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

[bripat9643]

Are you suggesting we don't have tax loopholes that are taken advantage of by the rich? Is it really a necessity to prove something like that?

Now your moving the goal posts. You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system." Which tax loopholes are those?

Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!

They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.

NAFTA isn't a tax loophole. There are no "tax incentives" in it. All it does is remove tariffs on goods imported from the NAFTA countries.

Try again.

 

[bripat9643]

Now your moving the goal posts. You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system." Which tax loopholes are those?

Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!

They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.

There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric. We did it however too fast and too out of control.

Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment, and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.

People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy." There never was any such thing.

Here's the reality: in the past the US was responsible for a large share for the world's production of goods and services. Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share. More production overseas means more competition for US firms. You can't have one without the other.

 

[bripat9643]

You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights? Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?

As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means.


As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:

1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.

2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.

3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.

4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.

5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.

6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.

7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire.

The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.

Opinions are cool.

But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.

BINGO!

The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, they aren't crooks since they haven't broken any laws. On the other hand, we know the Obama administration is overpopulated with crooks.

I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.

A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.

Of course, you are wrong. We live under the rule of law. People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals. People not so convicted are not.

So you're not a criminal if you don't get caught?

 

[PMZ]

You're saying that being secure in persons, papers, houses, and effects isn't an express right to privacy outlined in the Bill of Rights? Did they just put secure in there with no issuance of warrants without just cause as like a "hey, you can if you feel like it, but it's not like we're saying you CANT just go through everyone's stuff whenever you feel like it"?

As for the rest, yes some cases were argued in such a manner that some judge apparently gets to decide how the English language gets to be interpreted and what the law is saying by not saying it. Yes, please, let me rely on the political maneuvering of guys I hate to tell me what secure means.


As for the questions, my personal opinions you've asked for are as follows:

1. Privacy is privacy is privacy. My private dealings are mine own. My emails (my effects which are to be secure) are not something open for scrutiny. My web traffic the same. Any dealings I have in the public are public. If I'm at the store and they have a security camera, that is their right for the store security. Anything private is private. I'm not sure how else I should explain privacy than that.

2. Privacy rights and economic rights are the difference between private and public. Are there confidential contracts? Yes. As long as contracts do not break laws or force someone to commit a crime then those are valid contracts. The very idea of a contract is that it is generally available up locally and open for scrutiny.

3. Any argument a state should make about its own laws can be summed up by the tenth amendment. Unless all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved to the states and the people meant something other than what plain English states.

4. Wording protecting privacy in an amendment? I thought the fourth amendment was clear, but I guess lawyers have messed that up. I honestly don't know, but anything that makes it clear to stay out of my private life.

5. It should be interpreted for personal liberty. Defining marriage shouldn't be the governments role.

6. Peter the Great shouldn't even enter into a discussion about America. As far as personal appearance, that's personal liberty. As a sailor I am accustomed to the rules of personal appearance that must be maintained. But I did sign a contract and agreed to it. No matter how much I would advocate to reverse these policies restricting freedoms for no logical reason.

7. Abortion is that argument that will end relationships and tear apart families. My opinion is simple. When the chromosomes match my chromosomes then that is when abortion should not be allowed, excepting safety of the mother of course. Bird eggs are more protected than children that match you and I scientifically, making them human. This I disagree with. Children are a responsibility, and they made their choice when they took the risk of getting pregnant by having sex. Yes people get raped and they can have the choice if that's what they desire.

The government should not have the authority to force individuals to make any decision, only protect those that are helpless.

Opinions are cool.

But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.

No. The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law. Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.

 

[PMZ]

Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!

They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.

There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric. We did it however too fast and too out of control.

Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment, and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.

People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy." There never was any such thing.

Here's the reality: in the past the US was responsible for a share for the world's production of goods and services. Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share. More production overseas means more competition for US firms. You can't have one without the other.

It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.

However, it's self explanatory and relevant.

Businesses in the US used to be US centric. That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary. Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.

They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.

They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.

Now we, as a country, are supporting those that they abandoned.

My point is that if they have no loyalty to us, we owe them none.

Simple.

 

[PMZ]

I guess I should pay a bunch of money to get the law changed so I could murder people without being a murderer. Then as long as I changed the law I'm a law abiding citizen and can't be considered a criminal. Cause yeah that's how the world works.

A crook is a crook no matter what laws he changed to make being a crook legal.

Of course, you are wrong. We live under the rule of law. People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals. People not so convicted are not.

So you're not a criminal if you don't get caught?

Correct. That’s a Constitutional guarantee. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

[PMZ]

Opinions are cool.

But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.

BINGO!

The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.

That’s what our Constitution specifies. Our primary rule of law.

Do you not support our Constitution?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Opinions are cool.

But we operate under the rule of law. Including the Federal Courts exclusive responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.

No. The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law. Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.

Their opinion is the rule of law. I understand you like tone technical but in reality it's just their opinion.

 

[johnwk]

Now your moving the goal posts. You said "tax loopholes that companies paid to get created so they could cheat the system." Which tax loopholes are those?

Just cause you use a folky saying doesn't mean you actually have a point. NAFTA created an environment for jobs to move overseas. As long as a company has a headquarters located in certain areas while all their production is off in some cheaper area they get tax incentives. Take our jobs away and save even more money!

They moved the goal posts. Right on top of our heads and then kicked us in the nuts for extra points.

NAFTA isn't a tax loophole. There are no "tax incentives" in it. All it does is remove tariffs on goods imported from the NAFTA countries.

Try again.

Actually, the NAFTA does far more than remove tariffs on goods imported from the NAFTA countries.

If it wasn’t for Newt Gingrich, Clinton would not have gotten the global governance NAFTA deal passed by Congress. Perhaps you didn’t know but the NAFTA deal has nothing to do with “free trade” as panhandled by Newt Gingrich. It was all about managed trade, to be managed by internationalists un-elected by the American people!

Under the Newt/Clinton NAFTA deal the regulation of America’s trade is now in the hands of “Bi-national Panels” a majority of whom are foreigners, and make arbitrarily and binding decisions concerning America’s commerce with Canada and Mexico see Establishment of Bi-national Panels

What the NAFTA legislation was really designed to accomplish was the same thing progressives accomplished with the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, which unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress-- the power to regulate the value of our nation’s currency—and placed that power in the hands of a body –the Federal Reserve Board --not elected by or accountable to the American People!

Likewise, under the Newt/Clinton NAFTA, Congress’s assigned duty to regulate commerce with foreign nations was usurped from the hands of the American People’s elected representatives and was placed in the hands of a group of internationalists who are not elected by or accountable to the American People. And, this same progressive agenda has now been established under Obama’s financial reform bill. Un-elected presidential appointees now get to make ‘financial decisions” which affect our lives, our liberties and our property, the very kind of arbitrary power which our founding fathers rejected when creating a legislature elected by the people, and limited their powers as enumerated in our written Constitution.

JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[bripat9643]

The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.

BINGO!

The worm keeps blabbering about the rule of law and then admits he believes in the rule of nine men and women on the Supreme Court.

That’s what our Constitution specifies. Our primary rule of law.

Do you not support our Constitution?

No it doesn't. Nowhere does the Constitution specify that the Supreme Court will be the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution. Even if it did, it still wouldn't be the "rule of law." It would be rule by the Supreme Court, rule by men, rule by nine political hacks especially chosen for having the correct political opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, you are wrong. We live under the rule of law. People who are convicted of breaking our laws are criminals. People not so convicted are not.

So you're not a criminal if you don't get caught?

Correct. That’s a Constitutional guarantee. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That may be the legal principle, but it often differs with reality. We know O.J. was guilty, despite what the jury decided.

 

[johnwk]

The rule of law being interpreted by the courts is really just their opinion.

No. The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law. Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.

Their opinion is the rule of law.

You are absolutely wrong! Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[bripat9643]

There probably was a need for a transition from a US centric economy to world centric. We did it however too fast and too out of control.

Now we are paying the piper with stubborn unemployment, and business leaders without incentive to fix it with growth.

People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy." There never was any such thing.

Here's the reality: in the past the US was responsible for a share for the world's production of goods and services. Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share. More production overseas means more competition for US firms. You can't have one without the other.

It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.

However, it's self explanatory and relevant.

Businesses in the US used to be US centric. That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary. Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.

They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.

They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.

Now we, as a country, are supporting those that they abandoned.

My point is that if they have no loyalty to us, we owe them none.

Simple.

That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing. Trade has been around for 10,000 years. Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas. There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers. The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.

 

[Gadawg73]

Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.

 

[PMZ]

No. The rule of law interpreted by the courts is the rule of law. Interpreted by you is merely your opinion.

Their opinion is the rule of law.

You are absolutely wrong! Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.

 

[PMZ]

Always amazes me how the liberal is always telling others what THEIR fair share ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.
Bill and Hillary Clinton "donating" their used and stained underwear to charity and taking a tax deduction on it while asking others to pay more in taxes.
Real easy to be a liberal when you are spending other folks' money.

Always amazes me how the extremist is always telling others what THEIR fair share of government ought to be all the while he sits on his ass in his house and whittles down what his tax liability is.

 

[PMZ]

People who know nothing about economics invent terms like "US centric economy." There never was any such thing.

Here's the reality: in the past the US was responsible for a share for the world's production of goods and services. Now many economies have grown so the US is responsible for a smaller share. More production overseas means more competition for US firms. You can't have one without the other.

It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.

However, it's self explanatory and relevant.

Businesses in the US used to be US centric. That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary. Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.

They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.

They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.

Now we, as a country, are supporting those that they abandoned.

My point is that if they have no loyalty to us, we owe them none.

Simple.

That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing. Trade has been around for 10,000 years. Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas. There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers. The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.

The difference between you and I is that I prefer full employment for the country.

 

[PMZ]

It's quite possible that you don't understand the term "US centric economy." Likely in fact.

However, it's self explanatory and relevant.

Businesses in the US used to be US centric. That means they serviced the interests of the US as a priority. Then the computer/Internet age came and the world shrunk. Business saw the markets growing in China and India and other developing countries. Their interests in the US became secondary. Their interest in developing markets grew exponentially.

They got into those new markets by moving manufacturing to them. Quid pro quo.

They abandoned the country that they flourished in for greener pastures.

Now we, as a country, are supporting those that they abandoned.

My point is that if they have no loyalty to us, we owe them none.

Simple.

That's a lot of blabber signifying nothing. Trade has been around for 10,000 years. Over the centuries it has gotten cheaper and cheaper to ship goods overseas. There was nothing unique about the process that occurred with the invention of computers. The terms "US centric" is Jingoist propaganda, not economics.

The difference between you and I is that I prefer business to grow to full employment for the country.

 

[johnwk]

Their opinion is the rule of law.

You are absolutely wrong! Our Constitution, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. Not opinions handed down by our Courts which violate our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And this applies to Obama's care's shared responsibility payment, which happens to be a direct tax upon individuals and is not being apportioned among the States as required by our Constitution.

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

Our Constitution is written and is there for all to look at. You confuse what is written in our Constitution as being "opinion".


JWK


“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)