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

[The Rabbi]

All of the deflections above reinforces the rightness of the OP.

The extreme wealth and influence of corporations and individuals threaten our country's very values.

Now that corps are 'person's, such is not so far away for unions and governments, and then Katie can't bar door.

The OP was a lie. Madison never made such a statement.
You've been had, fakey.

Naw, you are wrong, as usual.

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
—James Madison, 1787 (during the Constitutional Convention)

Jake, you write I am wrong and then do nothing to show that.
/Fail.

 

[Sallow]

It's not what you posted.

You posted cutting taxes doesn't "necessarily" mean less income.

And that's patently wrong.

It isn't necessarily wrong period. Cutting taxes means more people have more money to spend. They buy more goods, so more goods are made. More business start and/or expand. That's a fact. So, like in the Reagan years, federal income can go up. Tax and spend doesn't work and we have to live it all over again thanks to dimwitted know nothing liberals. You can't even understand what I said and you're going to lecture us on economies?

You're a waste of time and I'm tired of looking at your stupid avatar. Welcome to my filter.

Thats seriously so much bullshit you should be carrying a shovel. And it really doesn't work out when you cut taxes on the rich. You can only spend so much money in one lifetime.

And yeah..it's best to ignore what you can't adequately match up too.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

But Madison was far more concerned about the greater dangers of an exploding, all-pervasive government. And rightly so.

That was why, when he wrote the Constitution, he made it a document that forbade the government-uber-alles philosophy of today's liberals. He created a strictly limited central government instead, designed to be merely a caretaker of things that "the States and the People" couldn't handle at all. And there weren't many of such things. UNless there was a time of actual war, the Federal government was supposed to have very little influence on most people's lives.

And Madison deliberately did NOT put any passages into the Constitution, that might control the amount of wealth a person could earn. And by omitting them, he forbade the government from trying to control people's wealth. Liberals and other socialists have been trying desperately to violate or ignore this ban, ever since.

Madison knew that the dangers of Big Government were far greater than the dangers of people having wealth. And the rest of the Framers strongly agreed with him.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not what you posted.

You posted cutting taxes doesn't "necessarily" mean less income.

And that's patently wrong.

It isn't necessarily wrong period. Cutting taxes means more people have more money to spend. They buy more goods, so more goods are made. More business start and/or expand. That's a fact. So, like in the Reagan years, federal income can go up. Tax and spend doesn't work and we have to live it all over again thanks to dimwitted know nothing liberals. You can't even understand what I said and you're going to lecture us on economies?

You're a waste of time and I'm tired of looking at your stupid avatar. Welcome to my filter.

Thats seriously so much bullshit you should be carrying a shovel. And it really doesn't work out when you cut taxes on the rich. You can only spend so much money in one lifetime.

And yeah..it's best to ignore what you can't adequately match up too.

It's hard to match the level of ignorance and stupidity you throw into every post.
And you missed a spot on the floor over there.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's not what you posted.

You posted cutting taxes doesn't "necessarily" mean less income.

And that's patently wrong.

It isn't necessarily wrong period. Cutting taxes means more people have more money to spend. They buy more goods, so more goods are made. More business start and/or expand. That's a fact. So, like in the Reagan years, federal income can go up. Tax and spend doesn't work and we have to live it all over again thanks to dimwitted know nothing liberals. You can't even understand what I said and you're going to lecture us on economies?

You're a waste of time and I'm tired of looking at your stupid avatar. Welcome to my filter.

Thats seriously so much bullshit you should be carrying a shovel. And it really doesn't work out when you cut taxes on the rich.

TRANSLATION: I can't refute the part of your post that I highlighted, especially with its proven record of success, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, attack the messenger instead, and then try to change what you said ("taxes") to something different ("taxes on the rich") as my fellow travelers always do, and bash you for that instead, as though you had meant it even though you clearly didn't.

 

[Iceweasel]

TRANSLATION: I can't refute the part of your post that I highlighted, especially with its proven record of success, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, attack the messenger instead, and then try to change what you said ("taxes") to something different ("taxes on the rich") as my fellow travelers always do, and bash you for that instead, as though you had meant it even though you clearly didn't.

That's it in a nutshell. Pun intended. I've given up on him.

 

[Little-Acorn]

TRANSLATION: I can't refute the part of your post that I highlighted, especially with its proven record of success, but I hate it anyway. So I'll call it names, attack the messenger instead, and then try to change what you said ("taxes") to something different ("taxes on the rich") as my fellow travelers always do, and bash you for that instead, as though you had meant it even though you clearly didn't.

That's it in a nutshell. Pun intended. I've given up on him.

He's just another liberal, as disingenuous and misguided as the rest of his ilk. Not really worth any special attention.

 

[regent]

It seems that a large portion of the American people, want and vote for, most of America's wealth to remain in the hands of the few. The only problem is that democracy depends on a middle class, so are a number of people voting not only to keep wealth in the hands of the few but maybe the end of democracy?

 

[bripat9643]

Tax cutting is obviously not spending but every dollar lost in revenue is one more dollar the gov needs to borrow to pay the bills. That is what causes debt.

Wrong. Spending money you don't have creates debt. And tax cutting doesn't necessarily mean less income.

Wrong.

Cutting revenue without cutting expenditures increases debt.

That's so simple even you could figure it out.

Bush cut revenue and INCREASED expenditures.

Which is WHY he got rid of Paygo.

Remember?

Oh is that a "duh".

The problem with your theory is that Congress increases spending every year.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Spending money you don't have creates debt. And tax cutting doesn't necessarily mean less income.

Wrong.

Cutting revenue without cutting expenditures increases debt.

That's so simple even you could figure it out.

Bush cut revenue and INCREASED expenditures.

Which is WHY he got rid of Paygo.

Remember?

Oh is that a "duh".

You restate what he wrote and then say he was wrong? WTF?
Bush didnt get rid of Paygo. That had to happen in Congress.

Congress ignored so-called "pay-go" anyway.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems that a large portion of the American people, want and vote for, most of America's wealth to remain in the hands of the few. The only problem is that democracy depends on a middle class, so are a number of people voting not only to keep wealth in the hands of the few but maybe the end of democracy?

They are voting not to legalize organized robbery, dipshit.

If allowing people to keep their money didn't end democracy 100 years ago, why should it end democracy now?

 

[Spoonman]

...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.

James Madison also warned why civilian gun ownership was so critical. Critical enough in fact to warrant its own constitutional amendment. the founding fathers also warned about government stripping the power from the people and giving more and more to themselves. When will liberals stop supporting the stripping of our rights?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

...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.

Nope, they would keep sailing to antarctica. They wouldn't even recognize us.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.

Cutting revenue without cutting expenditures increases debt.

That's what I said asshole. Spending money you don't have. Cutting expenses would be fiscally responsible and it isn't the fiscal conservatives that fight against it.

That's so simple even you could figure it out.

Bush cut revenue and INCREASED expenditures.

Which is WHY he got rid of Paygo.

Remember?

Oh is that a "duh".

I said he was no fiscal conservative so duh back attcha. I also said it's stupid to ignore the left's spending and pin it all on Bush.

It's not what you posted.

You posted cutting taxes doesn't "necessarily" mean less income.

And that's patently wrong.

Horseshit. It's obviously right.

 

[Katzndogz]

...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.

You know that Madison never said that right? It was made up by liberals who thought it might be a good idea if he said it.

James Madison on wealth - snopes.com

Everything about the supposed quote by Madison on concentrated wealth, and a living constitution to redistribute that wealth, seemed contrary to everything our founders believed in so I asked an expert about the authenticity of the quote.

Dear Mr. Layser,
You are not the only one trying to track down the quote. We've had several
queries about it and I'm copying what I sent the others.

I've done a thorough search and could not find this quote in Madison's
papers.

David B. Mattern
Research Professor and
Sr. Assoc. Editor
Papers of James Madison
University of Virginia

 

[The Rabbi]

...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.

You know that Madison never said that right? It was made up by liberals who thought it might be a good idea if he said it.

James Madison on wealth - snopes.com

Everything about the supposed quote by Madison on concentrated wealth, and a living constitution to redistribute that wealth, seemed contrary to everything our founders believed in so I asked an expert about the authenticity of the quote.

Dear Mr. Layser,
You are not the only one trying to track down the quote. We've had several
queries about it and I'm copying what I sent the others.

I've done a thorough search and could not find this quote in Madison's
papers.

David B. Mattern
Research Professor and
Sr. Assoc. Editor
Papers of James Madison
University of Virginia

The funny thing Billy and all the other drones here will swear up and down Madison really did say that. Or something sort of similar to it that means the same thing. They will repeat it in thread after thread, like your post never happened.

 

[regent]

It seems that a large portion of the American people, want and vote for, most of America's wealth to remain in the hands of the few. The only problem is that democracy depends on a middle class, so are a number of people voting not only to keep wealth in the hands of the few but maybe the end of democracy?

They are voting not to legalize organized robbery, dipshit.

If allowing people to keep their money didn't end democracy 100 years ago, why should it end democracy now?

It was just about 100 years ago that Congress passed the income tax law. That was after two other income tax laws had been tried, the first with Lincoln.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems that a large portion of the American people, want and vote for, most of America's wealth to remain in the hands of the few. The only problem is that democracy depends on a middle class, so are a number of people voting not only to keep wealth in the hands of the few but maybe the end of democracy?

They are voting not to legalize organized robbery, dipshit.

If allowing people to keep their money didn't end democracy 100 years ago, why should it end democracy now?

It was just about 100 years ago that Congress passed the income tax law. That was after two other income tax laws had been tried, the first with Lincoln.

Yep, and thus began our trek circling the drain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP was a lie. Madison never made such a statement.
You've been had, fakey.

Naw, you are wrong, as usual.

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
—James Madison, 1787 (during the Constitutional Convention)

Jake, you write I am wrong and then do nothing to show that.
/Fail.

The post above perfectly shows your error, which is the normal for your posting.

 

[The Rabbi]

Naw, you are wrong, as usual.

The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.
—James Madison, 1787 (during the Constitutional Convention)

Jake, you write I am wrong and then do nothing to show that.
/Fail.

The post above perfectly shows your error, which is the normal for your posting.

No, Jake. The post does nothing of the kind. The challenge was whether Madison had written what was attributed to him in the opening post. You failed. The OP failed. Madison never wrote those words.
Will you acknowledge the truth of this or continue to lie?