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

[bripat9643]

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."

Since your claims are pure fabrications, there's no point in discussing them. This entire thread is based on a bogus quote. Almost every liberal argument is based on false premises.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The percentage of the GDP going to labor has remained relatively constant, so your claim is obvious horseshit. the only thing that has changed is that wealthy people report more income as a result of lower marginal rates. When marginal rates were up to 90% there were thousands of deductions and tax avoidance schemes that allowed to wealthy to report a much lower income.

 

[Sallow]

The last 2 years of the Bush administration were basically a desperate flurry of moves by Democrats to try to stave off the upcoming cataclysm that was caused by Bush's policies.

Some of it worked.

LOL. Spending went through the roof when Madam Peolosi and crew came in, long before the meltdown. Goosestepping to the monochromatic leftwing drumbeat won't change facts.

The "spending" went through the roof when Bush got rid of Paygo, gave several tax cuts to the rich, lowered interest rates to zero, instituted R&D and new and exotic weapons systems (that do not work), started a war in Afghanistan, started a war in Iraq, created a whole new medicare entitlement, created a whole new department and put it all on the national credit card.

Yeah..you are well grounded in reality. The reality of FOX.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's obvious that you and all your Komrades would like to confiscate the property of the wealthy. You've made it quite plain. What other purpose can you have by constantly whining about it?

 

[bripat9643]

This was said in a time when there was limited wealth, back when our currency was backed by gold. For good or for bad, that is not the case any longer.

So?

 

[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.

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.

The percentage of the GDP going to labor has remained relatively constant, so your claim is obvious horseshit. the only thing that has changed is that wealthy people report more income as a result of lower marginal rates. When marginal rates were up to 90% there were thousands of deductions and tax avoidance schemes that allowed to wealthy to report a much lower income.

Wages have been "relatively" flat since the 80s..

I guess if you are using a formula where executives count as "labor" and you average the numbers this might work.

Seriously..how do you post this stuff with a straight face.

 

[bripat9643]

...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.

Your quote is bogus:

Talk:James Madison - Wikiquote

I have come across this quote, attributed to Madison, in several blogs, and would like to know if it is authentic.

The quote goes on to say: *"When that day comes, we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation."

Thanks. Tclose 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be an authentic quote. It isn't given in any of the collections of Madison's writings. The earliest I find it is from 1900, when Daniel De Leon is speaking at the convention of the Socialist Labor Party:

Will you tell me that James Madison did not understand the situation when he said in a magnificent little essay of his: "We are free to-day substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an 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."
I don't know that De Leon meant that as an exact quote. It appears that he was speaking extemporaneously, not from a prepared statement. The whole convention was "stenographically reported by B. F. Keinard."Earlier, in 1889, De Leon had written an essay, The Voice of Madison, discussing what Madison had written about suffrage and property. De Leon's essay is a little vague, but I believe that he is talking about remarks that Madison made at the Federal Constitutional Convention and later elaborated upon in a series of notes. Madison is talking about whether the right to vote should be limited to landholders, a restriction he opposed.There is some similarity in theme between the purported quote and Madison's discussion of suffrage. Madison does say that, as the population increased, the proportion of the population with property, especially farm land, will decrease. And he discusses the inherent conflict between the rights of those with property and those without. But I don't see anything about our republic being an impossibility.De Leon's essay "The Voice of Madison" was reprinted, along with an essay about Karl Marx, in a small book in 1920, prefaced by the quote in question. De Leon had died in 1914, so he didn't have the chance to proofread this book, so is not responsible for it appearing there. As I said earlier, I'm not sure that he meant it to be taken as an exact quote.I hope that helps.

So we can just ignore the rest of your OP. It's horseshit from the get-go.

Um no you obviously didn't read what you posted.

Uhm, yes I did. Madison didn't make the statement you claim he made.

End of story.

You're OP is horseshit.

 

[Two Thumbs]

cracks me up when leftist use the Founders to support government tyranny, but oppose what they say when we quote them to keep our freedoms.





"cracks me up" is a con code phrase for makes me want to weep for my country

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The percentage of the GDP going to labor has remained relatively constant, so your claim is obvious horseshit. the only thing that has changed is that wealthy people report more income as a result of lower marginal rates. When marginal rates were up to 90% there were thousands of deductions and tax avoidance schemes that allowed to wealthy to report a much lower income.

Wages have been "relatively" flat since the 80s..

I guess if you are using a formula where executives count as "labor" and you average the numbers this might work.

Seriously..how do you post this stuff with a straight face.

Family income has remained relatively constant. Of course, the size of the average family has decreased substantially since the 1980s. That means that individual income has increased.

The "Wages have been flat" meme is a leftwing con.

Executive pay is a minute fraction of total pay. it's always been a non-issue economically. Cutting executive pay to zero wouldn't make a noticeable difference in anyone's paycheck. However, it makes a good straw man for libturds to flog.

 

[Billy000]

Your quote is bogus:

Talk:James Madison - Wikiquote



So we can just ignore the rest of your OP. It's horseshit from the get-go.

Um no you obviously didn't read what you posted.

Uhm, yes I did. Madison didn't make the statement you claim he made.

End of story.

You're OP is horseshit.

For one thing, your source is referring to an entirely different quote altogether. You are also using a questionable source..

 

[Two Thumbs]

Where in the Constitution does it say the government gets to take rich peoples money and give it to the rest of us?

 

[bripat9643]

Um no you obviously didn't read what you posted.

Uhm, yes I did. Madison didn't make the statement you claim he made.

End of story.

You're OP is horseshit.

For one thing, your source is referring to an entirely different quote altogether. You are also using a questionable source..

No, he's referring to the exact quote in your OP.

And you're accusing me of using a questionable source?

That's a riot!

Can you refer us to the document where Madison makes the statement you claim he made?

 

[Iceweasel]

The "spending" went through the roof when Bush got rid of Paygo, gave several tax cuts to the rich, lowered interest rates to zero, instituted R&D and new and exotic weapons systems (that do not work), started a war in Afghanistan, started a war in Iraq, created a whole new medicare entitlement, created a whole new department and put it all on the national credit card.

Yeah..you are well grounded in reality. The reality of FOX.

Your FOXophobia has nothing to do with it. Tax cuts aren't spending. Bush was no fiscal conservative but to blame all the spending on him and ignore what the Democrats did is blind partisanship.

 

[Iceweasel]

Where in the Constitution does it say the government gets to take rich peoples money and give it to the rest of us?

It's in the Communist Manifesto. Their Bible.

 

[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.

 

[Billy000]

The "spending" went through the roof when Bush got rid of Paygo, gave several tax cuts to the rich, lowered interest rates to zero, instituted R&D and new and exotic weapons systems (that do not work), started a war in Afghanistan, started a war in Iraq, created a whole new medicare entitlement, created a whole new department and put it all on the national credit card.

Yeah..you are well grounded in reality. The reality of FOX.

Your FOXophobia has nothing to do with it. Tax cuts aren't spending. Bush was no fiscal conservative but to blame all the spending on him and ignore what the Democrats did is blind partisanship.

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.

 

[Billy000]

Uhm, yes I did. Madison didn't make the statement you claim he made.

End of story.

You're OP is horseshit.

For one thing, your source is referring to an entirely different quote altogether. You are also using a questionable source..

No, he's referring to the exact quote in your OP.

And you're accusing me of using a questionable source?

That's a riot!

Can you refer us to the document where Madison makes the statement you claim he made?

Christ dude I don't care. Believe what you want.

 

[The Rabbi]

The "spending" went through the roof when Bush got rid of Paygo, gave several tax cuts to the rich, lowered interest rates to zero, instituted R&D and new and exotic weapons systems (that do not work), started a war in Afghanistan, started a war in Iraq, created a whole new medicare entitlement, created a whole new department and put it all on the national credit card.

Yeah..you are well grounded in reality. The reality of FOX.

Your FOXophobia has nothing to do with it. Tax cuts aren't spending. Bush was no fiscal conservative but to blame all the spending on him and ignore what the Democrats did is blind partisanship.

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.

Only if they dont cut spending. And only if revenue isnt higher. But other than being mostly wrong you're right.

 

[Billy000]

Your FOXophobia has nothing to do with it. Tax cuts aren't spending. Bush was no fiscal conservative but to blame all the spending on him and ignore what the Democrats did is blind partisanship.

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.

Only if they dont cut spending. And only if revenue isnt higher. But other than being mostly wrong you're right.

Revenue is at near historic lows so of course I am 100% right.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Only if they dont cut spending. And only if revenue isnt higher. But other than being mostly wrong you're right.

Revenue is at near historic lows so of course I am 100% right.

First off that is a non sequitur.
Secondly that is simply untrue. Revenue is up to where it was in 2007.