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.
How am I "dysfunctional?"
For you're information, I'm not a conservative. I'm an anarchist and a radical capitalist. I believe government should be abolished and private enterprise should perform all social functions, including defense.
BTW, I find your delusion that you are not "extreme" utterly hilarious. You're a Stalinist. How much more extreme can you get?
I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.
From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.
Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.
No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.
Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.
Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
I know what an anarchist is but don't know how 'radical' modifies capitalist. Anarchists are extreme extremists. Delusional. Primitives, as anarchy was what existed before civilization.
From that far right the middle of the road isn't even visible, much less the left. So you can't see me.
Stalin was a tyrant and a murderer on the scale of Hitler. Even his mother wasn't a fan.
No, what I am is a realist. A centrist. I believe that we, the people run government and business. Government as the electorate, business as consumers and workers. So I don't care who owns the means. I just know that capitalism without competition is the worst case for cost, quality, and innovation. Socialism in competitive markets will not beat capitalism for cost, but they are probably equal for quality and innovation.
Your boogeyman is a toothless closet monster invented by Republican propaganda to give extremists a scapegoat. You fell for it.
Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
BTW, I believe that the downfall of Hitler wasn't due to Germany's economic system, but totalitarianism. It's common in governments and businesses that when one mind over rules all others, innovation stops.
You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
BTW, I believe that the downfall of Hitler wasn't due to Germany's economic system, but totalitarianism. It's common in governments and businesses that when one mind over rules all others, innovation stops.
I would love to debate the fall if Hitler in another forum. Start a thread and message me please so I can hear your points in full.
Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)[/SIZE]
There are two types of taxes in our Constitution, Direct and Indirect.
Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned
Direct taxes do.... or did.
Pinckney equated direct taxes to requisitions on the states. i.e. the federal government would send a bill directly to the state's governor. Using that definition, an income tax would not be considered a direct tax. Other framers also held that view.
You are correct to the extent that most of the framers would not have been familiar with income taxes as I believe only a couple of European nations were using them at the time, so it is open to debate weather or not they would have supported them. But during the civil war an income tax was enacted without worry about unconstitutionality.
The POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO was one of the most ridiculed Supreme Court cases in history.....There was a nationwide outcry on it, which led to the introduction of the 16th amendment, one of the shortest tersest amendments in the constitution. This was passed by 3/4ths plus of the States legislatures and represented the will of the vast majority of the American people at the time.
Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Most economists think business is to blame for Obama's depression? I think not.
Furthermore, the people you call "economists" are really just toadies on the government payroll. They get paid to justify government policy, not to advance the science of economics.
The people who think the most like you are running the governments of North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
Most village idiots think that the Great Recession, which began a year before Obama was elected should be called Obama's Recession.
A recession began under Bush, but Obama turned it into a depression.
I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked. I wrote to you
Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.?Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
JWK
I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked. I wrote to you
Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.?Am I correct in thinking you do not support our Constitutions rule of apportionment being applied to any direct tax as our Constitution commands as follows?
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Finally, when you find the phrase income tax in our Constitution, please feel free to post where it can be found.
JWK
If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
JWK
I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value.
That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
I see you have edited what I posted and then avoided the question asked. I wrote to you
Now, do you support the constitutional requirement that No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.?
JWK
I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value.
That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words. And, you still have not answered the question.
I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
JWK
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
I shortened your quotes merely to simplify and to show the areas I replied to. I believe I answered the heart of your question previously but .....
If a Direct tax is defined as Pinckney did (as it should be). I would not have much of a problem applying apportionment. Tho I would also be ok with having requisitions based on land value.
That being said I see an income tax as an indirect tax and so could still support one, as indirect taxes need no apportionment.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO is one of the many idiotic decisions made by the supreme court, and is defunct now anyway.
Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words. And, you still have not answered the question.
I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
JWK
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then, including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.
Actually, you removed the words of our Constitution which I posted and then went on to ask if you support those words. And, you still have not answered the question.
I happen to support our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
JWK
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Of course the exception to Mr Jefferson's words are the Ammendments since then, including our move from his Plutocracy to our Democracy.
Exception? Jefferson's words express the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. And with regard to your comment about "our Democracy", the fact is, we have a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution.
And just what did our Founding Fathers think of democracy? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to democracy they
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."
And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."
And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."
Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitutions framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
Socialism introduced into capitalism will not enhance quality. It will degrade it over time. Innovation will degrade over time.
At the beginning of WWII Hitler had an unbeatable Air Force. He stretched his resources thin and didn't take the necessary steps to retain air superiority. In comes the Mustang from Capitalism free of socialistic influence.
It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
Conservatives, how much is an unfair share?
Any amount disproportionately assigned to any class of income that discriminates on anyone specifically. Such as our current tax rate which runs from 38-63% on anyone that actually earns money in the United States.
Well, that made no sense, particularly since such a tax rate does not apply to just ANYONE who earns money in the U.S. You know, when I hear the obscenely rich make such claims of, erm, discrimination, I almost shed a single tear. Oh wait...no I don't.
It's not "Socialism introduced into capitalism", whatever that means. It's socialism OR capitalism depending on the reasonableness of maintaining competition in a specific market. A country that is all one or the other will fail.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
You weren't clear enough or I read you wrong. I apologize for my confusion. However I agree with what I assume your point is.
I agree with your last point. China is a perfect example of socialists who instituted capitalism alongside their governmental structure in order to become successful.
And how did they become more successful? "It is gladdening to see that the Chinese government is not only handing out food, or giving the poor people fish, but also giving them a hand up in life, that is teaching them how to fish," Rierson said. http://english.cntv.cn/20131017/104761.shtml
