, nor the security guard, nor that janitor.
> 
> I didn't choose to "go into the store," bootlicker.  I was born here.
> 
> You and all the other bootlickers who worship government can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...


The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.

Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at. 

It's a perfect analogy.

You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like stores take your money.
> 
> If you choose to go in a store and buy stuff you have to pay. And you can't just pay for your stuff.  You have to pay for the space,  the heat or AC,  the lights,  the parking lot,  the clerk,  the profit,  the decor,  it's endless.
> 
> If you choose to live here and use our services you have to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because the federal government doesn't own the United States.  My house isn't property of the federal government.  Only the store owner is allowed to charge you money for your purchase, not the clerk who works the cash register, nor the security guard, nor that janitor.
> 
> I didn't choose to "go into the store," bootlicker.  I was born here.
> 
> You and all the other bootlickers who worship government can kiss my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...


Is that your problem?  No one wants to kiss your ass?  Well maybe if you weren't a retarded ass hole someone would actually give a crap about you.


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because the federal government doesn't own the United States.  My house isn't property of the federal government.  Only the store owner is allowed to charge you money for your purchase, not the clerk who works the cash register, nor the security guard, nor that janitor.
> 
> I didn't choose to "go into the store," bootlicker.  I was born here.
> 
> You and all the other bootlickers who worship government can kiss my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your problem?  No one wants to kiss your ass?  Well maybe if you weren't a retarded ass hole someone would actually give a crap about you.
Click to expand...


Lots of people do care about me.  Thank God you're not one.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like stores take your money.
> 
> If you choose to go in a store and buy stuff you have to pay. And you can't just pay for your stuff.  You have to pay for the space,  the heat or AC,  the lights,  the parking lot,  the clerk,  the profit,  the decor,  it's endless.
> 
> If you choose to live here and use our services you have to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because the federal government doesn't own the United States.  My house isn't property of the federal government.  Only the store owner is allowed to charge you money for your purchase, not the clerk who works the cash register, nor the security guard, nor that janitor.
> 
> I didn't choose to "go into the store," bootlicker.  I was born here.
> 
> You and all the other bootlickers who worship government can kiss my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
Click to expand...


Wrong, I don't "choose" to consume anything simply by living here.  You're analogy stinks because in a store you can actually choose to purchase items on sale or go elsewhere, without moving your home.

A more accurate analogy would be with the "services" offered by Guido the Leg Breaker.  Since you chose to setup your business in his territory, he reasons that you are receiving his "protection services" and are therefore obligated to pay him.  

Apparently you believe all the Guidos of the world are entitled to their cut of the profits from every business located in there turf.

That's all government is:  an extortion racket.  It's an organized criminal gang.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because the federal government doesn't own the United States.  My house isn't property of the federal government.  Only the store owner is allowed to charge you money for your purchase, not the clerk who works the cash register, nor the security guard, nor that janitor.
> 
> I didn't choose to "go into the store," bootlicker.  I was born here.
> 
> You and all the other bootlickers who worship government can kiss my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, I don't "choose" to consume anything simply by living here.  You're analogy stinks because in a store you can actually choose to purchase items on sale or go elsewhere, without moving your home.
> 
> A more accurate analogy would be with the "services" offered by Guido the Leg Breaker.  Since you chose to setup your business in his territory, he reasons that you are receiving his "protection services" and are therefore obligated to pay him.
> 
> Apparently you believe extortion all the Guidos of the world are entitled to their cut of the profits from every business located in there turf.
> 
> That's all government is:  an extortion racket.  It's an organized criminal gang.
Click to expand...


You pick among countries to live in just like you pick among stores to shop in.  You make your own bed,  now lie in it.


----------



## RKMBrown

PMZ said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your problem?  No one wants to kiss your ass?  Well maybe if you weren't a retarded ass hole someone would actually give a crap about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of people do care about me.  Thank God you're not one.
Click to expand...


Then why are you such an ass all the time?


----------



## PMZ

RKMBrown said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your problem?  No one wants to kiss your ass?  Well maybe if you weren't a retarded ass hole someone would actually give a crap about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people do care about me.  Thank God you're not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why are you such an ass all the time?
Click to expand...


Because I reveal to the world what an ignorant ass you are? 

To tell you the truth,  those that know you probably already knew.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I don't "choose" to consume anything simply by living here.  You're analogy stinks because in a store you can actually choose to purchase items on sale or go elsewhere, without moving your home.
> 
> A more accurate analogy would be with the "services" offered by Guido the Leg Breaker.  Since you chose to setup your business in his territory, he reasons that you are receiving his "protection services" and are therefore obligated to pay him.
> 
> Apparently you believe extortion all the Guidos of the world are entitled to their cut of the profits from every business located in there turf.
> 
> That's all government is:  an extortion racket.  It's an organized criminal gang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pick among countries to live in just like you pick among stores to shop in.  You make your own bed,  now lie in it.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean you chose to pay for government "services."  You can also move your business out of Guido's turf.  However, Guido is still an extortionist.  He doesn't own your business and he has no right to charge you for anything you haven't explicitly agreed to pay for.  That form of "business" transaction is called "extortion."  It's a crime.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government owns the means of production of the services that you choose to consume by living here.
> 
> Just like store owner owns the means of production of his retail operation that you choose to shop at.
> 
> It's a perfect analogy.
> 
> You and all the other traitors who don't respect America can kiss my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I don't "choose" to consume anything simply by living here.  You're analogy stinks because in a store you can actually choose to purchase items on sale or go elsewhere, without moving your home.
> 
> A more accurate analogy would be with the "services" offered by Guido the Leg Breaker.  Since you chose to setup your business in his territory, he reasons that you are receiving his "protection services" and are therefore obligated to pay him.
> 
> Apparently you believe extortion all the Guidos of the world are entitled to their cut of the profits from every business located in there turf.
> 
> That's all government is:  an extortion racket.  It's an organized criminal gang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pick among countries to live in just like you pick among stores to shop in.  You make your own bed,  now lie in it.
Click to expand...


No I don't, asshole.  I was born here.  Living in a given country isn't "choosing" the government store.  Government doesn't own this country.  It's not entitled to charge you for living here.

Even if I did chose to live here, that doesn't change the nature of the government transaction, which is extortion, pure and simple.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I don't "choose" to consume anything simply by living here.  You're analogy stinks because in a store you can actually choose to purchase items on sale or go elsewhere, without moving your home.
> 
> A more accurate analogy would be with the "services" offered by Guido the Leg Breaker.  Since you chose to setup your business in his territory, he reasons that you are receiving his "protection services" and are therefore obligated to pay him.
> 
> Apparently you believe extortion all the Guidos of the world are entitled to their cut of the profits from every business located in there turf.
> 
> That's all government is:  an extortion racket.  It's an organized criminal gang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pick among countries to live in just like you pick among stores to shop in.  You make your own bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean you chose to pay for government "services."  You can also move your business out of Guido's turf.  However, Guido is still an extortionist.  He doesn't own your business and he has no right to charge you for anything you haven't explicitly agreed to pay for.  That form of "business" transaction is called "extortion."  It's a crime.
Click to expand...


Honestly,  if I were you,  I'd relocate to a better place.  The only reason that I'd stay here is if I really loved to whine,  and in this place you are much more free to do so. 

Complaining about store A instead of finding a better store,  may be fun for you,  but it accomplishes nothing to make you happier.  Which really is the point of life,  no?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like you are living a life that you hate.
> 
> I've tried to do the opposite.  The secret is to spend your time doing what you enjoy accomplishing,  learn every day,  don't sweat the small stuff.  Materialism is absolutely no different than drugs.  Addictive,  frustrating,  a false world,  expensive,  a cruel,  cruel master.
> 
> Look at the repressed rage expressed here daily by goods addicts.
> 
> Life's too short to spend even a minute in a futile race to nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, there is no other life I would have lived.
> You changed the subject like all liberals do.
> I would change your ability and power in supporting government to legally steal my money to give it to you or your friends.
> What is a "goods addict"? Who determines what one should have and not have? You? Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I don't "choose" to consume anything simply by living here.  You're analogy stinks because in a store you can actually choose to purchase items on sale or go elsewhere, without moving your home.
> 
> A more accurate analogy would be with the "services" offered by Guido the Leg Breaker.  Since you chose to setup your business in his territory, he reasons that you are receiving his "protection services" and are therefore obligated to pay him.
> 
> Apparently you believe extortion all the Guidos of the world are entitled to their cut of the profits from every business located in there turf.
> 
> That's all government is:  an extortion racket.  It's an organized criminal gang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pick among countries to live in just like you pick among stores to shop in.  You make your own bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't, asshole.  I was born here.  Living in a given country isn't "choosing" the government store.  Government doesn't own this country.  It's not entitled to charge you for living here.
> 
> Even if I did chose to live here, that doesn't change the nature of the government transaction, which is extortion, pure and simple.
Click to expand...


Bri, honey, you are never going to convince this dingleberry that the State is not God and does not own by divine right everything as far as the eye can see, including him.  He doesn't even possess the necessary mental reference points to compute the idea, so you two aren't speaking the same language and never will.  Some people are just born to be chattel, and will insist on being chattel no matter how hard you try to make them free.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pick among countries to live in just like you pick among stores to shop in.  You make your own bed,  now lie in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't, asshole.  I was born here.  Living in a given country isn't "choosing" the government store.  Government doesn't own this country.  It's not entitled to charge you for living here.
> 
> Even if I did chose to live here, that doesn't change the nature of the government transaction, which is extortion, pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bri, honey, you are never going to convince this dingleberry that the State is not God and does not own by divine right everything as far as the eye can see, including him.  He doesn't even possess the necessary mental reference points to compute the idea, so you two aren't speaking the same language and never will.  Some people are just born to be chattel, and will insist on being chattel no matter how hard you try to make them free.
Click to expand...


Back off on the bottle.


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, there is no other life I would have lived.
> You changed the subject like all liberals do.
> I would change your ability and power in supporting government to legally steal my money to give it to you or your friends.
> What is a "goods addict"? Who determines what one should have and not have? You? Government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You apparently think that you have to pay US taxes even if you don't live here? 

I'm curious.  Where did that idea come from?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't, asshole.  I was born here.  Living in a given country isn't "choosing" the government store.  Government doesn't own this country.  It's not entitled to charge you for living here.
> 
> Even if I did chose to live here, that doesn't change the nature of the government transaction, which is extortion, pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bri, honey, you are never going to convince this dingleberry that the State is not God and does not own by divine right everything as far as the eye can see, including him.  He doesn't even possess the necessary mental reference points to compute the idea, so you two aren't speaking the same language and never will.  Some people are just born to be chattel, and will insist on being chattel no matter how hard you try to make them free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back off on the bottle.
Click to expand...


Hit a little too close to home, eh PMS?


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently think that you have to pay US taxes even if you don't live here?
> 
> I'm curious.  Where did that idea come from?
Click to expand...


It comes from the IRS code, you fucking dolt.  You have to pay US taxes until you renounce your citizenship.  That means you have to pay for government services even if there isn't the slightest possibility that you can use them.  The government views you as its property.  You're a resource for bureaucrats to use as they deem fit.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bri, honey, you are never going to convince this dingleberry that the State is not God and does not own by divine right everything as far as the eye can see, including him.  He doesn't even possess the necessary mental reference points to compute the idea, so you two aren't speaking the same language and never will.  Some people are just born to be chattel, and will insist on being chattel no matter how hard you try to make them free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back off on the bottle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hit a little too close to home, eh PMS?
Click to expand...


I recognize the symptoms having heard from my share of sufferers.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back off on the bottle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hit a little too close to home, eh PMS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recognize the symptoms having heard from my share of sufferers.
Click to expand...


No, she displays no "symptoms."  You're obviously just a spiteful, resentful little putz.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit a little too close to home, eh PMS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize the symptoms having heard from my share of sufferers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, she displays no "symptoms."  You're obviously just a spitefully, resentful little putz.
Click to expand...


Another what you wish was true.  You are a slow learner of the fact that you aren't entitled to the truth. It is what it is,  not what you want it to be. Tough lesson. 

Keep working on it.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recognize the symptoms having heard from my share of sufferers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she displays no "symptoms."  You're obviously just a spitefully, resentful little putz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another what you wish was true.  You are a slow learner of the fact that you aren't entitled to the truth. It is what it is,  not what you want it to be. Tough lesson.
> 
> Keep working on it.
Click to expand...


You're posts are all so ironic.


----------



## PMZ

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, she displays no "symptoms."  You're obviously just a spitefully, resentful little putz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another what you wish was true.  You are a slow learner of the fact that you aren't entitled to the truth. It is what it is,  not what you want it to be. Tough lesson.
> 
> Keep working on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're posts are all so ironic.
Click to expand...


Yours so idiotic.


----------



## bripat9643

PMZ said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another what you wish was true.  You are a slow learner of the fact that you aren't entitled to the truth. It is what it is,  not what you want it to be. Tough lesson.
> 
> Keep working on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're posts are all so ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yours so idiotic.
Click to expand...


More irony.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PMZ said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only have to pay US taxes if you live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You apparently think that you have to pay US taxes even if you don't live here?
> 
> I'm curious.  Where did that idea come from?
Click to expand...


US Taxes While Living Abroad FAQ :: American Citizens Abroad (ACA)

_I am an American living and working abroad. Do I need to file a US tax return?

Regardless of where you live now, being a United States citizen requires that you file a yearly tax return with the IRS._

You were really stupid enough to think the US government was going to take its sticky little fingers out of people's pockets JUST because they moved?


----------



## Gadawg73

I happen to believe that redistributing money from the wealthy and transferring to others is unAmerican.

I like the idea of going somewhere like Canada and redistributing their money to all of us equally.
That would be "fair".


----------



## PMZ

Cecilie1200 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You apparently think that you have to pay US taxes even if you don't live here?
> 
> I'm curious.  Where did that idea come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> US Taxes While Living Abroad FAQ :: American Citizens Abroad (ACA)
> 
> _I am an American living and working abroad. Do I need to file a US tax return?
> 
> Regardless of where you live now, being a United States citizen requires that you file a yearly tax return with the IRS._
> 
> You were really stupid enough to think the US government was going to take its sticky little fingers out of people's pockets JUST because they moved?
Click to expand...


Filing a tax return is not paying a tax.


----------



## PMZ

Gadawg73 said:


> I happen to believe that redistributing money from the wealthy and transferring to others is unAmerican.
> 
> I like the idea of going somewhere like Canada and redistributing their money to all of us equally.
> That would be "fair".



So, you believe that wealth redistribution should be up only?


----------



## dcraelin

For 35 years there have been polls on 'what do you think taxes ought to be?' Large majorities have held that the corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes. 

Yet taxes have been going down in this same period, and debt has been going up. Our government needs to start listening to the public


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> For 35 years there have been polls on 'what do you think taxes ought to be?' Large majorities have held that the corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes.
> 
> Yet taxes have been going down in this same period, and debt has been going up. Our government needs to start listening to the public



When asked how much a person should pay in taxes, those same people said "10%."

So much for your claim that people want anyone's taxes raised.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> For 35 years there have been polls on 'what do you think taxes ought to be?' Large majorities have held that the corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes.
> 
> Yet taxes have been going down in this same period, and debt has been going up. Our government needs to start listening to the public
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When asked how much a person should pay in taxes, those same people said "10%."
> 
> So much for your claim that people want anyone's taxes raised.
Click to expand...


I think you just made that up.  

However I think I once saw once how if the richest 20% just paid 5% more the bottom 80% would have to pay NO income taxes at all. (to stay revenue neutral). Doing that would greatly simplify the job of the IRS and make a lot of people very happy.


----------



## Indeependent

One out of every four MNCs doesn't pay taxes.
But that's not the biggest issue if they want Chinese and Indian slave labor both in Asia and as business-visas here in the US.
The first question is the acceptable quality of infrastructure and it's accompanying costs.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> For 35 years there have been polls on 'what do you think taxes ought to be?' Large majorities have held that the corporations and the wealthy should pay higher taxes.
> 
> Yet taxes have been going down in this same period, and debt has been going up. Our government needs to start listening to the public
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When asked how much a person should pay in taxes, those same people said "10%."
> 
> So much for your claim that people want anyone's taxes raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you just made that up.
> 
> However I think I once saw once how if the richest 20% just paid 5% more the bottom 80% would have to pay NO income taxes at all. (to stay revenue neutral). Doing that would greatly simplify the job of the IRS and make a lot of people very happy.
Click to expand...


47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?

Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.

Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When asked how much a person should pay in taxes, those same people said "10%."
> 
> So much for your claim that people want anyone's taxes raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just made that up.
> 
> However I think I once saw once how if the richest 20% just paid 5% more the bottom 80% would have to pay NO income taxes at all. (to stay revenue neutral). Doing that would greatly simplify the job of the IRS and make a lot of people very happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
Click to expand...


Yawn!  In fact, double yawn.
Once again...
One out of every four MNCs doesn't pay taxes.
But that's not the biggest issue if they want Chinese and Indian slave labor both in Asia and as business-visas here in the US.
The first question is the acceptable quality of infrastructure and it's accompanying costs.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just made that up.
> 
> However I think I once saw once how if the richest 20% just paid 5% more the bottom 80% would have to pay NO income taxes at all. (to stay revenue neutral). Doing that would greatly simplify the job of the IRS and make a lot of people very happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn!  In fact, double yawn.
> Once again...
> One out of every four MNCs doesn't pay taxes.
Click to expand...


That's probably because they made no profits.  However, this discussion is about individual income taxes, not corporate taxes.  The bottom line is that corporations don't pay taxes.  Only people pay taxes.



Indeependent said:


> But that's not the biggest issue if they want Chinese and Indian slave labor both in Asia and as business-visas here in the US.



Huh?  Was that supposed to communicate something?



Indeependent said:


> The first question is the acceptable quality of infrastructure and it's accompanying costs.



That vast bulk of taxation goes to pay for transfer payments, not infrastructure, so that claim is a red herring.


----------



## ShawnChris13

tooAlive said:


> I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "_the rich need to pay their *fair share*!_"
> 
> But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called _communists_.
> 
> Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.
> 
> _Liberals, what should be the *"fair share"* the rich have to pay in taxes?_
> 
> Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.




If anything I think this thread has proven that "fair share" is undebatable as there is no true consensus. Those who believe 10-15% is fair for everyone are cried greedy by those who wish to take 30-60% (which apparently isn't greedy).

Fair share is in the eye of the beholder it would seem, and those at the lowest brackets that feel disadvantaged will continue to cry for those with advantage, luck, or high work ethic to pay a higher percentage out of spite. All the while it is ignored that the government is receiving these moneys. With their high salaries and expensive vacations, those earning money from the taxpayer are all too eager to raise the taxes in order to find more of their 'programs'. They only project ten years down the road in order to muddy the waters we swim in. And we swim straight into the trap we never see.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn!  In fact, double yawn.
> Once again...
> One out of every four MNCs doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably because they made no profits.  However, this discussion is about individual income taxes, not corporate taxes.  The bottom line is that corporations don't pay taxes.  Only people pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not the biggest issue if they want Chinese and Indian slave labor both in Asia and as business-visas here in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?  Was that supposed to communicate something?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first question is the acceptable quality of infrastructure and it's accompanying costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That vast bulk of taxation goes to pay for transfer payments, not infrastructure, so that claim is a red herring.
Click to expand...


You understand nothing because you're probably making a fortune from off-shoring and the rampant use of business visas that are replacing Americans en masse.

In terms of "fair taxation", taxation without cost accounting and auditing is wasteful.
Taxation is needed to maintain an infrastructure, but when a large corporation abandons the US, it feels it need not contribute to infrastructure.

So good, let the MNCs provide their own TSA and military escorts for their shipments from China to the US; not to mention patent protection and other services.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn!  In fact, double yawn.
> Once again...
> One out of every four MNCs doesn't pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's probably because they made no profits.  However, this discussion is about individual income taxes, not corporate taxes.  The bottom line is that corporations don't pay taxes.  Only people pay taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Was that supposed to communicate something?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first question is the acceptable quality of infrastructure and it's accompanying costs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That vast bulk of taxation goes to pay for transfer payments, not infrastructure, so that claim is a red herring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand nothing because you're probably making a fortune from off-shoring and the rampant use of business visas that are replacing Americans en masse.
Click to expand...


What the heck is a "business visa?"  I think you mean an H1-B.  I don't make a dime off of them.



Indeependent said:


> In terms of "fair taxation", taxation without cost accounting and auditing is wasteful. Taxation is needed to maintain an infrastructure, but when a large corporation abandons the US, it feels it need not contribute to infrastructure.



Most taxation goes to pay ticks on the ass of society.  Very little goes to infrastructure.  When a corporation leaves the United States, it doesn't use U.S. infrastructure.  So why should it pay for it?  As for "cost accounting and auditing," what does that have to do with this discussion?



Indeependent said:


> So good, let the MNCs provide their own TSA and military escorts for their shipments from China to the US; not to mention patent protection and other services.



That would probably be 1/10th the cost of paying for all the ticks on the ass of society like they do now.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When asked how much a person should pay in taxes, those same people said "10%."
> 
> So much for your claim that people want anyone's taxes raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just made that up.
> 
> However I think I once saw once how if the richest 20% just paid 5% more the bottom 80% would have to pay NO income taxes at all. (to stay revenue neutral). Doing that would greatly simplify the job of the IRS and make a lot of people very happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
Click to expand...


the reason the number not paying INCOME taxes is so high is due to the poor economy.
The amount paid by the unwealthy in property taxes and sales taxes and other fees hurts them more so than the amount taken from the rich. 

I take it you must be a liberal by those other statements.


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you just made that up.
> 
> However I think I once saw once how if the richest 20% just paid 5% more the bottom 80% would have to pay NO income taxes at all. (to stay revenue neutral). Doing that would greatly simplify the job of the IRS and make a lot of people very happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the reason the number not paying INCOME taxes is so high is due to the poor economy.
> The amount paid by the unwealthy in property taxes and sales taxes and other fees hurts them more so than the amount taken from the rich.
> 
> I take it you must be a liberal by those other statements.
Click to expand...


The 47% has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with the tax rates adopted during the Bush administration.  Looting the rich also hurts the middle class because that money would be invested otherwise.  Investment is how jobs are created.  If the middle class is hurt by sales taxes, property taxes and other fees, then it should consider lowering those taxes and fees.

I find it interesting that you admit that taxes hurt the middle class.


----------



## dcraelin

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason the number not paying INCOME taxes is so high is due to the poor economy.
> The amount paid by the unwealthy in property taxes and sales taxes and other fees hurts them more so than the amount taken from the rich.
> 
> I take it you must be a liberal by those other statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 47% has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with the tax rates adopted during the Bush administration.  Looting the rich also hurts the middle class because that money would be invested otherwise.  Investment is how jobs are created.  If the middle class is hurt by sales taxes, property taxes and other fees, then it should consider lowering those taxes and fees.
> 
> I find it interesting that you admit that taxes hurt the middle class.
Click to expand...


tax the rich more and the middle class would pay less, its simple math. 

You so called "conservatives" (really liberals) can say out of one side of your mouth that taxes need to be cut, but on the other hand that we are piling up debt on our children.   History has shown both partys have their government spending priorities and government spending stays fairly constant.....so taxes need to be at a rate to pay down debt.

that "investment" bullshit you keep spouting is getting old.....no one believes that anymore.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47% already pay no income taxes, and that has taught them that there is no cost to government.  I think that's a bad lesson to teach people.  Why shouldn't they all pay taxes?
> 
> Once again the liberal demonstrates beyond all doubt that he supports other people paying taxes, not himself.
> 
> Liberalism is hypocrisy made into an ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the reason the number not paying INCOME taxes is so high is due to the poor economy.
> The amount paid by the unwealthy in property taxes and sales taxes and other fees hurts them more so than the amount taken from the rich.
> 
> I take it you must be a liberal by those other statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 47% has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with the tax rates adopted during the Bush administration.  Looting the rich also hurts the middle class because that money would be invested otherwise.  Investment is how jobs are created.  If the middle class is hurt by sales taxes, property taxes and other fees, then it should consider lowering those taxes and fees.
> 
> I find it interesting that you admit that taxes hurt the middle class.
Click to expand...


I'd like a straight answer from you.
If the Corporate Tax was eliminated, would any corporation be excused for off-shoring or firing Americans in order to hire business-visas?

(H1-B is only ONE category of many used to replace US citizens in various industries).


----------



## bripat9643

dcraelin said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason the number not paying INCOME taxes is so high is due to the poor economy.
> The amount paid by the unwealthy in property taxes and sales taxes and other fees hurts them more so than the amount taken from the rich.
> 
> I take it you must be a liberal by those other statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 47% has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with the tax rates adopted during the Bush administration.  Looting the rich also hurts the middle class because that money would be invested otherwise.  Investment is how jobs are created.  If the middle class is hurt by sales taxes, property taxes and other fees, then it should consider lowering those taxes and fees.
> 
> I find it interesting that you admit that taxes hurt the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tax the rich more and the middle class would pay less, its simple math.
Click to expand...


That's true, because you can't pay taxes when you are unemployed.  What you have failed to explain is why the rich should be the only ones to pay taxes.



dcraelin said:


> [You so called "conservatives" (really liberals) can say out of one side of your mouth that taxes need to be cut, but on the other hand that we are piling up debt on our children.   History has shown both partys have their government spending priorities and government spending stays fairly constant.....so taxes need to be at a rate to pay down debt.



No, history hasn't shown that.  Most of the spending boondoggles currently in force are Democrat social programs.  Military spending once consumed 60% of the budget.  It now consumes 18% of the budget, so you can't blame deficits on military spending.  Welfare programs are the reason we have a deficit.  That fact is irrefutable.

I also find it amusing that you can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve higher taxes.  I couldn't give a damn about any of the programs the federal government spends money on.  Cut them all.  



dcraelin said:


> [that "investment" bullshit you keep spouting is getting old.....no one believes that anymore.



Yeah, I know turds like you get tired of hearing about the laws of economics. Apparently you believe our economy can grow without investment.  I'd like someone to explain how that works.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> 
> the reason the number not paying INCOME taxes is so high is due to the poor economy.
> The amount paid by the unwealthy in property taxes and sales taxes and other fees hurts them more so than the amount taken from the rich.
> 
> I take it you must be a liberal by those other statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 47% has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with the tax rates adopted during the Bush administration.  Looting the rich also hurts the middle class because that money would be invested otherwise.  Investment is how jobs are created.  If the middle class is hurt by sales taxes, property taxes and other fees, then it should consider lowering those taxes and fees.
> 
> I find it interesting that you admit that taxes hurt the middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like a straight answer from you.
> If the Corporate Tax was eliminated, would any corporation be excused for off-shoring or firing Americans in order to hire business-visas?  However, Clinton is the one who opened up the flood gates for foreign workers.
> 
> (H1-B is only ONE category of many used to replace US citizens in various industries).
Click to expand...


The two issues are entirely separate.  That being said, I'm no fan of the H1-B program.  I've been severely hurt by it.  When I go to the office, I'm welcomed by a sea of brown faces.


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 47% has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with the tax rates adopted during the Bush administration.  Looting the rich also hurts the middle class because that money would be invested otherwise.  Investment is how jobs are created.  If the middle class is hurt by sales taxes, property taxes and other fees, then it should consider lowering those taxes and fees.
> 
> I find it interesting that you admit that taxes hurt the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a straight answer from you.
> If the Corporate Tax was eliminated, would any corporation be excused for off-shoring or firing Americans in order to hire business-visas?  However, Clinton is the one who opened up the flood gates for foreign workers.
> 
> (H1-B is only ONE category of many used to replace US citizens in various industries).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two issues are entirely separate.  That being said, I'm no fan of the H1-B program.  I've been severely hurt by it.  When I go to the office, I'm welcomed by a sea of brown faces.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question.
This question addresses your opinion that all MNCs are pure as snow is white.


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like a straight answer from you.
> If the Corporate Tax was eliminated, would any corporation be excused for off-shoring or firing Americans in order to hire business-visas?  However, Clinton is the one who opened up the flood gates for foreign workers.
> 
> (H1-B is only ONE category of many used to replace US citizens in various industries).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The two issues are entirely separate.  That being said, I'm no fan of the H1-B program.  I've been severely hurt by it.  When I go to the office, I'm welcomed by a sea of brown faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> This question addresses your opinion that all MNCs are pure as snow is white.
Click to expand...


Where have I claimed that MNCs are pure as snow is white?


----------



## Indeependent

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two issues are entirely separate.  That being said, I'm no fan of the H1-B program.  I've been severely hurt by it.  When I go to the office, I'm welcomed by a sea of brown faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> This question addresses your opinion that all MNCs are pure as snow is white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have I claimed that MNCs are pure as snow is white?
Click to expand...


MNCs are a subset of businesses and you constantly claim that whatever businesses do is good.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> Voters: 81. You have already voted on this poll?
> 
> 
> 
> Liars!  How many rightwing sock puppets showed up to vote and disappeared?
> 
> 81 members voted?



Speaking of...


----------



## bripat9643

Indeependent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question.
> This question addresses your opinion that all MNCs are pure as snow is white.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I claimed that MNCs are pure as snow is white?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MNCs are a subset of businesses and you constantly claim that whatever businesses do is good.
Click to expand...


No I don't.  I simply dispute the attacks of libturds who blame business for all the evils of the world.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I claimed that MNCs are pure as snow is white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MNCs are a subset of businesses and you constantly claim that whatever businesses do is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I simply dispute the attacks of libturds who blame business for all the evils of the world.
Click to expand...


Love Canal on line 3...


----------



## bripat9643

Dante said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> MNCs are a subset of businesses and you constantly claim that whatever businesses do is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't.  I simply dispute the attacks of libturds who blame business for all the evils of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love Canal on line 3...
Click to expand...


The local school district is responsible for Love Canal, not Hooker Chemical.

Next liberal idiocy!


----------

