It's Class Warfare Alright.

[jeff f]

What you don't seem to comprehend is the difference between supporting the greed/selfishness of a wealthy prick and supporting an individuals RIGHT to be a selfish/greedy wealthy prick. If being a lonely, unloved miser is his/her choice, at least in this country, they have every damned right to live that life. Your position, simply put, is that because the individual accumulated wealth, he/she isn't afforded the same protections as an individual who isn't as successful.

Class warfare, plain and simple. It's ugly and it's Un-American... just like all Progressive initiatives.

progressives know better. when are you gonna learn? they are smarter than you and UTI. you guys are just a bunch of dummies.

 

[bedspirit]

Your issue is that you believe wealth is distributed, and not earned.

I'm all for closing the tax loop holes, including those I benefit from (mortgage interest deduction, etc.). I want to see a fair tax system, to where everyone has equal standing, regardless of income, age, assets, etc..
Everyone pays a flat fee per person (no exceptions)? Fine by me.
Everyone pays a flat rate on income (without deductions)? Fine by me.
Everyone pays a flat rate on consumption (without exemptions)? Fine by me - in fact that is my favorite.

While I'm against the concept of compulsory taxation, I am more against a tax code that is not applied equally to each person.

Our biggest problem is not how we derive government revenues, but the amount we spend as well as what it goes to pay. One of the ways to fix this is to return the government to what is in the constitution, then call a constitutional convention. That document is in need of an update, but we need to follow it before we modify it. We wouldn't have half of the issues we have now if we didn't allow our government to violate its own charter.

The issue I have with posts like yours is you're defending the segment of America that needs it the least. How did you become so enamored with your corporate masters? I tried to point out to you that they're not overtaxed and they're certainly not victims of some socialist plot to take their money. They are the only ones who have actually become wealthier over the last three years.

You come back with the Fair Tax. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time arguing over a vague hypothetical that will never happen. I'd much rather argue about where the welfare in this country is really going. Guys like you should raising hell about the FED inflating the value of your dollars away, just to take care of investors and bankers on Wallstreet. The bailouts, the stimulus, ALEC, the list goes on and on. I just can't deal with the fact you think some poor people on food stamps have a bigger impact on your life than the FED and all their corporate butt buddies.

When you say returning to the constitution, what the hell are you talking about? I hear that phrase a lot, but no one ever explains what they mean! No more illegal wars? No more abuse of the commerce clause? What is it? Where is that magic detail in the constitution that's going to turn this giant ponzi scheme around?

 

[dukeanthony]

When you say returning to the constitution, what the hell are you talking about? I hear that phrase a lot, but no one ever explains what they mean! No more illegal wars? No more abuse of the commerce clause? What is it? Where is that magic detail in the constitution that's going to turn this giant ponzi scheme around?

The part where We could own slaves
only land owning white males could vote
And it was Ok to kill native americans becuase they were less than Human and occupied Our land we took with Gods blessing?

 

[bedspirit]

Originally Posted by undertheice
as the cost of supplying a better life to everyone causes the economies of the west to come crashing down, the shortsightedness of those progressive programs becomes more and more apparent. that the growth and well-being of european welfare states was inextricably linked to and dependent upon the growth of america's economy became apparent when our own crash resulted in their near total collapse. our salvation may be that we have lagged behind their dependence on the state, but you would have us believe that increasing that dependence is necessary for the well-being of our own society. on this i call bullshit. a strong private sector has been what allowed us to endure these progressive policies of redistribution. thanks to the wealth created by those private sector industries you love to consider greedy and obsolete, we have had the funds to waste on these pie in the sky fiascoes. well, that is quickly coming to an end. the insistence that the public fund these programs has sent wealth and jobs fleeing from our shores. a lot of those folks who found that better life through the auspices of the state are now tasting poverty one again. one generation, two generations, three generations of state enforced redistribution and the house of cards is already tumbling down. cheaper labor, a lower cost of living and a lower cost of doing business are making moving to more friendly climes a better bet. building limited infrastructure is far less expensive than dealing with the threats of a business hostile government and this is what we have created by demanding "the good life" for all. how long can this better life created by the welfare state exist without industry to fund its excesses?

So you have a big problem with the welfare system but apparently have no problem with the corporate welfare system. You think our government is hostile toward business? Business is our government. Do you really believe that businesses become successful by honest competition? No. You're paying for them and now they're dependent on you. Let me give you an example:

Walmart didn't spread across the country because they were better selling cheap crap than Target or Kmart. They did it by negotiating special deals with each town they moved to. They'd promise to hire hundreds of workers and generate a bunch of money in the form of sales tax, but in exchange they'd want a deal. Sometimes that deal would consist of a lease far below market value, subsidization of the cost of construction, or an exemption on property taxes. They'd even get towns to compete against one another in order to get the best deal. Of course once they moved in, all the local business that weren't being subsidized by the tax payers couldn't compete. This kind of corporate welfare takes place at every level of government from local to federal. That's why the largest businesses in the country can afford to spend hundreds of millions on political campaigns and lobbyists. You didn't think they'd invest that kind of money into something and not make a profit, did you? That profit is comes in the form of regulations that stifle competition, tax breaks, and subsidies.

The thing that boggles my mind is how you look at these guys and credit them with our high standard of living. As you put it, they have "allowed us endure progressive policies of redistribution". Just how much redistribution do you think is going on? You have to be fucking dirt poor to qualify for any kind of assistance. What do you suppose we spent more on, food stamps or the bailouts? Unemployment or QE1 and QE2?

 

[bedspirit]

The part where We could own slaves
only land owning white males could vote
And it was Ok to kill native americans becuase they were less than Human and occupied Our land we took with Gods blessing?

Outlawing slavery in this country was completely unnecessary. We should have just let the free market take care of that. Slaves are expensive. You have to feed them at least once a day. You have to buy them clothes and provide them housing. It's much cheaper to just move production to a third world country where you can pay each worker a nickel a day.

Hat tip: The Yes Men.

 

[Coals]

"It's class warfare. My class is winning but we shouldn't be"
-Warren Buffet

 

[txpete77]

The issue I have with posts like yours is you're defending the segment of America that needs it the least. How did you become so enamored with your corporate masters?

The issue you have is that I am defending an idea that is not popular... I defend the corporations on issues of taxes because the government sees fit to take from those who have earned it, and give to other who have not earned it. I do not defend the corporations and banks when they take government bailouts... this is also theft. TARP was one of the worst cases of corporate welfare in history... I condemned it as soon as I heard of it. Stick around long enough and you will see me rail on corporate welfare if the subject is ever approached.

I tried to point out to you that they're not overtaxed and they're certainly not victims of some socialist plot to take their money. They are the only ones who have actually become wealthier over the last three years.

I'm repeating myself (although not to you). Taxing corporations is really a moot point. A corporation derives its money from consumers, and any taxes paid are structured into the price of it's product. Economists have done extensive studies on this and have found that on average, 22% of the price paid at the final purchase point of a product or service is ultimately paid to the government (at the federal level). You also act like a corporation is a separate entity in itself, while in reality a corporation is nothing more than an association of investors (who happen to be people). What's wrong with them making money? As long as they do not commit force or fraud in the course of their financial endeavors, you should be applauding them for their success, instead of engaging in this quest of wealth envy.

You come back with the Fair Tax. I'm not a fan of it, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time arguing over a vague hypothetical that will never happen.

Find in this thread where I said anything about the FairTax. I did mention a fair tax, but not the FairTax (HR 25). While we're on it though, I do support implementing it, but have one serious critique, that it does grant an exception to education. This exemption like all others, will lead to more exemptions - and eventually an endlessly complex tax code due to lobbyists trying to get exemptions for their clients products and services. As far as it will never happen? That was said a few decades ago when people talked of a black president...

I'd much rather argue about where the welfare in this country is really going. Guys like you should raising hell about the FED inflating the value of your dollars away, just to take care of investors and bankers on Wallstreet. The bailouts, the stimulus, ALEC, the list goes on and on. I just can't deal with the fact you think some poor people on food stamps have a bigger impact on your life than the FED and all their corporate butt buddies.

When did I say that? You're assuming quite a bit here. I would love to see the Fed come to an end, I would love to see us go back to a gold standard. I would love to see stimulus, bailouts, special favors, etc... come to an end.

When you say returning to the constitution, what the hell are you talking about? I hear that phrase a lot, but no one ever explains what they mean! No more illegal wars? No more abuse of the commerce clause? What is it? Where is that magic detail in the constitution that's going to turn this giant ponzi scheme around?

I mean to force the government to abide by its charter, in its current form (with all 27 amendments). Remove any grants to religious organizations from the budget, enforce the 2nd amendment, end federal drug prohibition, end any federal agency that is not specified in constitution. Stop the federal screenings at airports (these can be handled by the airlines/airports), etc... I could go on all night with many of the things our government does that it has no authority on, but I think you catch my drift.

 

[txpete77]

The part where We could own slaves
only land owning white males could vote
And it was Ok to kill native americans becuase they were less than Human and occupied Our land we took with Gods blessing?

Show me where it says that in the Constitution? You must be using a copy that dates back to the 1850's...

 

[dukeanthony]

Stop the federal screenings at airports (these can be handled by the airlines/airports), etc... I could go on all night with many of the things our government does that it has no authority on, but I think you catch my drift.

Right there is enough wackiness for a week

 

[dukeanthony]

Originally, the Framers were very careful about avoiding the words "slave" and "slavery" in the text of the Constitution. Instead, they used phrases like "importation of Persons" at Article 1, Section 9 for the slave trade, "other persons" at Article 1, Section 2, and "person held to service or labor" at Article 4, Section 2 for slaves. Not until the 13th Amendment was slavery mentioned specifically in the Constitution. There the term was used to ensure that there was to be no ambiguity as what exactly the words were eliminating. In the 14th Amendment, the euphemism "other persons" (and the three-fifths value given a slave) was eliminated. The Slavery Topic Page has a lot more detail.

 

[dukeanthony]

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.
17901790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.180018101810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.182018401850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1VidG0xco

 

[dukeanthony]

1. Protection from the “Blood Thirsty Heathen Red Savages”
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set a pattern for settlement and statehood for territories in the West. The West at this time was the Great Lakes as well as the rich Ohio and Mississippi River Valleys. This was passed even though the Proclamation of 1763 and Treaties with many Native American Nations prohibited settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains. That proclamation was under the British Crown though and since the United Sates just won a war with said Crown, they felt no need to honor any treaties between the British Crown and any Native American Nations. The fact that America was a new Nation and claimed territories west of the Appalachians said to all “We own all and we shall take it.”
With this concept of “take and take” American settlers poured across the Appalachian Mountains and onto Native American Nations territory as well as territory claimed under British rule, French rule and even Spanish rule. This created many issues with Great Britain, France and Spain. It also created a massive amount of problems with the Native American Nations. Not to mention the fact that there was already high tension with Native American Nations in what was the borders of the United States.
Americans felt that they could not trust the Native Americans. This was for many reasons including the support of many Native American Nations as Allies to Great Britain during the Revolution. The fact that the Native Peoples had been split by Europeans since before the French & Indian War and that many Native American Nations helped the American Colonists in the French & Indian War and the American Revolution was completely and utterly forgotten. Now the great United States saw the Native American Nations as nothing more than a hindrance and a nuisance. America also feared the Native Americans. The Native Peoples of this land were often referred to as “Blood Thirsty Savages, Heathen Red Savages, Merciless Savages and Barbarians” as well as other derogatory terms by just about everyone from the average farmer to the well-off merchant and the “Founding Fathers.”
In fact the most illustrious and sacred document of freedom and liberty the Declaration of Independence refers to Native Americans as “…the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions” Article XXVII.
Colonial Law from as early as the late 17th Century gave permission to “. . .kill savage Indians on sight and at will.” Sadly, the United States did not argue this part of Colonial Rule and added this law to fit their own needs. Each state was allowed to pass laws allowing the legalized murder of Native Americans. Although some say that the famous phrase “The only good Indian is a dead Indian” is attributed to General Sheridan of Civil War fame, its original creation goes back to American Colonial times. What is truly amazing is that such laws to kill Native Americans continued to be made and passed by new territories and new states well into the 19th Century. It is also very sad that some of these state laws have just recently been amended in the late 20th Century and some have yet to be amended at all.

 

[jeff f]

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.
17901790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.180018101810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.182018401850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1VidG0xco

slavery was ended, right here on our very own soil. one of the first countries to do so. lots of our own people died fighting the battle. its over, we dont have slaves and nobody is condoning slave holding in these times.

now, whats your fucking point nitwit?

 

[dukeanthony]

Show me where it says that in the Constitution? You must be using a copy that dates back to the 1850's...

make sense now Jeff?

 

[RyanTheRhino]

[video=youtube;rtRJ-o6Lppc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRJ-o6Lppc&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

[txpete77]

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.
17901790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.180018101810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.182018401850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz1VidG0xco

We're talking about now... not the 18th, 19th, or 20th century. Not when the Constitution was written, but now... The document certainly has some flaws: most have been corrected, while some new flaws have been introduced. The Constitution was made to be amended as conditions change, however it was never meant to be violated.

You may make fun of me due to my unbending stance on the 4th amendment and its relevance to travel through airports... but what are you going to argue if a government agent searches you without consent? Nobody can rationally claim any Constitutional rights when they advocate the violation of those rights for special circumstances. Ignoring these little special circumstances is what allows a government to grow into a tyranny. We had to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, but then ignored it when it came to marijuana... now look how quickly a substance is banned (JWH-018 for example, banned by unelected bureaucrats).

Sometimes the Constitution allows for behaviors and conditions that are not desirable. When this occurs we may amend the Constitution, but how the hell do we think we can ignore it... even breifly?

 

[dukeanthony]

I totally am in love with the 4th amendment
However as part of buying a plane ticket you give up that right
And if you Love the 4th amendment as much as me you can see how Laws Like AZ show me your papers law violates it

 

[MuyLocoNC]

We're talking about now... not the 18th, 19th, or 20th century. Not when the Constitution was written, but now... The document certainly has some flaws: most have been corrected, while some new flaws have been introduced. The Constitution was made to be amended as conditions change, however it was never meant to be violated.

You may make fun of me due to my unbending stance on the 4th amendment and its relevance to travel through airports... but what are you going to argue if a government agent searches you without consent? Nobody can rationally claim any Constitutional rights when they advocate the violation of those rights for special circumstances. Ignoring these little special circumstances is what allows a government to grow into a tyranny. We had to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, but then ignored it when it came to marijuana... now look how quickly a substance is banned (JWH-018 for example, banned by unelected bureaucrats).

Sometimes the Constitution allows for behaviors and conditions that are not desirable. When this occurs we may amend the Constitution, but how the hell do we think we can ignore it... even breifly?

Well said. Once you give the government the prerogative to violate your Constitutional rights, it will never relinquish that power. This is the shortsidedness of the statist, that same granted power that advances your agenda so easily when your representatives are in power, will be used against you tenfold when your opponents are in power.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

I totally am in love with the 4th amendment
However as part of buying a plane ticket you give up that right
And if you Love the 4th amendment as much as me you can see how Laws Like AZ show me your papers law violates it

Gotta agree with you there. The recent AZ laws absolutely violate the 4th amendment, a poorly conceived response to the Federal government blatantly ignoring it's responsibility to enforce our immigration laws. The ends do not justify the means. They're simply going about it wrong, all they have to do is make it impossible to employ an illegal immigrant. It's easily done and well within the state's powers to do so.

 

[dukeanthony]

Gotta agree with you there. The recent AZ laws absolutely violate the 4th amendment, a poorly conceived response to the Federal government blatantly ignoring it's responsibility to enforce our immigration laws. The ends do not justify the means. They're simply going about it wrong, all they have to do is make it impossible to employ an illegal immigrant. It's easily done and well within the state's powers to do so.

Name a Adminstration that has deported more Illegals than this one