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

[Uncensored2008]

BS, it's the same damn thing.

Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.

Let's explain it this way:

If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a gun in a cabinet - can the police get a warrant and arrest you?

No, you have RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

If a neighbor is If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a pile of cocaine in a cabinet - can they tell the police, who get a warrant and arrest you?

IF you had a right to privacy, what was in your home would be private and the neighbor would be constrained from violating your right - just as the neighbor cannot take your gun, he would not be able to take your privacy. But you have no right to privacy, so the neighbor is free to violate your privacy and the police are free to use that violation as a basis to obtain a warrant.

The 4th constrains the government from conducting random searches on private property - it is a property right. Note that the police can and do conduct warrantless searches on government property - every day. Note that the IRS can and does comb through your financial records any damned time they please.

There is no right to privacy - so you will get nowhere in court opposing these acts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Does this mean that you're another supporter of a minority imposing their dogma on an entire country?

It means I think you're a mouthbreathing shitstain who doesn't know how to use a browser for anything other than locating money shots.

Is that a yes or a no?

Yes - you're a mouth-breathing shit stain....

 

[PMZ]

Who's kept from understanding anything? And how?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text

You've never read it. Nazi Pelosi has never read it, Dingy Harry has never read it, OBAMA has never read it.

2000 + pages of utter bureaucratic gobbledegook.

{COMPENSATION- While serving on the business of the Commission (including travel time), a member of the Commission shall be entitled to compensation at the per diem equivalent of the rate provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of tile 5, United States Code, and while so serving away from home and the member’s regular place of business, a member may be allowed travel expenses, as authorized by the Chairman of the Commission. Physicians serving as personnel of the Commission may be provided a physician comparability allowance by the Commission in the same manner as Government physicians may be provided such an allowance by an agency under section 5948 of title 5, United States Code, and for such purpose subsection (i) of such section shall apply to the Commission in the same manner as it applies to the Tennessee Valley Authority. For purposes of pay (other than pay of members of the Commission) and employment benefits, rights, and privileges, all personnel of the Commission shall be treated as if they were employees of the United States Senate. Personnel of the Commission shall not be treated as employees of the Government Accountability Office for any purpose.}

Clear, right Comrade?

Even Texas can't prevent anyone from understanding natural selection despite monumental efforts. You can find how to build a fission bomb on the Internet. There are no secrets.

Look, you have an IQ of what, 70? That, coupled with your 4th grade education makes you a good communist, pliable and stupid; but what you aren't - is qualified to opine on intellectual matters.

You make Adolf seem benign.

You're as good an example here of a failure at life trying to create some company.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You make Adolf seem benign.

You make drooling retards seem smart.

You make Pelosi almost seem normal.

You're as good an example here of a failure at life trying to create some company.

I accept that you were utterly defeated, yet again.

 

[dcraelin]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

 

[PMZ]

You make Adolf seem benign.

You make drooling retards seem smart.

You make Pelosi almost seem normal.

You're as good an example here of a failure at life trying to create some company.

I accept that you were utterly defeated, yet again.

And I accept that you are delusional. Probably because success in the real world has eluded you.

 

[PMZ]

the average top tax rate from 1913 to 2008 was almost 60%
from 1950 thru 1963 it was 91% or 92%
IF YOU EXCLUDE YEARS AFTER 1982
it is 68.4
if you further exclude the end part of the "roaring 20s" that most think led to the great depression
then the average is 73.3 (the 7 years 1925-1931)

Clinton demonstrated that with a top rate of 39.6 you could, absent emergencies like natural disasters
and major wars, (and with revenues from a stock market bubble i.e. the dot.com bubble) you could have a
balanced budget, tho not have enough to substancially pay down debt.

This history and I think studies of other industrialized countries would show that
we need a top tax rate of 45% or more to maintain a balanced economy. If we are going to
fight major wars, the history of the tax during wartime shows you need a rate of 70 to 90%.
Keep in mind that the US has never been debt free except for some of the years
Andrew Jackson was president, and that prior to the income tax in 1913 most federal revenue came
from tariffs, something that "free market advocates" would likely not stand for today.
(There was a period during the civil war when an income tax was also used)

I would only add to your thoughts that in 2001, the CBO published a report that said that if Bush continued Clintonomics, our entire national debt would be paid off by 2006 and we'd have a multi trillion $ surplus by 2011. That’s how close to financial nirvana we came.

 

[PMZ]

The best description of the Republican propaganda campaign is contained in the very old joke's punchline, I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

The level of disaster Bush left in his wake was unprecedented. In Japan such incompetence would have left behind much hari kari. The Republicans reasoned that to avoid extinction they didn't have to outrun the bear, just the democrats.

Their disaster, however, unfortunately for them, was followed by our success in electing a superb President.

Ever since, the propaganda blowers have been set on max, at the expense of the entire country.

Even that has failed with Republicans tarred and feathered by their own hand.

What's next?

I think a nasty divorce between business and dixiecrats.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Is this from the Bible? Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears? Wikipedia?

Oh I know. The fount of all knowledge, Fox News. Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.

.

Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right! I can't answer him! Auuuuggghh! Run away!"

24/7/365 political propaganda, leading the ignorant to blindly support, what's demonstrably damaging to America, offends me.

It's a tyrannical strategy, taking advantage of the vulnerable.

And it almost led to the downfall of America.

Why, exactly, should it be tolerated?

Because they hire a lot of beauty queens for eye candy. They do it out of compassion for people who can't afford a porn channel.

 

[kaz]

"The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"

And that assumption has never been violated

True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...

 

[PMZ]

BS, it's the same damn thing.

Privacy is "1b: freedom from unauthorized intrusion." (Websters)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... is the the restriction against the Feds taking your privacy away.

Let's explain it this way:

If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a gun in a cabinet - can the police get a warrant and arrest you?

No, you have RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

If a neighbor is If a neighbor is over, and notices that you have a pile of cocaine in a cabinet - can they tell the police, who get a warrant and arrest you?

IF you had a right to privacy, what was in your home would be private and the neighbor would be constrained from violating your right - just as the neighbor cannot take your gun, he would not be able to take your privacy. But you have no right to privacy, so the neighbor is free to violate your privacy and the police are free to use that violation as a basis to obtain a warrant.

The 4th constrains the government from conducting random searches on private property - it is a property right. Note that the police can and do conduct warrantless searches on government property - every day. Note that the IRS can and does comb through your financial records any damned time they please.

There is no right to privacy - so you will get nowhere in court opposing these acts.

"Rights", vis a vis the Constitution, are misunderstood, as the Constitution is not the law for citizens, but rather the law for the Federal Government.

What we call "rights" are really areas over which the Feds are prohibited from legislating.

 

[PMZ]

"The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"

And that assumption has never been violated

True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

 

[Bern80]

"Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution."

People spend their lives studying Constitutional law. And you can best them from the Lazy Boy?

I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation is as irrelevant as mine and all others.

That’s the way things were designed by the founders to be.

You're trying to redesign our government. The majority doesn't agree with you. In fact the number of people who do is getting smaller. They've seen the consequences of ideas like yours.

What ideas like mine specifically? And yet the constitution is taught at a high school level. Too bad you think you're too stupid to understand it.

You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts.

What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional, it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.

That's not what you said previously. We already had this conversation and you agreed congress is indeed capable of passing lawas that are unconstitutional.

 

[PMZ]

What ideas like mine specifically? And yet the constitution is taught at a high school level. Too bad you think you're too stupid to understand it.

You wouldn't know that it was taught by some of these posts.

What is taught is that SCOTUS has exclusive responsibility for its interpretation so unless SCOTUS says that a law is unconstitutional, it is Constitutional no matter what any of us think.

That's not what you said previously. We already had this conversation and you agreed congress is indeed capable of passing lawas that are unconstitutional.

But they are unenforceable if SCOTUS finds them unconstitutional. The courts cannot adjudicate in favor of them.

That’s by the design of the founders.

 

[kaz]

"The Constitution was written with the assumption the Federal government could only do those enumerated powers it was granted"

And that assumption has never been violated

True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

 

[PMZ]

True, well except for a few things such as the war on drugs, Social security/medicare, food stamps, Obamacare, the Iraq wars, the Afghanistan invasion, the departments of energy education and HHS, earmarks, permanent overseas military bases, roe v. wade, New London confiscation of land for private use, farm subsidies, the Fed, intrastate commerce regulations, foreign aid, ...

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

 

[kaz]

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Hey, I'm sorry I made you cry dude.

BTW, your argument is circular.

 

[emilynghiem]

SCOTUS has ruled all of those things Constitutional. That's a done deal. To prohibit all of those things would require the Constitution to be amended.

Have at it.

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Honey, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and protections against conflicts of interest under the Constitution have already been BYPASSED by Corporations that abuse both individual rights and collective influence/authority/resources AT THE SAME TIME.

The legal and legislative systems have been bought out and corrupted because of this monopoly tied in with lawyers/judges that there is not enough check on.

Wake up. We might be able to clarify and add laws to check these Corporations and the legal system by requiring Corporations and large organizations to abide by the same Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics as govt when they apply to be licensed by govt to operate.

If we required the legal system to resolve conflicts by consensus where there was restitution paid to the victims and to taxpayers for the costs of resolving charges and claims, including restitution to taxpayers for govt abuses of authority and resources,
then maybe we could get out of the mess we're in.

Sitting around waiting for other people to fix things is letting Corporations continue to take advantage of the fact we are divided by party. So the first step is to quit that, so these third parties profiting from the conflict don't keep making money off problems and charging taxpayers for the cost.

 

[PMZ]

Government gave itself powers not in the Constitution, and government said it's OK. Why am I not impressed by that argument?

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Hey, I'm sorry I made you cry dude.

BTW, your argument is circular.

I'll bet your whole family would agree that you're a fucking idiot.

 

[kaz]

Because you're unable to understand US Law.

You can have a different Constitution by amending the present one.

Stop whining and get to work.

Hey, I'm sorry I made you cry dude.

BTW, your argument is circular.

I'll bet your whole family would agree that you're a fucking idiot.

Hey, calm down man, I'll stop picking on you. You're going to pop a vein.