GREAT!: Number Of 401(K) Millionaires Hits Record...

[sparky]

Equating wealth to responsibility is ludicrous , the reality is the higher up one is in corporate America, the less ethical one needs to be to stay there

Maybe, but that has noting to do with what I wrote. Only leftists can say people having more money is a negative thing, or that people taking care of themselves instead of the government doing it for them is a bad thing.

Some things are better done collectively as part of a government than having everyone do it as individuals

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

Exploitation isn't exclusively partisan Ray , dependency is created via our 'survival of the richest' shtick , where the loosers stay on the island

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe, but that has noting to do with what I wrote. Only leftists can say people having more money is a negative thing, or that people taking care of themselves instead of the government doing it for them is a bad thing.

Some things are better done collectively as part of a government than having everyone do it as individuals

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

Exploitation isn't exclusively partisan Ray , dependency is created via our 'survival of the richest' shtick , where the loosers stay on the island

Most of the time I have no idea WTF you're talking about, but just this one time, what is the Survival of the Richest shtick mean?

 

[rightwinger]

Equating wealth to responsibility is ludicrous , the reality is the higher up one is in corporate America, the less ethical one needs to be to stay there

Maybe, but that has noting to do with what I wrote. Only leftists can say people having more money is a negative thing, or that people taking care of themselves instead of the government doing it for them is a bad thing.

Some things are better done collectively as part of a government than having everyone do it as individuals

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Maybe, but that has noting to do with what I wrote. Only leftists can say people having more money is a negative thing, or that people taking care of themselves instead of the government doing it for them is a bad thing.

Some things are better done collectively as part of a government than having everyone do it as individuals

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Some things are better done collectively as part of a government than having everyone do it as individuals

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

 

[sparky]

Some things are better done collectively as part of a government than having everyone do it as individuals

I agree and so did our founders. That's why when they wrote the Constitution, they included what our federal government was to be in charge of. And if you look at what the government is in charge of today, over 90% of what they do for the people is not within that Constitution.

The counter argument to that is the founders did not forbid the federal government from doing the things they do today. That is correct, but then ask yourself: if the founders didn't want government involved in those things, why did they list the things they have to be in charge of?

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself, if we had always adhered to Madison's words, would we be anywhere near 20 trillion dollars in the hole today?

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

Exploitation isn't exclusively partisan Ray , dependency is created via our 'survival of the richest' shtick , where the loosers stay on the island

Most of the time I have no idea WTF you're talking about, but just this one time, what is the Survival of the Richest shtick mean?

No, most of the time you're playing the denail card ,and looking for a translator Ray

That's BS in the highest order , which is the penchant of the right as much as the left

IF you can't see you don't live in a meritocracy, IF you can't see the elites laughing at you because they're privelegded , while you are not, then you're simply a happy wage slave ,and subsequent tool for them to continue to do so

~S~

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution is a framework

They thought it would be better to allow future generations of We the People to decide what government services they needed

By the way, Madison’s Government was in deeper debt than we are

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

 

[Meister]

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

 

[Meister]

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, they wanted local governments to decide what their people needed---not the federal government. They understood that a nanny federal government would give them way too much power like we're seeing today. It would be a government virtually impossible to change because of the dependency. Why do you think Democrats strive to get as many people on the dole as possible? Without dependency, there would be no Democrat party.

They had no choice but to rely on local governments

The US was geographically dispersed and getting to remote areas could take months. We were also a poor country in massive debt from the war.
A strong federal government was not an option

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a strong federal government

Correct, there isn't. That's why we have the massive federal government we have today. I think it was a grave mistake on our founders part not to include many more limitations.

But I also think that they gave us (the people of the future) a lot of credit to realize what a problem a huge federal government would be like, and assume we would have the smarts to limit it ourselves.

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

A human right? Where is that written? Just because liberals decided to make that up doesn't make it a right.

 

[rightwinger]

We have a massive federal government because unlike 1782,we are the wealthiest nation on earth, have global responsibilities and 330 million people

Our founders would be aghast at the size and mission of our military....something they could not perceive

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

 

[Meister]

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

Hahahaha! Now that is a stretch......unless you're a liberal.

 

[rightwinger]

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

Hahahaha! Now that is a stretch......unless you're a liberal.

Do you know what Life is?

 

[Meister]

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

Hahahaha! Now that is a stretch......unless you're a liberal.

Do you know what Life is?

It context of the Declaration , it hasn't anything to do with healthcare.......unless you're a liberal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not talking about our military when I say size of government. I'm talking about the size in power whereas they nearly control every aspect of our life. The founders never wanted that. Independence was a key part of their creation. The larger the government, the less independence we have. We just left an administration that forced people to buy a product they either didn't want, couldn't afford, or didn't need. And if you didn't comply, they would penalize you for not marching in lockstep.

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

So what you're saying is abortion is unconstitutional? Welcome to the club.

 

[Meister]

Military is part of our Government
It’s size and degree of foreign involvement would not have been supported by our founders

Healthcare is a basic human right

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

So what you're saying is abortion is unconstitutional? Welcome to the club.

RW can't have it both ways, you made a very good point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

So what you're saying is abortion is unconstitutional? Welcome to the club.

RW can't have it both ways, you made a very good point.

Also known as Checkmate.

 

[FA_Q2]

It might be to you, but, it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

It is in the Declaration of Independence

Healthcare?

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness

Hahahaha! Now that is a stretch......unless you're a liberal.

Do you know what Life is?

Apparently it is whatever you want it to be.

I have a right to not age now. YAY.