James Madison, a framer of our constitution, warned of the dangers of extreme...

[Billy000]

...wealth inequality.

"The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

- James Madison

FACT: the top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of earners own 7% of the nation's wealth.

A few things can be taken away from the above information.

The founding fathers wouldn't even have lunch with someone from the rightwing teabaggers or republicans in general for that matter. They obviously believed in government intervention where today's republicans are very much against. Truth be told the framers were the equivalent of modern day liberals.

Republicanism is one giant political lie.

 

[The T]

...wealth inequality.

"The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

- James Madison

FACT: the top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of earners own 7% of the nation's wealth.

A few things can be taken away from the above information.

The founding fathers wouldn't even have lunch with someone from the rightwing teabaggers. They obviously believed in government intervention where today's republicans are very much against. Truth be told the framers were the equivalent of modern day liberals.

Republicanism is one giant political lie.

He didn't mean Government Centralized control...and that is the point YOU are trying to make. Your premise is FALSE.

 

[Sallow]

...wealth inequality.

"The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

- James Madison

FACT: the top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of earners own 7% of the nation's wealth.

A few things can be taken away from the above information.

The founding fathers wouldn't even have lunch with someone from the rightwing teabaggers. They obviously believed in government intervention where today's republicans are very much against. Truth be told the framers were the equivalent of modern day liberals.

Republicanism is one giant political lie.

He didn't mean Government Centralized control...and that is the point YOU are trying to make. Your premise is FALSE.

No it's not.

We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions.

James Madison?s Prescient Warning | JONATHAN TURLEY

You seem to know very little about this country.

 

[Billy000]

...wealth inequality.

"The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

- James Madison

FACT: the top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of earners own 7% of the nation's wealth.

A few things can be taken away from the above information.

The founding fathers wouldn't even have lunch with someone from the rightwing teabaggers. They obviously believed in government intervention where today's republicans are very much against. Truth be told the framers were the equivalent of modern day liberals.

Republicanism is one giant political lie.

He didn't mean Government Centralized control...and that is the point YOU are trying to make. Your premise is FALSE.

Then what did he mean? What else could possibly solve such a problem?

 

[Sallow]

What happened to Tommy?

He had such a good start!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

 

[Sallow]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

It's all here.

In black and white. English too.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What part of that don't you understand?

 

[KNB]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

You obviously don't understand how wrong you are. Of course it won't do any good to explain it to you because you aren't willing to listen, but let's try anyway.

When the richest 1% of the population reap 95% of financial gains:
https://www.google.com/search?q=1%25+95%25+financial+gains&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

then how are 99% of people supposed to make a living for their selves and their families? When corporate 1% "job creators" create all of the jobs in China so they don't have to pay Americans (or Chinese) a real living wage, then how are 99% of people supposed to earn a living?

No one is suggesting to "take" anything from rich people. We simply want the laws of our nation enforced on the wealthy as they are on the rest of us. No one on this board is "too big to fail", so why would anyone defend these rich criminals?

HSBC directly funded terrorism against our soldiers, and Teabaggers are still claiming that "Liberals just hate success."

 

[Billy000]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

Productivity of the lower classes has grown exponentially since the 30s yet wages have remained flat while the wealthy have only grown more wealthy. Don't you think people should be paid based on productivity?

What's the solution? Pay people fairly. What's fair? That's something economists can easily determine mathematically. Higher wages means more economic demand. The economy, and rich people will continue to thrive. Everybody wins.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

It's all here.

In black and white. English too.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What part of that don't you understand?

Taxes can not be back dated. So again seizing wealth is illegal. All you can do via the legislature is change the tax rates. That does not get you their money or their property.

Further most rich people do not make taxable income.

 

[Sallow]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

It's all here.

In black and white. English too.

Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What part of that don't you understand?

Taxes can not be back dated. So again seizing wealth is illegal. All you can do via the legislature is change the tax rates. That does not get you their money or their property.

Further most rich people do not make taxable income.

Who wants to seize everyone's wealth?

And it's not taxable, now.

Doesn't mean that can't change.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It's all here.

In black and white. English too.



What part of that don't you understand?

Taxes can not be back dated. So again seizing wealth is illegal. All you can do via the legislature is change the tax rates. That does not get you their money or their property.

Further most rich people do not make taxable income.

Who wants to seize everyone's wealth?

And it's not taxable, now.

Doesn't mean that can't change.

Any change to what is and is not taxable will effect those you claim you want to help.

 

[KNB]

What happens to the economy if multi-billion dollar corporations spend their trillions of dollars that are sitting in bank vaults?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What happens to the economy if multi-billion dollar corporations spend their trillions of dollars that are sitting in bank vaults?

And how do you force a Corporation to spend its resources? There is no legal means to do that. Nor can Congress create a law forcing them to do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

...wealth inequality.

"The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

- James Madison

FACT: the top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of earners own 7% of the nation's wealth.

A few things can be taken away from the above information.

The founding fathers wouldn't even have lunch with someone from the rightwing teabaggers or republicans in general for that matter. They obviously believed in government intervention where today's republicans are very much against. Truth be told the framers were the equivalent of modern day liberals.

Republicanism is one giant political lie.

Yeah, but that's only 81% of earners and 47% of the wealth. Do you know any math? Am I to assume that the middle class (the middle 19%) owns the other 53% of the wealth? If that is the case, your argument is one "giant political lie."

Please. And the founding fathers were nothing close to modern day liberals. They were the exact opposite. Just how many lies can you tell at once?

 

[KNB]

What happens to the economy if multi-billion dollar corporations spend their trillions of dollars that are sitting in bank vaults?

And how do you force a Corporation to spend its resources? There is no legal means to do that. Nor can Congress create a law forcing them to do so.

Who said anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything? I simply asked what would happen to the economy if corporations spent their trillions of dollars in cash.

International corporations that break record profits year after year now have trillions of dollars in cash sitting in untaxed overseas bank vaults, not being spent, not fueling our economy, but you think it's unfair for billions of struggling working families all over the world to request higher wages and health care? Like these corporations that profit billions every year and have trillions of dollars in cash can't afford it?

 

[Billy000]

...wealth inequality.

"The day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

- James Madison

FACT: the top 1% of earners own 40% of the nation's wealth. The bottom 80% of earners own 7% of the nation's wealth.

A few things can be taken away from the above information.

The founding fathers wouldn't even have lunch with someone from the rightwing teabaggers or republicans in general for that matter. They obviously believed in government intervention where today's republicans are very much against. Truth be told the framers were the equivalent of modern day liberals.

Republicanism is one giant political lie.

Yeah, but that's only 81% of earners and 47% of the wealth. Do you know any math? Am I to assume that the middle class (the middle 19%) owns the other 53% of the wealth? If that is the case, your argument is one "giant political lie."

Please. And the founding fathers were nothing close to modern day liberals. They were the exact opposite. Just how many lies can you tell at once?

Nothing you said here makes any sense, but obviously I am not surprised.

 

[Mac1958]

.

From the perspective of someone who is neck deep in this stuff 365 days a year, there's no way that the income/net worth inequality that we're seeing can be considered anything other than dangerous, on multiple levels.

But here's the bad (worse?) news: This issue, like so many others, has become political, and that's now the death knell for any kind of reasonable discourse on the topic. Once any issue becomes political now, it becomes terribly simplistic, binary, black & white, shallow, us vs. them, all or nothing, and life just ain't like that, gang.

My (unsolicited) opinion? Drop corporate tax rates but establish minimums, add two (2) new marginal personal income tax rates on the top end and push them up, also with minimums, and strengthen but significantly change the nature of unions. I'll be happy to provide specifics if anyone gives a flying fuck about my opinion, but I'll bet my ideas taken as a whole would piss off both ends of the spectrum, and I generally look at that as a very good thing.



.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

You obviously don't understand how wrong you are. Of course it won't do any good to explain it to you because you aren't willing to listen, but let's try anyway.

When the richest 1% of the population reap 95% of financial gains:
https://www.google.com/search?q=1%25+95%25+financial+gains&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

then how are 99% of people supposed to make a living for their selves and their families? When corporate 1% "job creators" create all of the jobs in China so they don't have to pay Americans (or Chinese) a real living wage, then how are 99% of people supposed to earn a living?

No one is suggesting to "take" anything from rich people. We simply want the laws of our nation enforced on the wealthy as they are on the rest of us. No one on this board is "too big to fail", so why would anyone defend these rich criminals?

HSBC directly funded terrorism against our soldiers, and Teabaggers are still claiming that "Liberals just hate success."

You obviously dont understand you are an arrogant ignorant fucker who beats the same drum over and over.
Living standards have improved for everyone over the last 50 years. So take your class warfare shit and shove it back up where it came from. Little envious snot.

 

[Billy000]

Yes because Freedom is so well defined by the seizing illegally of peoples assets because you think they have to much.

Who gets to decide what is too much? Who gets to decide what to do with the stolen goods and cash?

Of course in order to seize these goods and cash one must first strip those we deem to wealthy of their rights all across the board. That would take an amendment to the Constitution. Several actually. And would stifle growth and prosperity for all.

Further even if you take the seized goods and cash and distribute it to the poor it will only help them until they spend it or use it as they still do not have the means to produce more themselves. So then you would need to lower the bar on who is to wealthy and strip them as well. Until everyone is poor and has no means to make more.

Great plan.

You obviously don't understand how wrong you are. Of course it won't do any good to explain it to you because you aren't willing to listen, but let's try anyway.

When the richest 1% of the population reap 95% of financial gains:
https://www.google.com/search?q=1%25+95%25+financial+gains&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

then how are 99% of people supposed to make a living for their selves and their families? When corporate 1% "job creators" create all of the jobs in China so they don't have to pay Americans (or Chinese) a real living wage, then how are 99% of people supposed to earn a living?

No one is suggesting to "take" anything from rich people. We simply want the laws of our nation enforced on the wealthy as they are on the rest of us. No one on this board is "too big to fail", so why would anyone defend these rich criminals?

HSBC directly funded terrorism against our soldiers, and Teabaggers are still claiming that "Liberals just hate success."

You obviously dont understand you are an arrogant ignorant fucker who beats the same drum over and over.
Living standards have improved for everyone over the last 50 years. So take your class warfare shit and shove it back up where it came from. Little envious snot.

The republican dogma really has you by the balls.