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

[PMZ]

Here's the problem that the syncophants have. There is probably nobody in the country who doesn't respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. They worked hard, were the right people in the right place at the right time, ended up fabulously wealthy, and are now doing the most good that they can do with the benefits of their good fortune and skills.

Wealth or poverty is more random luck than hard work.

Who works harder than, for instance, migrant workers?

But some people are born of natural priviledge, including their parentage, their brains, their looks, their status in their community, their opportunities, their being in the right place at the right time, their mate, their family, their skills and interests and so forth. Some are born of natural disadvantage.

Gates and Buffett accepted their good fortune, and with infinite grace, are paying it forward. They have everything that they want, and work to spread that good luck as far as possible.

At the other end of the spectrum is Rush Limbaugh. Made over a billion dollars without adding one penney of value to the world around him. Spends all of his good fortune recruiting folks to support his campaign to pay back less of what luck has brought him. A pure taker and load for the human race.

All of the above are wealthy but their worth spans the spectrum.

So, nobody is against wealth. What people are against is waste.

It's like insurance. The people who have benefited from good fortune pay for the people who have suffered from bad fortune, and the human race evens things out.

Your bias is showing. Limbaugh gave more to charity than either Gates or Buffet.

How much did Obama and Biden give? How about Pelosi and Reid? How about Maher and Matthews? How about Michael Moore? Liberals never give like conservatives----they just demand that everyone else do it.

Limbaugh hasn't even made in his whole "career" what both Gates and Buffett have pledged to give away.

 

[PMZ]

We should fix it. Fixing it means that government gets out of the way and allows people to make something of themselves. What you want to do is make it worse. Money does not come out of nowhere. Every dollar you give to Peter you stole from Paul. Peter's getting money for not working, Paul is losing money he worked for. Neither is incented to work.

Give me one example of government in the way and preventing people from making something of themselves

- The minimum wage prevents people not worth $7.25 from working. It is not a tide, it is a hurdle.

- As an employer, if I give someone a shot and they don't work out and I fire them, the government sticks me with a bunch of taxes to pay for their unemployment.

- The government jacks up the cost of every employee by piling on payroll, unemployment, workers comp, healthcare and other benefit mandates and taxes.

- There is no penalty for unemployment filings for people who don't qualify, so over and over I have to follow up and file paperwork and appear at hearings for people who keep filing. They lose every time, but they do it because there is no risk to them and if I don't file and appear at every hearing they win by default.

- Even though my business is in a "Right to Work" state (North Carolina), endless regulations like ADA, age, race, sex and other regulation applies and government like unemployment completely represents the employee and there is no consequence to their filing to try to extort money from me even when there is zero case. Again, I've won every time but what a monumental waste of money.

- If I take people from part to full time, a bunch of more regulations apply.

- Government forces everyone in certain jobs, industries or for companies to join a union and forces companies to bargain with them even when they have no market power behind them, just government force.

Sorry, you said give you "one." This is actually just a start. All employers hesitate to hire until we absolutely have to because you can't buy the milk, you buy the cow. Government should want to make us quick to hire, not make it our last resort.

All inept employers hesitate to hire because they hope to keep that money In their pocket by squeezing more from current employees. Good businessmen love to hire because it signifies growth for everyone.

 

[PMZ]

You two may be talking about different subjects. He's talking about government regulations that put a brake on the economy that we would all agree need to go away, and you are talking about necessary government intrusion that we would all agree needs to be there to stop certain corporations from monopolizing labor rates. What we need to do is refocus the government onto the things we need it to do and away from things like telling us what type of toilet we have to use and forcing us to invest in a zero return on investment retirement system.

You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.

Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.

That's not rocket science.

Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic. We have a federal system of government. I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.

We are a democracy and we are a republic because we don't have a monarch. To know those things one has to get out of the Lazy Boy, leave your cult leaders blaring away from their little boxes, and read a dictionary. Tough for you, I know.

 

[PMZ]

You seem to be unaware that we are a democracy. We vote for the people that we believe will run the country in the way that we think that it needs to be run. If they don't, we fire them.

Feel free to vote for anyone that you think will do a better job. If enough others agree with you, maybe your guy will win. If more others disagree with you, you're going to lose.

That's not rocket science.

Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic. We have a federal system of government. I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.

To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start. They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.

We started as a republic and have always been because we've never had a monarch. What you are talking about is that we started as a plutocracy, ammended our Constitution to become a democracy and Republicans would like to take us back to a plutocracy and are promoting a power grab of the wealthy to achieve that. That is what will be inscribed on the tombstone of the GOP.

Fortunately, we are American and don't surrender government of, for, and by, we, the people.

 

[kaz]

Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic. We have a federal system of government. I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.

To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start. They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.

We started as a republic and have always been because we've never had a monarch. What you are talking about is that we started as a plutocracy, ammended our Constitution to become a democracy and Republicans would like to take us back to a plutocracy and are promoting a power grab of the wealthy to achieve that. That is what will be inscribed on the tombstone of the GOP.

Fortunately, we are American and don't surrender government of, for, and by, we, the people.

My God you're lazy. You don't even need to buy a dictionary, you can just Google terms. Liking the way a word sounds doesn't mean you can redefine it to mean whatever you want. I'm sure there's some coherent thought in your head (let's go with that), but your butchering of the English language is not resulting in coherent thoughts in your posts.

 

[PMZ]

Actually we are not a democracy, we are a republic. We have a federal system of government. I know you don't know what those words mean and don't want to bother to look them up, but someone else may be reading your misinformation, this is for them.

To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start. They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.

Agreed. I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them. Today we really are a democracy. Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority. With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority. You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left. What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.

Republican advertising for the return to a plutocracy of old white wealthy Christian men.

Ain't going to happen. We're America. It's our government. If you don't like that, be free and move to a place with a government that gives you power over others.

 

[PMZ]

To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start. They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.

Agreed. I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them. Today we really are a democracy. Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority. With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority. You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left. What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.

Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...

Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.

You can live in total freedom. Just not on this overcrowded planet, or in these troubled times.

 

[kaz]

Agreed. I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them. Today we really are a democracy. Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority. With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority. You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left. What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.

Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...

Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.

You can live in total freedom. Just not on this overcrowded planet, or in these troubled times.

Your argument that there is a price to pay to live in society does not logically in any way justify your attempt to maximize that pain.

 

[PMZ]

Agreed. I was referring to our actual laws, not the current implementation of them. Today we really are a democracy. Which the founders opposed for the reason of what it created in this country, a tyranny of the majority. With of course the tyrannical majority being the self proclaimed protector of the minority. You can be black, female, gay or whatever and that's fine to the left. What you cannot do is think differently or want to make your own choices.

Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...

Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.

Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times. And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then. Separate subject. Separate debate.

The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.

So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.

We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.

My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, and again to be fair, the right's tyrannical majority is the newly self proclaimed protector of the christian right moral prohibitionists, you can be any race cause that's in the book, but you can't get married if you happen to be gay, and you can only do "prescription" drugs in your home, ...

Both the left and the right are being run by authoritarians. It does not matter which side is in power, neither side has the desire to let the other side live in freedom.

Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times. And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then. Separate subject. Separate debate.

The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.

So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.

We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.

My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.

Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant. You are saying what our great leader says they meant. I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.

 

[PMZ]

To be fair, we started out as a republic, and the federalists have been tearing that down from the start. They want it to be a one payer one government rule tyranny by a simple majority democracy and they will stop at nothing to get there. The 14th Amendment basically ended the republic, we're just watching it happen in slow mo.

We started as a republic and have always been because we've never had a monarch. What you are talking about is that we started as a plutocracy, ammended our Constitution to become a democracy and Republicans would like to take us back to a plutocracy and are promoting a power grab of the wealthy to achieve that. That is what will be inscribed on the tombstone of the GOP.

Fortunately, we are American and don't surrender government of, for, and by, we, the people.

My God you're lazy. You don't even need to buy a dictionary, you can just Google terms. Liking the way a word sounds doesn't mean you can redefine it to mean whatever you want. I'm sure there's some coherent thought in your head (let's go with that), but your butchering of the English language is not resulting in coherent thoughts in your posts.

Republic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If you think that Americans are so stupid as to let tyrants take us back to plutocratic times from our hard earned democratic times by redefining English to Newspeak, you have no idea what Americans are.

 

[RKMBrown]

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

 

[PMZ]

Social cultural mores/policies/points of view have always been a factor in the American culture before the Revolution, after the Revolution, during the development of our Constitution, during the ratification process, and all the centuries since to present times. And they are as irrelevent to the intent and content of the Constitution now as they were then. Separate subject. Separate debate.

The Founders intended that all government influence or policy be unrelated to class, that property must be recognized as an unalienable right of the person who acquired it via legal means, and that the Constitution would allow the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and allow the various colonies/states to function efficiently as one nation, but would be strictly limited in what it would be allowed to do.

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

It really began to fall apart when Teddy Roosevelt declared the Constitution allowed government to do anything the Constitution did not expressly prohibit rather than the Founders' intent that the Federal government was restricted only to what the Constitution allowed.

So now we have designated classes in our tax code, we have protected classes of people, we have political correctness, and we have a government that serves itself first meaning that it swells and bloats and becomes ever more expensive, ever more intrusive, ever more coercive as it drains more and more resources from the people while throwing them back a few crumbs to keep them quiet and obedient.

We need to bust the federal government back to its original purpose or we will lose our Republic as we have known it.

My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.

Foxfyre is saying what they said and wrote in their personal papers that they meant. You are saying what our great leader says they meant. I see why you're going with the latter, a socialist would clearly know what the Founders of the United States meant more than they did.

I'm saying that the Federalists and Antifederalists settled their debate in favor of Federalism. And because of that we caught up to and surpassed Europe.

 

[RKMBrown]

My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.

Interesting my new rule of thumb is to stop reading when I encounter the tag PMZ.

 

[PMZ]

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

Anarchy is a tough sell to people used to democracy. Government of, by, and for the people. Anarchy always, always, always, is very short term and results in tyranny. The guy with the biggest club. Latest evidence? Afghanistan.

 

[PMZ]

My rule of thumb is to always stop reading if I encounter the words, "founders intended". My experience is what follows those words is always what the writer wishes to be true.

Interesting my new rule of thumb is to stop reading when I encounter the tag PMZ.

Ignorant people always have strategies to maintain their ignorance. It's the only way that they can feel right.

 

[Foxfyre]

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well PMZ I read your first word... Not surprised... "anarchy." Yeah that's what we had under Reagan, anarchy. Anything less than absolute facist or communist control for you mother ___ers is anarchy. I can't wait to see people like you have to go back to work to earn a living you cry baby.

 

[RKMBrown]

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

I get your gist. But they would define your benefit for all clause as permission to end all private enterprise and convert every industry to communist rule where everyone is forced to work for everyone at the control of government for the benefit of all.

The founders had a better system, I suggest we go back to it.

 

[PMZ]

The intent is that the people would have their rights secured, meaning they would not be allowed to commit economic, environmental, or physical violence upon each other. And then they otherwise would be totally free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have unhindered by any monarch, papal authority, dictator, or any other form of authoritarian government.

The 14th Amendment could be seen as a correction of earlier flawed policy that did not protect the unalienable rights of all but allowed the people to pick and choose who would have rights and who would not and gave government greater latitude in enforcing that. If our politicians had stuck to that principle there would have been no problem.

The 14th is a very long amendment with many clauses. Through incorporation our tyrannical government leaders have used the 14th as a basis to eliminate the 10th amendment (our republic) by incorporating whatever laws the feds make to apply to the states. Through the farce of "due process" our tyrannical government leaders have also used the 14th amendment to take away our life, liberty, and property with whatever they deem as a legal process. Of late, legal process is whatever joke/farce the dictator in chief and his cabinet says is a legal process. Hell look at the un-patriot act, talk about a farce.

Principaled? Tyrants are never principled. The authoritarians just love it when their unprincipled tyrant puts the screws to the other sides authoritarians.

Freedom loving people ... yeah they get screwed by both sides of this authoritarian farce we call a government. It's time to throw them all out and start over.

All we have to do to fix it is one more amendment that specifies that those in federal government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, cannot use the people's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic circumstances. There would be no more tax payer funded health plans, retirement plans, or essentially unlimited expense accounts. Congressmen, appointees, and government employees alike would be paid a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and would fund their own retirement and health plans that they could take with them but would be their responsibility to fund after they leave government as well.

That simple concept would return public servants to government as career politicians and bureaucrats would no longer be interested in serving as they would no longer be able to use our money to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And those public servants would then be able to start the slow and careful process of rolling back all the government overreach that has occurred over the decades.

I do believe this is the last generation with any hope of being able to do that.

I'm glad that you took the time to inform America's electorate of the consequences of empowering Republicans. My goal has always been to keep the electorate informed. Then let our democracy work it's magic.

My enemies are the media moguls paid lavishly to advertise for the GOP 24/7/365. They employ marketing Newspeak to uninformed the electorate.

For those not familiar with Newspeak, here's a good explanation.

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia