Obamas "Jobs Bill" is DOA as it should be!!!!!!! Unfu***** believeable

[Bfgrn]

Taking things out of context and rewrapping them in liberal interpretation is not a good or honest use of history.

Rebuttal to Bfgm's argument:



Those blinded by partisanship or ideology too often focus on whatever minutiae supports their thesis and ignore the larger context that provides a more honest picture. Of course the Founders disagreed, argued, debated, and deliberated over every issue to arrive at the policy that would best fit the larger concept on which they were all agreed. There is nothing sinister about that but rather speaks to the integrity of men who wanted get it right in the best interests of a new nation.

Thank you for providing the best history corporations can buy.

But, here is your problem. Your post does NOTHING to dispel the FACTS our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations. They ran a government controlled economy.

Rebutt my source if you can. I can be pretty damn sure their research and information is better than yours.

There were precious few corporations for the Founding Fathers to regulate. Their regulation, however, was limited to regulating international and interstate trade to ensure that no rights of the people were infringed. Now perhaps you can find something different from that which isn't in a radical leftwing blog who seem to LOVE to promote certain concepts and distort what the Founders were all about.

I point to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution necessary to secure the rights of the people while facilitating honest trade between the states and other nations. It was NEVER intended to give the federal government more power than was absolutely necessary to do that.

Section 8 of Article 1 lists the enumerated powers of the Congress. The clause of this section, the "commerce clause," which grants the Congress the right to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States," has, in the 20th cent., been used as a strong argument for the expansion of government power. Since the historic case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the commerce clause has been the battleground over which much of the struggle for and against increased federal regulation of private enterprise has been fought. Until the late 1930s Congress exercised its powers under the clause solely with reference to transportation. But after a series of dramatic reversals by the Supreme Court, Congress began to enter areas that had previously been controlled only by the states. The commerce clause is now the source of important peacetime powers of the national government and an important basis for the judicial review of state actions.
Read more: United States Constitution: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

In the modern Big Government era of the liberal, the federal government has seized more and more power to regulate to the detriment of U.S. commerce and industry. Fortunately, there is now a growing movement to reverse that trend and restore something more in keeping with what the Founders promoted.

You source is bought and sold by big corporations. Some of the worst polluters on this planet. Our founding fathers would never subscribe to a corpotocracy or the plutocracy Reagan and Bush built.

You right wing ideologues have gone so far to the right you are totally blind to the biggest threat to our liberty and freedom.

When you go to your mail box, turn on your TV, search the internet or drive to the shopping center...the most likely entities that will send you and your family into financial ruin, is NOT the government.


"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

 

[Foxfyre]

Your opinion is noted Bfgm. As well as your failure to rebut my opinion or any of my sources with anything other than what seems to not-that-well-informed opinion and inadequate sources.

My husband and I have founded and run a corporation and I have spent the last several years of my professional life auditing financial records of mostly corporations. Many, if not most of these are mom & pop family operations providing products and services for people who want them. They and others like them provide most of the jobs in this area, and not a single one of them has presumed to harm me in any way, infringe on any right I have, or do violence anybody.

Those operating in multiple states are and should be regulated by the Federal Government so that the occasional rogue or unethical operation cannot do harm with impunity. Unfortunately, since now government is the power rather than the people, those in government can be and are bought off by big corporations to the detriment of us all. Big corporations do have too much power to influence government. The unholy alliance between President Obama and G.E. is a perfect illustration.

But the problem is not with the corporations. The problem is with a government that has the ower to dispense favors and benevolence on whomever it chooses, and therefore can be manipulated for votes and campaign contributions. Take away government's power to to use the people's money to buy influence, power, prestige, or increase personal fortunes, and the government will go back to enforcing anti-trust laws. And the problem will be mostly solved.

 

[daveman]

And you think this is too much? How much would you LIKE to pay?

And you think it's not enough? How much would you LIKE him to pay?

Zero. No one should have to pay any taxes if they make over 100k.

Okay, be a dick. I don't care.

 

[daveman]

New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts

Nearly two-thirds say no to major changes to Social Security and Medicare. And nearly nine in ten don't want any increase in taxes on middle class and lower income Americans.

"Republicans and Democrats disagree on the need for cuts in domestic and military spending, as well as tax increases for higher-income Americans, but they do agree that the committee should stay away from tax hikes for the middle class and major changes to Social Security and Medicare," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

According to the survey, only a third say that taxes on wealthy people should be kept low because higher-income Americans help create jobs, with 62 percent saying that taxes on the wealthy should be high so the government can use the money for programs to help lower-income Americans.

"Nearly 90% of wolves polled wanted to have sheep for dinner. 100% of sheep respondents disagreed."

Wolves and sheep can't answer a survey. But the law of the jungle seems to be the right wing idea of a society.

Whoooosh! Right over your head!

 

[The T]

And you think it's not enough? How much would you LIKE him to pay?

Zero. No one should have to pay any taxes if they make over 100k.

Okay, be a dick. I don't care.

No one should have to pay any income tax. Only consumption/commerce as the Founder's originally designed. 16th Amendment? Gone.

FAIR Tax all the way.

 

[daveman]

I've read its closer to 40%.

Oh so 40% of income confiscated is OK with you?

Or is it only OK when it's not your money?

Counting up the city, county, state, and federal taxes and fees that are generally assessed, it is very easy to pay 50% or more of your income to government, most especially if you are self employed. And it is that middle group--the self-employed business owner who typically creates most of the new jobs in the country--who will be hit the hardest by Obamacare, Cap & Trade, other onerous and unnecessary regulations, and the proposed new taxes our Fearless Leader wants RIGHT NOW (but will paid for by unspecified spending cuts spread over the next ten years.)

I tell you, I really do laugh to keep from crying or screaming. His Arrogance and his devoted entourage not only are clueless and incompetent or truly evil--it has to be one or the other--but they play us all for fools. They think we believe them no matter how much they contradict themselves or have failed to produce results with the same stuff in the past.

The problem is some of us DO believe them.

And some of those who do post here.

 

[daveman]

You are aware that 40% means 40 cents on every dollar earned, that means if you earn a dollar you only get to keep, save, spend and invest 60 cents because that's all that's left after the government takes their share.

The government does stuff with my money. I wouldn't be able to get my car out of my driveway in the morning without government spending, and neither would you.

The same old hackneyed roads argument.

In fact I would be able to get my 4x4 out of my driveway road or no road.

But we pay for roads not out of income taxes but out of use taxes placed on gas and vehicles as it should be.

Those that use government services the most should pay the most. I drive a lot less than I used to hence i buy less gas and pay less taxes and tolls that are supposed to be earmarked for roads.

I also have a private well and septic system but I pay out of my local taxes for a waste treatment plant that I don't use.

I have no children but I pay for schools and I also do not get a rug rat deduction on my income taxes so i am in effect subsidizing someone else's rug rats.

So you see some of us pay for much more than we actually get from the government.

 

[daveman]

Zero. No one should have to pay any taxes if they make over 100k.

Okay, be a dick. I don't care.

No one should have to pay any income tax. Only consumption/commerce as the Founder's originally designed. 16th Amendment? Gone.

FAIR Tax all the way.

I'm good with that.

Poo isn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh so 40% of income confiscated is OK with you?

Or is it only OK when it's not your money?

Counting up the city, county, state, and federal taxes and fees that are generally assessed, it is very easy to pay 50% or more of your income to government, most especially if you are self employed. And it is that middle group--the self-employed business owner who typically creates most of the new jobs in the country--who will be hit the hardest by Obamacare, Cap & Trade, other onerous and unnecessary regulations, and the proposed new taxes our Fearless Leader wants RIGHT NOW (but will paid for by unspecified spending cuts spread over the next ten years.)

I tell you, I really do laugh to keep from crying or screaming. His Arrogance and his devoted entourage not only are clueless and incompetent or truly evil--it has to be one or the other--but they play us all for fools. They think we believe them no matter how much they contradict themselves or have failed to produce results with the same stuff in the past.

The problem is some of us DO believe them.

And some of those who do post here.

I know. There is simply no other way to explain how we got into this mess. If we could get the Kool-ade away from even half of Obama's constituency so that they could see the obfusications, smoke and mirrors, and flat out mistruths for what they are, we would be able to apply a whole lot more pressure to stop the insanity. But as long as Fearless Leader is able to amass enough adoring, applauding, cheering fans to fill a television screen behind him, he will keep the lie alive to a lot of people who see that and don't want to see anything else.

Or, failing that, if he is just able to keep people hating George Bush and Republicans enough that they will accept ANYTHING else, however insane, as an alternative, he gets re-elected in 2012. That also requires a lot of half truths, mis truths, and flat out lies, but some don't seem to notice or care.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your opinion is noted Bfgm. As well as your failure to rebut my opinion or any of my sources with anything other than what seems to not-that-well-informed opinion and inadequate sources.

My husband and I have founded and run a corporation and I have spent the last several years of my professional life auditing financial records of mostly corporations. Many, if not most of these are mom & pop family operations providing products and services for people who want them. They and others like them provide most of the jobs in this area, and not a single one of them has presumed to harm me in any way, infringe on any right I have, or do violence anybody.

Those operating in multiple states are and should be regulated by the Federal Government so that the occasional rogue or unethical operation cannot do harm with impunity. Unfortunately, since now government is the power rather than the people, those in government can be and are bought off by big corporations to the detriment of us all. Big corporations do have too much power to influence government. The unholy alliance between President Obama and G.E. is a perfect illustration.

But the problem is not with the corporations. The problem is with a government that has the ower to dispense favors and benevolence on whomever it chooses, and therefore can be manipulated for votes and campaign contributions. Take away government's power to to use the people's money to buy influence, power, prestige, or increase personal fortunes, and the government will go back to enforcing anti-trust laws. And the problem will be mostly solved.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

The long history of mankind is one of mostly oppression brought about by monarchies, aristocracies, plutocracies and other forms of privilege for the few. The few have ALWAYS been the land owners, and the serfs and oppressed have had no rights because of their lack of property.

The seminal achievement and ideals that made our founding fathers stand out through the clouds of human oppression were HUMAN rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

There are no caveats or qualifications attached to those rights. If you own a thousand acres or just the clothes on your back, you are EQUAL.

But I fully understand the history of conservatism.

Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...

 

[daveman]

So which The Man is keeping you down?

 

[ActUp]

Come on 2012!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So which The Man is keeping you down?

Well to be honest since obama is part oif the man yes I would say the man is keeping us all down.

 

[saveliberty]

Taking things out of context and rewrapping them in liberal interpretation is not a good or honest use of history.

Rebuttal to Bfgm's argument:

It is true that there were bitter disputes over particular policies during the Founding era, such as the paying of the national debt, the existence of a national bank, and whether to subsidize domestic manufactures, and these differences seemed tremendously important in the 1790s. But in spite of these quarrels, there was a background consensus on both principles and the main lines of economic policy that government should follow. John Nelson’s verdict on the 1790s is sound: “[W]hen the causes of the slow dissolution of consensus among America’s ruling elites after ratification of the Constitution are detailed, the evidence points to specific disagreements over programmatic issues and not fundamental schisms over the essential role of government.”[1]

The danger is that by concentrating on these and other Founding-era contests, we will fail to see (as the Founders themselves often failed to see) their agreement on the three main policies that, taken together, provide the necessary protection of property rights: the legal right to own and use property in land and other goods; the right to sell or give property to others on terms of one’s own choosing (market freedom); and government support of sound money. Their battles were fought over the best means to those ends and over such subordinate questions as whether and how large-scale manufacturing should be encouraged.
Property Rights and Free Markets: Economic Principles of America's Founders

Those blinded by partisanship or ideology too often focus on whatever minutiae supports their thesis and ignore the larger context that provides a more honest picture. Of course the Founders disagreed, argued, debated, and deliberated over every issue to arrive at the policy that would best fit the larger concept on which they were all agreed. There is nothing sinister about that but rather speaks to the integrity of men who wanted get it right in the best interests of a new nation.

Thank you for providing the best history corporations can buy.

But, here is your problem. Your post does NOTHING to dispel the FACTS our founding fathers heavily regulated corporations. They ran a government controlled economy.

Just how many business corporations were there in the late 1700's in America? More importantly, you do realize that the Framers created a nation, which is in itself a corporation? True story.

 

[daveman]

So which The Man is keeping you down?

Well to be honest since obama is part oif the man yes I would say the man is keeping us all down.

Radicals can't be The Man, man.

 

[francoHFW]

Repeal the twentieth century! read "The Good Old Days- They were Terrible!"

 

[saveliberty]

Repeal the twentieth century! read "The Good Old Days- They were Terrible!"

There is a little Bourbon running down your chin.

 

[francoHFW]

Read it, stupid.

 

[Conservative]

Read it, stupid.

Read it, stupid.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't need to, its going to say 80 proof. You learn stuff as the DD.