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.
Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.
And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63
"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:
exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.
Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
JWK
"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson
Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
You are a retard for for babbling on about majority rule. There were more instances where a president was elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote, but you are a retard and cannot know that.
Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
You are a retard for for babbling on about majority rule. There were more instances where a president was elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote, but you are a retard and cannot know that.
The President is always elected by the Electoral College but they are required to vote in concert with the popular vote in their state.
I believe that Bush was the only one that lost the popular national vote but got the office.
Congress is elected by popular vote directly.
You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want. Your financial success is in their hands.
Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance. Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law. Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.
Not true. The ACA includes HDHP (High Deductible Health Plans). There are limits on how high the deductible may be. These are addressed on page 48 of the PPACA.
ANNUAL LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLES FOR EMPLOYER SPONSORED
PLANS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a health plan offered in the small group market, the deductible under the plan shall not exceed—
(i) $2,000 in the case of a plan covering a single individual; and
(ii) $4,000 in the case of any other plan.
The amounts under clauses (i) and (ii) may be increased by the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant under a flexible spending arrangement described in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without regard to any salary reduction arrangement).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
A google search provides a wealth of info on high deductible health plans.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
For instance, wikipedia has this
High-deductible health plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, participation in a qualifying HDHP is a requirement for health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged programs. As of 2012, HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 per year for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $6,050 for self-only coverage and $12,000 for self-and-family coverage. (However, according to the instructions for IRS form 8889, "this limit does not apply to deductibles and expenses for out-of-network services if the plan uses a network of providers. Instead, only deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for services within the network should be used to figure whether the limit is reached.") The Internal Revenue Service released the 2010 amounts on May 15, 2009,[3] which will be modified each year to reflect the change in cost of living.
I've read every word many times.
They did establish a republic. .
Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.
And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63
"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:
exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.
Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
JWK
"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson
Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
You think there is such a thing as too much profit?
Consumers do. They call it high prices.
No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
I don't think that's the way they feel about healthcare. A majority of Americans wanted Medicare for all. Of course the insurance companies made sure that never happened.
Whenever the public doesn't go along with the liberal agenda it's always because of some sinister corporate plot.
I'm not talking about people voting for some government program. I'm talking about each consumer individually having the choice of whether to pay for and receive the government product or some other product, just like when they buy a car. If they had such a choice, then government "services" would disappear.
Ha! I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team. He was from Norway I think. He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down. And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours. The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.
Then there's the postal system. They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office. They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.
Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance. Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law. Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.
Not true. The ACA includes HDHP (High Deductible Health Plans). There are limits on how high the deductible may be. These are addressed on page 48 of the PPACA.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
A google search provides a wealth of info on high deductible health plans.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
For instance, wikipedia has this
High-deductible health plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the United States, participation in a qualifying HDHP is a requirement for health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged programs. As of 2012, HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 per year for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $6,050 for self-only coverage and $12,000 for self-and-family coverage. (However, according to the instructions for IRS form 8889, "this limit does not apply to deductibles and expenses for out-of-network services if the plan uses a network of providers. Instead, only deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for services within the network should be used to figure whether the limit is reached.") The Internal Revenue Service released the 2010 amounts on May 15, 2009,[3] which will be modified each year to reflect the change in cost of living.
That is not a high deductible plan. My plan was 5k individual 10k family with 350 premiums nothing shared up to the deductible and no out of pocket after meeting the deductible. The Obama manadated plans for me are well over a thousand a month. That's well over TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR that I have to spend even if I don't use it. That is not a low premium high deductible plan. Just goes to show that liberals will redefine everything given time, for no other reason than to screw us all out of our income.
Additionally, FSA is not HSA. I would never use FSA, because you loose any money you don't use in FSA. HSA is the way the go. Is the best plan for healthy families. Democrats know this and see it working, thus they decided to attack it. The democrats have to BURN EVERY MOTHER LIVING THING THAT WORKS IN THIS COUNTRY. Pigs.
Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.
And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63
"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit democracy, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:
exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.
Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?
JWK
"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson
Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
No. You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.
State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.
JWK
The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil3 Elliots, 243,Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliots, 244 ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.
Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.
As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.
Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.
No. You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.
State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.
JWK
The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil3 Elliots, 243,Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliots, 244 ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Republics are countries not governed by monarchs. The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.
Whenever the public doesn't go along with the liberal agenda it's always because of some sinister corporate plot.
I'm not talking about people voting for some government program. I'm talking about each consumer individually having the choice of whether to pay for and receive the government product or some other product, just like when they buy a car. If they had such a choice, then government "services" would disappear.
Ha! I was at a dinner party with one of the coaches of the US ski team. He was from Norway I think. He claimed that their health care system beat the one here hands down. And it's not because their government is more capable or less corrupt than ours. The profit motive isn't there to pump up costs and the economies of scale allow efficiencies in service and price negotiations with medical suppliers.
The profit motive is what keeps costs down. It doesn't "pump them up." The lack of it is why government programs are always bloated and cost 3 times as much as an equivalent private sector program. "Economies of scale" don't really apply to industries that a labor intensive like medicine. A doctor can only see so many patients or perform so many surgeries in a day. For these reasons I think your coach is full of shit. His anectdotal evidence is worthless in any case.
Then there's the postal system. They're still my go-to source for shipment mainly because I don't have to shlep halfway across the city to find an office. They're cheaper than UPS or Fed Ex too.
By law, FEDEX and UPS are not allowed to compete with the Post Office in the delivery of First Class mail. They can only deliver packages or letters for a price above a certain minimum. There's a reason the Postal Carrier's Union spends millions lobbying Congress every time a bill comes up to abolish the postal monopoly: stark terror.
No. You look up as to what our Constitution states in crystal clear language:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Your silly posts regarding the founders agreeing to an aristocracy is sheer nonsense and a perversion of the miracle our founders created called the Constitution of the United States. Your kind just loves that part of our Constitution guaranteeing one man one vote, but when it comes time to the part declaring one vote one dollar, which is also commanded by the rule of apportionment, you run and hide from contributing you fair share to fund the functions of our federal government.
Tell me, what is it that you object to with regard to the rule of apportionment requiring Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, and may be summarized by the following fair share formulas?
State`s Pop.
__________ X House size (435) = State`s No. of Reps
Pop. of U.S.
State`s Pop.
__________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
U.S. Pop.
JWK
The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil3 Elliots, 243,Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax 3 Elliots, 244 ___ George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution
Republics are countries not governed by monarchs. The Constitution says nothing different. Why you feel qualified to redefine the English language is beyond me.
You did not answer the question and you posted an unsubstantiated charge that I "...feel qualified to redefine the English language..."
Why do you find it necessary to make stuff up and avoid answering a fundamental question regarding the rule of apportionment?
JWK
Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
What is self-evident to me is, your love affair with taxing “income” has paved the way to our nation’s enslavement.
To fully understand this issue one must first recall the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early1900s, a movement which was, among other things, intentionally designed by its leadership to enslave the working class person, not to mention seizing an iron fisted regulatory control over America’s businesses and industries.
In 1913 the leadership of the progressive movement convinced the working person [that’s your ordinary working person] to get behind the 16th Amendment. It was sold to the working person as a means to get those greedy corporations to pay their “fair share” in taxes.
During the 16th Amendment debates we find Mr. HEFLIN agitating the working class people into supporting the amendment by saying “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”44 Cong. Rec. 4420 (1909). Note the wording “unearned wealth“ as distinguished from earned wages.
And this was shortly after Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia had begun the class warfare attack by preaching to the working poor: As I see it, the fairest of all taxes is of this nature [a tax on gains, profits and unearned income], laid according to wealth, and its universal adoption would be a benign blessing to mankind. The door is shut against it, and the people must continue to groan beneath the burdens of tariff taxes and robbery under the guise of law.” 44Cong. Rec. 4414 (1909).
But what these cunning con artists really had in mind was to create a tax allowing the expansion of the federal government’s manipulative iron fist over the economy which would eventually be used to squeeze the working people’s earned wages from their pockets in a more devastating manner than any tariff had ever done, and make them dependent upon government for their subsistence! But they cleverly waited for one generation to pass after the adoption of the 16th Amendment and a war to begin before completing their mission which was the imposition of the Temporary Victory Tax of 1942!
Roosevelt’s class warfare tax expanded the “income tax” upon corporations and businesses to include a 5 percent “temporary” tax upon working people’s earned wages. And although the 16th Amendment was sold as a way to tax “unearned income”, the temporary tax on working people’s earned wages was sold as a patriotic necessity in the war effort. But somehow Roosevelt’s class warfare tax, which robs the bread working people earned by the sweat of their brow, is still to this very day being collected, and its burden has constantly increased over the years, forcing millions upon millions of poor working people into a state of poverty and then dependency upon government for their subsistence, an outcome which is needed by corrupted political leaders to maintain a permanent and captive voting block!
Now, with this in mind the question is, why is there not one media personality, and this includes Glenn Beck and Mark Levin and his proposed Liberty Amendment to reform taxation, ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers original tax plan?
Why do they avoid getting to the root cause of our tax miseries which could be ended by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution?
The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money
These words, if added to our Constitution, would return us to a consumption based taxing system, our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the destructive power Congress now exercises which has socialized America‘s once free enterprise system. The words would also help to end Congress’ current love affair with class warfare, which it now uses to divide the people while plundering the wealth which America’s businesses and labor have produced.
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”,no longer in print.
Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.
Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.
Collecting is far different than imposing the amount.
Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.
Consumers do. They call it high prices.
No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?
Why do you think greedy corporations (or anyone else) have a right to price gouge?
