Democrats Deny These Immigration Truths

[sealybobo]

Something could be done. We used to do those things but the rich fought back while we slept.

I believe there was a big tax above a certain amount. A tax on corporate greed

Or we could all unionize or boycott any companies that pay their employees less than they should. We could just shame corporations into doing the right thing.

People think affirmative action is dead but it’s alive and well. Now it’s called a diversity pledge.

Unions and diversity are a good thing, but it is not a good idea to touch taxes, because taxes always turn around to hit your pocket instead of any CEO.

How so? How would taxing a CEO's pay over $20 million hit my pocketbook?

Lets say CEO pay is out of control, which it is. What if we said anyone making over $20 million a year is taxed at 95% for every dollar over $20 million?

Then the CEO won't bother trying to get more than $20 million.

This will also keep the prices down because if the CEO gives himself or his employees a raise, they pass those costs onto consumers. So capping corporate greed would actually keep costs down and would not raise taxes.

Or how about no tax breaks for any company who pays their CEO more than 250 x the average worker? Then to give the CEO a raise when he already makes more than god, he has to also give the employees a raise too.

Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical Workers: Pay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent

I think only the 250x idea is workable. But I am not sure even in that.

It is a historic fact that every single tax legislation that has ever existed on the rich, it turned around and within a few years it was mostly a tax on the middle class and not on the rich. Most notably the alternative minimum tax. A lot of times this happens by clever and partial manipulation of inflation but by many other means too. So tax laws are not the way to go.

It worked before. Back when CEO's made $3 million and that was a lot of money, the robber barons tried to get greedy. Long story short, we taxed anyone making over $3 million 95% on every dollar above $3 million. So CEO's stopped trying to be greedy. Instead they invested that money back into the company. Or gave raises. Or stockholders got bonus' instead.

I like the idea of starting an online union. Anyone can join. And we shame companies and we boycott companies and we don't buy from companies who show themselves to be bad actors.

Over the entire period from 1978 to 2014, CEO compensation increased about 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

If you examine close you'll see this is because of Republican policies. Break the unions, and to deregulate industry blablabla.

Just don't blame Democrats for why the middle class is disappearing and the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider. It's Republicans who defend CEO pay and who say nothing can be done so don't bother.

VERY interesting data, especially the 997 %. But it is impossible to fight this with taxation laws. Taxation laws may have worked in the 20th century, but when you have global connectivity and instant access to everything, then there is no longer the friction that such protection is based on.

Utopistic, but a precondition of having employees then a capped leverage on their wages could be an angle of attack like you suggested earlier. This is shaky too though because then the next legislation will be to remove the precondition of having employees and plunging every entrepreneur into a tax nightmare. As usual.

Not reducing capital gains taxes is an incentive not to cash out of a company. That is good for the company as well as for the employees.

What the CEO income increase really means is the emergence of a new world, namely computer networks. The middle class and it's protective mechanisms, such as unions and industry regulations are like stage coach horses arguing against the salesmen of a bus company.

The big mathematical question is whether we horses will be all up rated for race track and saved or disappear in sausage factories to feed the bus driver.

Some countries, where the middle class has already imploded, such as Great Britain, we can observe very unexpected national behavior. We Americans do have an advantage though. We are not all socialized socialists just yet, so we have a last resort called the Bible. Not a part of economics as a subject, but so far no academic or public office has been interested to solve this problem.

My british buddy said back in England when horse shit was all over the roads cars were advertised as a solution to their pollution problems.

 

[sealybobo]

it is a minimum wage not a maximum wage. the right wing has no valid argument; so they make up their own right wing fantasy.

The only good thing about minimum wage is that it fuels inflation, so unpayable debts get squeezed down to zero, such as subprime mortgages and student loans.

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

I love it when people say "nothing can be done about it". But I just showed you how from 1974-Now things started getting worse. What happened in 1973 that changed the game? Was it deregulations of something that should have been regulated? Was it bills passed in Congress that changed the way things worked? Was it tax breaks to the rich?

Something must have been done to make the gap between the rich and poor grow. So why can't something be done to shrink it?

The next thing Republicans will argue is that there is nothing wrong with the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. We all know that's a lie.

In 1973, I think the logic was that they needed to increase the gap between the rich and the poor in order to fight against the Soviet Union.

Well it has made Capitalism look like just another ISM

 

[Doc7505]

Because you don't think they should work to earn more. Don't you ever read your own spew?

it is a minimum wage not a maximum wage. the right wing has no valid argument; so they make up their own right wing fantasy.

The only good thing about minimum wage is that it fuels inflation, so unpayable debts get squeezed down to zero, such as subprime mortgages and student loans.

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

~~~~~~
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -- Benjamin Franklin

My sentiments exactly. At 82 years of age I fought to bring my family out of poverty. I believe I succeeded. It's up to the individual not society to do so.

 

[sealybobo]

it is a minimum wage not a maximum wage. the right wing has no valid argument; so they make up their own right wing fantasy.

The only good thing about minimum wage is that it fuels inflation, so unpayable debts get squeezed down to zero, such as subprime mortgages and student loans.

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

~~~~~~
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -- Benjamin Franklin

My sentiments exactly. At 82 years of age I fought to bring my family out of poverty. I believe I succeeded. It's up to the individual not society to do so.

Yea but you lived through the golden age of the American middle class. Unions, new deals, labor laws, pensions, social security, interest on your savings accounts, affordable college.

You lived in the greatest era of America. Back before we needed to MAGA. America was already G.

 

[danielpalos]

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

No because both mathematically and physically the elimination of poverty is slavery. You may intend to feed your slaves well and keep them happy, but that is still worse than starving in poverty.

nothing but propaganda?

employment is at the will of either party, not wage-slavery.

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

 

[danielpalos]

the rich can afford free rides. the right wing insists, the Poor are not worth it.

There are no free rides, you’re too far gone...

sure there is; it is called, equal protection of the law. free-riding on privileges and immunities established by the Rich, is what the concept entails.

You’re delusional and you want a Socialist Society...

equality and equal protection of the law is, "delusional"? we have a Statue of Liberty.

Equal protection of law is not going to solve someones desires or passion to succeed, yes you're delusional, naive and basically ill informed, but hey that appears to be nothing new for you Daniel...

the law is employment at will.

 

[danielpalos]

it is a minimum wage not a maximum wage. the right wing has no valid argument; so they make up their own right wing fantasy.

The only good thing about minimum wage is that it fuels inflation, so unpayable debts get squeezed down to zero, such as subprime mortgages and student loans.

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

~~~~~~
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -- Benjamin Franklin

My sentiments exactly. At 82 years of age I fought to bring my family out of poverty. I believe I succeeded. It's up to the individual not society to do so.

we know more about economics in modern times. correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is as simple as it gets.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Here is a deal Republicans should be interested in. If Trump gets re elected, we build the wall. Sound like a deal?

Why? He was already elected once on building the wall, why do it again?

~~~~~~
Because Trump has done more for this nation in economics, national Security and individual employment than Obama id in eight years. BTW, Congress just gave Trump the 5.8 Billion he has been asking for......

When Trump signs the legislation outlawing your weapons, you will understand the real cost of that idiotic wall.

So now you're claiming that Trump will violate the Constitution like Democrats have been doing for years?

He already has.

 

[Doc7505]

The only good thing about minimum wage is that it fuels inflation, so unpayable debts get squeezed down to zero, such as subprime mortgages and student loans.

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

~~~~~~
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -- Benjamin Franklin

My sentiments exactly. At 82 years of age I fought to bring my family out of poverty. I believe I succeeded. It's up to the individual not society to do so.

Yea but you lived through the golden age of the American middle class. Unions, new deals, labor laws, pensions, social security, interest on your savings accounts, affordable college.

You lived in the greatest era of America. Back before we needed to MAGA. America was already G.

Sorry to burst your bubble, I abhor unions and the source of my wealth has been through my own resourcefulness. No pensions, just hard work, smart moves, investments and savings. BTW I worked a full time job raised a family yet didn't finish College. Hmm...; the "Golden Age" you write of is Bull Crap... Where were you in the late 60's and 70's when businesses were closing.

 

[Doc7505]

Here is a deal Republicans should be interested in. If Trump gets re elected, we build the wall. Sound like a deal?

Why? He was already elected once on building the wall, why do it again?

~~~~~~
Because Trump has done more for this nation in economics, national Security and individual employment than Obama id in eight years. BTW, Congress just gave Trump the 5.8 Billion he has been asking for......

When Trump signs the legislation outlawing your weapons, you will understand the real cost of that idiotic wall.

So now you're claiming that Trump will violate the Constitution like Democrats have been doing for years?

He already has.

I doubt any more so than previous presidents, especially president #44.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Why? He was already elected once on building the wall, why do it again?

~~~~~~
Because Trump has done more for this nation in economics, national Security and individual employment than Obama id in eight years. BTW, Congress just gave Trump the 5.8 Billion he has been asking for......

When Trump signs the legislation outlawing your weapons, you will understand the real cost of that idiotic wall.

So now you're claiming that Trump will violate the Constitution like Democrats have been doing for years?

He already has.

I doubt any more so than previous presidents, especially president #44.

The past is the past. Trump is the man right now and he sold us out.

 

[anotherlife]

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

No because both mathematically and physically the elimination of poverty is slavery. You may intend to feed your slaves well and keep them happy, but that is still worse than starving in poverty.

nothing but propaganda?

employment is at the will of either party, not wage-slavery.

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

 

[anotherlife]

The only good thing about minimum wage is that it fuels inflation, so unpayable debts get squeezed down to zero, such as subprime mortgages and student loans.

we are also discussing solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States for simply being unemployed.

how much growth do we want.

The idea of solving poverty is as bankrupt as wanting to solve a 5th degree polynomial. Mathematically proven impossible.

Any attempt to solve it makes it exponentially worse and painful. That is how much growth we get. How much of it do we want? I hope zero.

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

~~~~~~
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” -- Benjamin Franklin

My sentiments exactly. At 82 years of age I fought to bring my family out of poverty. I believe I succeeded. It's up to the individual not society to do so.

Yea but you lived through the golden age of the American middle class. Unions, new deals, labor laws, pensions, social security, interest on your savings accounts, affordable college.

You lived in the greatest era of America. Back before we needed to MAGA. America was already G.

I think it doesn't matter what age we pick. Supporting the poor is always a fail. Even when a church does it half the time.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

No because both mathematically and physically the elimination of poverty is slavery. You may intend to feed your slaves well and keep them happy, but that is still worse than starving in poverty.

nothing but propaganda?

employment is at the will of either party, not wage-slavery.

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

Generally I cannot make heads nor tails of what danielpalos is really arguing. Guess I'm not that smart, but here is where we are in reality:

The original idea was that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch (i.e. the president and his cabinet / regulatory agencies) execute the laws, and the United States Supreme Court interprets the laws.

In reality, all branches of the government try to over-step their boundaries. IN MY OPINION, the most prevalent violators of constitutional law is the United States Supreme Court. In my mind, once an issue is challenged in the courts and ends up in the United States Supreme Court, that is where the buck stops...HOWEVER, once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law and sets a precedent, IN MY MIND (largely based upon what the founders stated) that is the law. The United States Supreme Court has NO legitimate authority to reverse their own rulings.

As a result of the abuses, the Constitution means 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended as the United States Supreme Court keeps changing the law and legislating from the bench. It's time the citizenry did their civic duty and begin exhausting their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

 

[anotherlife]

No because both mathematically and physically the elimination of poverty is slavery. You may intend to feed your slaves well and keep them happy, but that is still worse than starving in poverty.

nothing but propaganda?

employment is at the will of either party, not wage-slavery.

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

Generally I cannot make heads nor tails of what danielpalos is really arguing. Guess I'm not that smart, but here is where we are in reality:

The original idea was that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch (i.e. the president and his cabinet / regulatory agencies) execute the laws, and the United States Supreme Court interprets the laws.

In reality, all branches of the government try to over-step their boundaries. IN MY OPINION, the most prevalent violators of constitutional law is the United States Supreme Court. In my mind, once an issue is challenged in the courts and ends up in the United States Supreme Court, that is where the buck stops...HOWEVER, once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law and sets a precedent, IN MY MIND (largely based upon what the founders stated) that is the law. The United States Supreme Court has NO legitimate authority to reverse their own rulings.

As a result of the abuses, the Constitution means 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended as the United States Supreme Court keeps changing the law and legislating from the bench. It's time the citizenry did their civic duty and begin exhausting their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

Interesting how Anglo Saxon legal systems build upon precedence. Precedence and testimonial oath are not legal under Roman law. Too bad, Roman law fell victim to socialist hegemony in the 20th century.

So, what avenues do US citizens have? They don't have more money than the US government to counter argue an interpretation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

nothing but propaganda?

employment is at the will of either party, not wage-slavery.

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

Generally I cannot make heads nor tails of what danielpalos is really arguing. Guess I'm not that smart, but here is where we are in reality:

The original idea was that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch (i.e. the president and his cabinet / regulatory agencies) execute the laws, and the United States Supreme Court interprets the laws.

In reality, all branches of the government try to over-step their boundaries. IN MY OPINION, the most prevalent violators of constitutional law is the United States Supreme Court. In my mind, once an issue is challenged in the courts and ends up in the United States Supreme Court, that is where the buck stops...HOWEVER, once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law and sets a precedent, IN MY MIND (largely based upon what the founders stated) that is the law. The United States Supreme Court has NO legitimate authority to reverse their own rulings.

As a result of the abuses, the Constitution means 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended as the United States Supreme Court keeps changing the law and legislating from the bench. It's time the citizenry did their civic duty and begin exhausting their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

Interesting how Anglo Saxon legal systems build upon precedence. Precedence and testimonial oath are not legal under Roman law. Too bad, Roman law fell victim to socialist hegemony in the 20th century.

So, what avenues do US citizens have? They don't have more money than the US government to counter argue an interpretation.

As a matter of policy, I do not discuss my strategies in public forums and when anyone I talk to does try to make it public fodder, I cut off communications with them.

People like to boil everything down to a bumper sticker solution. I don't have that for you. What I discuss are strategies that DO work. If you want the Cliff Notes that are public, check out this link:

How do we effect change?

 

[anotherlife]

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

Generally I cannot make heads nor tails of what danielpalos is really arguing. Guess I'm not that smart, but here is where we are in reality:

The original idea was that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch (i.e. the president and his cabinet / regulatory agencies) execute the laws, and the United States Supreme Court interprets the laws.

In reality, all branches of the government try to over-step their boundaries. IN MY OPINION, the most prevalent violators of constitutional law is the United States Supreme Court. In my mind, once an issue is challenged in the courts and ends up in the United States Supreme Court, that is where the buck stops...HOWEVER, once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law and sets a precedent, IN MY MIND (largely based upon what the founders stated) that is the law. The United States Supreme Court has NO legitimate authority to reverse their own rulings.

As a result of the abuses, the Constitution means 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended as the United States Supreme Court keeps changing the law and legislating from the bench. It's time the citizenry did their civic duty and begin exhausting their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

Interesting how Anglo Saxon legal systems build upon precedence. Precedence and testimonial oath are not legal under Roman law. Too bad, Roman law fell victim to socialist hegemony in the 20th century.

So, what avenues do US citizens have? They don't have more money than the US government to counter argue an interpretation.

As a matter of policy, I do not discuss my strategies in public forums and when anyone I talk to does try to make it public fodder, I cut off communications with them.

People like to boil everything down to a bumper sticker solution. I don't have that for you. What I discuss are strategies that DO work. If you want the Cliff Notes that are public, check out this link:

How do we effect change?

Okay so good luck with that. But writing more tax laws must be out.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

Generally I cannot make heads nor tails of what danielpalos is really arguing. Guess I'm not that smart, but here is where we are in reality:

The original idea was that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch (i.e. the president and his cabinet / regulatory agencies) execute the laws, and the United States Supreme Court interprets the laws.

In reality, all branches of the government try to over-step their boundaries. IN MY OPINION, the most prevalent violators of constitutional law is the United States Supreme Court. In my mind, once an issue is challenged in the courts and ends up in the United States Supreme Court, that is where the buck stops...HOWEVER, once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law and sets a precedent, IN MY MIND (largely based upon what the founders stated) that is the law. The United States Supreme Court has NO legitimate authority to reverse their own rulings.

As a result of the abuses, the Constitution means 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended as the United States Supreme Court keeps changing the law and legislating from the bench. It's time the citizenry did their civic duty and begin exhausting their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

Interesting how Anglo Saxon legal systems build upon precedence. Precedence and testimonial oath are not legal under Roman law. Too bad, Roman law fell victim to socialist hegemony in the 20th century.

So, what avenues do US citizens have? They don't have more money than the US government to counter argue an interpretation.

As a matter of policy, I do not discuss my strategies in public forums and when anyone I talk to does try to make it public fodder, I cut off communications with them.

People like to boil everything down to a bumper sticker solution. I don't have that for you. What I discuss are strategies that DO work. If you want the Cliff Notes that are public, check out this link:

How do we effect change?

Okay so good luck with that. But writing more tax laws must be out.

Here is my own personal default:

I do not support ANY legislation that would increase the size, power and / or scope of government. So accusing me of being for any kind of tax increase would be disingenuous if you further accuse me of that.

 

[anotherlife]

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

Generally I cannot make heads nor tails of what danielpalos is really arguing. Guess I'm not that smart, but here is where we are in reality:

The original idea was that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch (i.e. the president and his cabinet / regulatory agencies) execute the laws, and the United States Supreme Court interprets the laws.

In reality, all branches of the government try to over-step their boundaries. IN MY OPINION, the most prevalent violators of constitutional law is the United States Supreme Court. In my mind, once an issue is challenged in the courts and ends up in the United States Supreme Court, that is where the buck stops...HOWEVER, once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law and sets a precedent, IN MY MIND (largely based upon what the founders stated) that is the law. The United States Supreme Court has NO legitimate authority to reverse their own rulings.

As a result of the abuses, the Constitution means 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended as the United States Supreme Court keeps changing the law and legislating from the bench. It's time the citizenry did their civic duty and begin exhausting their nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress.

Interesting how Anglo Saxon legal systems build upon precedence. Precedence and testimonial oath are not legal under Roman law. Too bad, Roman law fell victim to socialist hegemony in the 20th century.

So, what avenues do US citizens have? They don't have more money than the US government to counter argue an interpretation.

As a matter of policy, I do not discuss my strategies in public forums and when anyone I talk to does try to make it public fodder, I cut off communications with them.

People like to boil everything down to a bumper sticker solution. I don't have that for you. What I discuss are strategies that DO work. If you want the Cliff Notes that are public, check out this link:

How do we effect change?

Okay so good luck with that. But writing more tax laws must be out.

Here is my own personal default:

I do not support ANY legislation that would increase the size, power and / or scope of government. So accusing me of being for any kind of tax increase would be disingenuous if you further accuse me of that.

That is good news.

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but right wing propaganda. poverty can be ameliorated; poor cannot be solved. there is a whole and entire world of difference.

No because both mathematically and physically the elimination of poverty is slavery. You may intend to feed your slaves well and keep them happy, but that is still worse than starving in poverty.

nothing but propaganda?

employment is at the will of either party, not wage-slavery.

I think we need to ask the other posters here whose English is worse, mine or yours. I must admit that I have to learn more English to write properly. But I can't understand a word of your post here.

Employment is at will of either party? No party is interested in employment, they are interested in votes. The democrats are at an advantage because the more people they put into helpless government bondage, the more votes they naturally extort.

Wage slavery? When you control every aspect of everybody's life through taxation, then that is slavery, wage or no wage.

it helps if you understand the concept and the law.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as understanding a law or concept, when the law itself is a con, as usual with financial legislations.

in right wing fantasy? the law is, employment at will.