Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep, you just stuck your nose up a horse's ass and he shit. Fortunately I belong to the group of blue dog democrats who want the country to succeed such that it provides the most prosperity possible to the most people.As a liberal democrat (not a left wing fanatic like daddy boy) I do not accept Ayn Rand's ideas, nor am I a libertarian, but you daddy boy are a wildly fanatic leftist without the slightest idea of that which you spout. All you do is repeat propaganda your puppeteers spew at you.
I do not accept Ayn Rand's ideas, nor am I a libertarian
HORSESHIT!
You in your thoughtless in ability to think, support every wild ass fanatic left wing extremist known to mankind whether it destroys the fabric of out country or endangers our economic system. You want to drain every dollar you can squeeze out of the economy without regard to how destructive that concept is.
So considering your response, you don't believe the 9th and 10th amendment are proper?In fact, Federal Taxes are collected to pay for the authorized functions listed in the Constitution as Amended; and based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights.
' based on the 9th and 10th amendments it was not to usurp state or individual rights'
LOL
We have been thinking, and as a result pointed out that you still DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ. Nothing in that quote suggests the government can take money from the more wealthy people for the purpose of giving it to able bodied persons who choose not to take advantage of the education that was available, choose not to work, and are generally productive to society. And that statement has nothing to do with assisting those who CANNOT WORK for some valid reason. That quote of yours has to do with the more wealthy supporting our infrastructure, defense, postal service et al, which gives every able bodied person security by which they can act responsibly.Mr Franklin was a wealthy man and died as such while Mr Morris had been a very wealthy man who sacrificed his fortune to support the revolution and died nearly penniless.
Franklin, though I have profound respect for, was a tad hypocritical here.
I think also, that you misunderstand what was meant by "Welfare of the Publick". Franklin was NOT advocating that government should assume the responsibilities of citizens, but that it should provide such things as a military, courts and police. for the good of the "Publick".
Hypocritical? lol
WHY? You realize, though Mr Morris was the financier (Washington's banker) , he lost his money speculating right?
All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition
Try to critically think and be honest!
Your theory that only oil companies need the military and stability in the world is absurd on its face.
Sure it is, that's why the US spent trillions the last 70+ years to keep the middle east in 'friendly hands'
OK Fuck ya. I wish I could just remove you from all things oil. Screw you and your Chevy Volt, Good luck finding a place in walking distance to buy food.
Without oil, you would have nothing.
Talk about the middle class being eviscerated!!!!!!
We HAVE to have oil.
The middle class has been eviscerated by taxes.Here's something I don't think most 'redistributers' really think about. Unless the rich person in question has acquired their wealth via theft or fraud (in which case they should be locked up), they got their wealth because people wanted them to have it. What we're really saying when we claim wealth needs redistributing is that all the people that gave the wealthy their money are "doing it wrong", and their decisions need to be overridden by the state.
80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
The middle class has been eviscerated.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.
The wealthy have no desire to keep people poor. We need customers. If you think I charge too much for my product, consider that the shot whiskey I serve is taxed $0.18. Licenses, property and inventory taxes cost thousands/ year and I must buy distilled spirits from the state and beers from approved distributors that have monopolies in their areas. Budweiser products come on one truck, Miller on a second and importeds and wine on a third. I cannot go to a independent package store or grocery and buy stock.
All of those men died fairly well off. Where did their assets end up? Certainly not in the US treasury.That's a good reason to abolish democracy, not to loot the wealthy.
Note that you haven't posted a single reason why the government should be entitled to a single cent of Bill Gates' fortune.
What is "fair" of taking half of everything someone spent all his life earning?
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.
With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule.
Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."
John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."
James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html
What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?
Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.
So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?
There is a such thing as being too rich for Democracy so at some point we came up with cutting the mega rich's fortunes in half upon their death's. That way their kids still get half a fortune and the government/people get their half.
Article: How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy? | OpEdNews
But the rich have fought back and they got rid of the death tax. I don't know where it stands now but with our debt we could use half of Bill Gates fortune when he dies.
Or that guy who owns the Clippers. We should get half of the $2 billion he got from the sale of the Clippers. And he probably already paid $1 billion in taxes so his kids can have half a billion the state gets the rest.
Please don't cry for them. They'll be just fine. And if they don't pay then the poor and middle class have to pay. That's not right, fair and it doesn't work.
What right do you have to Bill Gates' money?
The price would be $20/gal in Europe because most of the price there is the result of excise taxes.
So you think Saddam should have been allowed to remain in Kuwait? Is that really what you're saying?
A libertarian who wants to control other nations. I'm shocked, no really I am
You didn't answer the question, nimrod.
Did I say they paid for any? Thee people who purchase their product pay for roads and bridges. Do you have a point?
You don't understand the context of the question. Got it
The question was: Which roads and bridges does Exxon pay for?
If you expect an answer on context, include context.
I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
YOU prefer not to use reason, logic or history, you like most right wing conservatives (BLUE DOGS) go on 'feelings' and rhetoric of pulling ones self up by his bootstraps. Ever actually try it? Why can't many do it in China, Mexico, India, etc? Just lazy huh?
I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
YOU prefer not to use reason, logic or history, you like most right wing conservatives (BLUE DOGS) go on 'feelings' and rhetoric of pulling ones self up by his bootstraps. Ever actually try it? Why can't many do it in China, Mexico, India, etc? Just lazy huh?
Why didn't he make his money in Africa or China? Oh right, he made it BECAUSE he was born in the USA AND because of the SOCIETY THE US PROVIDED OVER 200+ YEARS!
The middle class has been eviscerated by taxes.80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
The middle class has been eviscerated.
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.
The wealthy have no desire to keep people poor. We need customers. If you think I charge too much for my product, consider that the shot whiskey I serve is taxed $0.18. Licenses, property and inventory taxes cost thousands/ year and I must buy distilled spirits from the state and beers from approved distributors that have monopolies in their areas. Budweiser products come on one truck, Miller on a second and importeds and wine on a third. I cannot go to a independent package store or grocery and buy stock.
BELIEF OVER FACTS, ALL CONS EVER HAVE!!!
CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low
The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.
WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?
CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com
Your taxes are really low, in one chart
The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010
Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed.
I personally prefer to stay away from political rhetoric, even if their is some fabric of truth in it; because, most political rhetoric is propaganda. It doesn't matter from which side of the aisle it comes from. The talking heads and the leaders of both extremist sides love to throw out rhetoric, and within that slim fabric of truth are hidden insidious lies. As far as I am concerned, if you are extremist, you are below pond scum.
YOU prefer not to use reason, logic or history, you like most right wing conservatives (BLUE DOGS) go on 'feelings' and rhetoric of pulling ones self up by his bootstraps. Ever actually try it? Why can't many do it in China, Mexico, India, etc? Just lazy huh?
actually China just did it and it elimiated 40% of the world's poverty. Do you understand now?
Why didn't he make his money in Africa or China? Oh right, he made it BECAUSE he was born in the USA AND because of the SOCIETY THE US PROVIDED OVER 200+ YEARS!
yes a society based on freedom from big liberal govt. The more freedom and capitalism the more wealth there is. A liberal pretends East/West Germany never happened.
The middle class has been eviscerated by taxes.
The wealthy have no desire to keep people poor. We need customers. If you think I charge too much for my product, consider that the shot whiskey I serve is taxed $0.18. Licenses, property and inventory taxes cost thousands/ year and I must buy distilled spirits from the state and beers from approved distributors that have monopolies in their areas. Budweiser products come on one truck, Miller on a second and importeds and wine on a third. I cannot go to a independent package store or grocery and buy stock.
BELIEF OVER FACTS, ALL CONS EVER HAVE!!!
CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low
The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.
WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?
CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com
Your taxes are really low, in one chart
The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010
Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com
Your post is stupidity over fact. Your own graph shows the 1% tax increasing and the lowest bracket lower. Every thing else is just projection, something the current administration sucks at.
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed.
dear, our Founders based the country on the conservative principle of freedom. THe concept was just applied in China and 40% of the world's poverty was instantly eliminated. Is that bigotry, hatred and greed to a liberal? See why we are positive that liberalism is based on pure ignorance?
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed.
dear, our Founders based the country on the conservative principle of freedom. THe concept was just applied in China and 40% of the world's poverty was instantly eliminated. Is that bigotry, hatred and greed to a liberal? See why we are positive that liberalism is based on pure ignorance?
Yes, China is free and NOT ran by commies. That's why conservatives LOVE China soooo much
