3 People (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos & Warren Buffett) are richer than the poorest 50% of Americans

[rightwinger]

Yes you "belong" to a society

All humans do

Yep. But government ≠ society.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.......

created a Constitution which, specifically and deliberately, limits the power of government over We the People.

Nice dodge

We the People created a government in a document we like to call "The Constitution"
A government of the people, by the people and for the people (thanks Abe)

It's not a dodge. I'm pointing out an error in your conception of the kind of government the Constitution authorizes. The founders never wanted totalitarian government. They never saw people as the property of the state. They insisted it should be the other way around. That's the irony of you going around chanting "We the People". You seem to think it's a rallying cry for socialists, when it fact it's the opposite. The slogan emphasizes the primacy of people over government. We the People create government, and government serves at our discretion - not, as you would have it - the other way around.

Very true

Our people are not the property of the state....they ARE the state

 

[rightwinger]

why should government act only to redistribute wealth to the top 1%?

They shouldn't. But if the government has the power to redistribute wealth, the people who want wealth the most will try the hardest to control the process.

That's the cruel irony of socialism. It doesn't do away with greed and economic power. It just changes the game so that the key to success is manipulating government policy rather than satisfying customers.

The pharmacy lobbyists, who convinced congress to make it illegal for the government to negotiate the price of prescription Medicare drugs, are socialists?

dblack is a Libertarian...a neo-Con who doesn't want to pay for anything.

today's version of "libertarians" are whiny foot-stamping angry randians.

Todays libetarians are.....I got mine, screw everyone else

 

[jillian]

why should government act only to redistribute wealth to the top 1%?

They shouldn't. But if the government has the power to redistribute wealth, the people who want wealth the most will try the hardest to control the process.

That's the cruel irony of socialism. It doesn't do away with greed and economic power. It just changes the game so that the key to success is manipulating government policy rather than satisfying customers.

The pharmacy lobbyists, who convinced congress to make it illegal for the government to negotiate the price of prescription Medicare drugs, are socialists?

dblack is a Libertarian...a neo-Con who doesn't want to pay for anything.

today's version of "libertarians" are whiny foot-stamping angry randians.

Todays libetarians are.....I got mine, screw everyone else

that's about right.

 

[my2¢]

3 People (Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos & Warren Buffett) are richer than the poorest 50% of Americans

Gates, Bezos and Buffett were sitting on a combined $248.5bn (£190bn) fortune.
​

Is it their combined wealth that is greater than the combined wealth of the poorest 50% of Americans? Or is it that each one individually is richer than the bottom half?

I hope it is the first situation of their wealth combined. If so than I can boast that 4 people (Gates, Bezos, Buffet and My2¢) are richer than the poorest 50% of Americans, as if I'm part of such an exclusive club.

 

[dblack]

Our people are not the property of the state....they ARE the state

You're getting warmer. But no, the state and the people are not synonymous. The state is the servant of the people, at tool we use to prevent bullies from forcing their will on others. The tricky part is keeping the bullies from taking over government.

They shouldn't. But if the government has the power to redistribute wealth, the people who want wealth the most will try the hardest to control the process.

That's the cruel irony of socialism. It doesn't do away with greed and economic power. It just changes the game so that the key to success is manipulating government policy rather than satisfying customers.

The pharmacy lobbyists, who convinced congress to make it illegal for the government to negotiate the price of prescription Medicare drugs, are socialists?

dblack is a Libertarian...a neo-Con who doesn't want to pay for anything.

today's version of "libertarians" are whiny foot-stamping angry randians.

Todays libetarians are.....I got mine, screw everyone else

that's about right.

You guys sure have some ridiculous stereotypes when it comes to libertarians. But it is gratifying to see the smear attempts. You at least recognize that we stand opposed to your ambitions of ubiquitous government.

 

[Paulie]

Buffet is a good example of someone who makes billions off of the economy but contributes nothing to it

Our wealthiest citizens benefit from much more than a favorable tax rate. They benefit from corporate subsidies, government protection of their investments and a tax code that allows them to hide their earnings

buffet contributes nothing?

He doesn't produce anything
He is involved in speculative investments

He owns many major companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people. God damn you are such a typical liberal. I thought you were a little different but clearly not

What do they produce?

why is that your focus when we don't live in a manufacturing economy... we live in a service economy.

I'm confused about why this is your issue.

They produce jobs. I guess that's not good enough anymore

 

[Paulie]

Yep. But government ≠ society.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union.......

created a Constitution which, specifically and deliberately, limits the power of government over We the People.

Nice dodge

We the People created a government in a document we like to call "The Constitution"
A government of the people, by the people and for the people (thanks Abe)

It's not a dodge. I'm pointing out an error in your conception of the kind of government the Constitution authorizes. The founders never wanted totalitarian government. They never saw people as the property of the state. They insisted it should be the other way around. That's the irony of you going around chanting "We the People". You seem to think it's a rallying cry for socialists, when it fact it's the opposite. The slogan emphasizes the primacy of people over government. We the People create government, and government serves at our discretion - not, as you would have it - the other way around.

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

 

[dblack]

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

real libertarians would be pro choice and pro marriage equality .... like goldwater was.

real libertarians are.

but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

 

[jillian]

buffet contributes nothing?

He doesn't produce anything
He is involved in speculative investments

He owns many major companies that employ hundreds of thousands of people. God damn you are such a typical liberal. I thought you were a little different but clearly not

What do they produce?

why is that your focus when we don't live in a manufacturing economy... we live in a service economy.

I'm confused about why this is your issue.

They produce jobs. I guess that's not good enough anymore

may be.... seems to me though that he's as decent as any of these big guys get. he supports middle class causes. he is sympathetic to workers. wants a tax base that doesn't screw middle class people.

I don't understand this purity thing that some people have where if you don't hit every button they turn on you.

me? I like him. and I'm ok with him. I have to respect a guy whose own kid never realize they had money until he was an adult.

 

[rightwinger]

Our people are not the property of the state....they ARE the state

You're getting warmer. But no, the state and the people are not synonymous. The state is the servant of the people, at tool we use to prevent bullies from forcing their will on others. The tricky part is keeping the bullies from taking over government.

The pharmacy lobbyists, who convinced congress to make it illegal for the government to negotiate the price of prescription Medicare drugs, are socialists?

dblack is a Libertarian...a neo-Con who doesn't want to pay for anything.

today's version of "libertarians" are whiny foot-stamping angry randians.

Todays libetarians are.....I got mine, screw everyone else

that's about right.

You guys sure have some ridiculous stereotypes when it comes to libertarians. But it is gratifying to see the smear attempts. You at least recognize that we stand opposed to your ambitions of ubiquitous government.

Yes they are

They are a government of the people, by the people and for the people

 

[rightwinger]

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

real libertarians would be pro choice and pro marriage equality .... like goldwater was.

real libertarians are.

but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

 

[jillian]

Our people are not the property of the state....they ARE the state

You're getting warmer. But no, the state and the people are not synonymous. The state is the servant of the people, at tool we use to prevent bullies from forcing their will on others. The tricky part is keeping the bullies from taking over government.

The pharmacy lobbyists, who convinced congress to make it illegal for the government to negotiate the price of prescription Medicare drugs, are socialists?

dblack is a Libertarian...a neo-Con who doesn't want to pay for anything.

today's version of "libertarians" are whiny foot-stamping angry randians.

Todays libetarians are.....I got mine, screw everyone else

that's about right.

You guys sure have some ridiculous stereotypes when it comes to libertarians. But it is gratifying to see the smear attempts. You at least recognize that we stand opposed to your ambitions of ubiquitous government.

you mean the government you still think should be run like the articles of confederation planned? that government?

 

[jillian]

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

real libertarians would be pro choice and pro marriage equality .... like goldwater was.

real libertarians are.

but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

they're babies who stamp their feet when they're told they have to live by rules... you know, like not dumping chemicals in drinking water.

 

[dblack]

... a government of the people, by the people and for the people

Of, by, and for - not IS.

 

[dblack]

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

real libertarians would be pro choice and pro marriage equality .... like goldwater was.

real libertarians are.

but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

they're babies who stamp their feet when they're told they have to live by rules... you know, like not dumping chemicals in drinking water.

It's so much fun to build a strawman. You forgot about kicking puppies. We love kicking puppies.

 

[Indeependent]

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

real libertarians are.

but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

they're babies who stamp their feet when they're told they have to live by rules... you know, like not dumping chemicals in drinking water.

It's so much fun to build a strawman. You forgot about kicking puppies. We love kicking puppies.

I bet it eats your heart out when you see a sidewalk.

 

[dblack]

So that's it. There's no debate about what constitutes the exact welfare at all. We have a program where we distribute tax dollars to people and call it welfare and that's it that entirely fits into what the general welfare was supposed to mean from the framers in the 1700's. I'm sure after literally fighting a war to regain independence over the issue of excessive taxation the framers totally intended for us to take from people who work to give to people who don't

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

but that isn't what we see among the majority of people calling themselves "libertarians".

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

they're babies who stamp their feet when they're told they have to live by rules... you know, like not dumping chemicals in drinking water.

It's so much fun to build a strawman. You forgot about kicking puppies. We love kicking puppies.

I bet it eats your heart out when you see a sidewalk.

Yeah? How so? What in the world are you imagining???

 

[Indeependent]

Even this is making an unjustified leap. The general welfare clause is a qualifier on the taxation power. The statist's wedge depends on the proposition that the taxation power has, hidden within it, an implied spending power, a power limited only by the vague concept of 'general welfare'. A taxation power, without a complementary spending power, is incomplete and pointless (or so the argument goes) - so we must assume that the taxation power is also a spending power, and the clauses aren't limitations on the taxation power, but instead justifications for a broad, general power to spend.

But the claim that, since no spending power is specified, we must assume it's an implied part of the taxation power is specious. The "necessary and proper" clause authorizes Congress to perform the required actions to perform their enumerated powers, including spending money to finance those efforts. The difference is that the necessary and proper clause still limits Congress to the enumerated powers.

Poll registered Libertarians. I think you'll be surprised. Your boogey-man is imaginary.

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

they're babies who stamp their feet when they're told they have to live by rules... you know, like not dumping chemicals in drinking water.

It's so much fun to build a strawman. You forgot about kicking puppies. We love kicking puppies.

I bet it eats your heart out when you see a sidewalk.

Yeah? How so? What in the world are you imagining???

You tell me.
I always hear Libertarians railing against paying taxes and having someone else besides themselves determining what to do with their money to the point where they reject any social structure whatsoever.
Now drop the facade and take a stand on infrastruture.
Take a stand on a police force.
Let us hear where you stand on these issues.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians do not know what they want


They only know what they don't want....which is pretty much everything

they're babies who stamp their feet when they're told they have to live by rules... you know, like not dumping chemicals in drinking water.

It's so much fun to build a strawman. You forgot about kicking puppies. We love kicking puppies.

I bet it eats your heart out when you see a sidewalk.

Yeah? How so? What in the world are you imagining???

You tell me.

I can't keep track of your whacky delusions. It's clear you're just cheerleading, so I doubt you'll let facts get in the way of a good strawman.

 

[dblack]

Now drop the facade and take a stand on infrastruture.
Take a stand on a police force.
Let us hear where you stand on these issues.

Alright. Taking a stand: All those things are fine. Any other crazy misconceptions would you like dispelled?