The Fairest manner to Tax Americans.

[Oddball]

United States Federal Tax Dollars - VisualEconomics.comyou might want to check out this site.

FL and TX both get back over 90% of the federal taxes it's citizens/corporations pay in.

So the federal taxes in those states are basically just another state tax.

Huh?

They get a mere 90¢ back for every dollar taxed away, yet are somehow getting a good deal?

 

[uscitizen]

United States Federal Tax Dollars - VisualEconomics.comyou might want to check out this site.

FL and TX both get back over 90% of the federal taxes it's citizens/corporations pay in.

So the federal taxes in those states are basically just another state tax.

Huh?

They get a mere 90¢ back for every dollar taxed away, yet are somehow getting a good deal?

did I say it was a good deal?

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually the number is higher than that if you figure in the VA, the military bases, coast guard, etc that are straight federal organizations. And I doubt that federal disaster aid is figured in either.

 

[The T]

Funny how that worked out. After the advent of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax - war after war and hyper acceleration of the inflationary bubble and bust cycles.

An how about that 17th Amendment?

 

[Oddball]

United States Federal Tax Dollars - VisualEconomics.comyou might want to check out this site.

FL and TX both get back over 90% of the federal taxes it's citizens/corporations pay in.

So the federal taxes in those states are basically just another state tax.

Huh?

They get a mere 90¢ back for every dollar taxed away, yet are somehow getting a good deal?

did I say it was a good deal?

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Then why don't you 'splain a little further.

Lots and lots of states that do have an income tax get back less than a dollar-for-a-dollar, so what's your point?

 

[uscitizen]

Huh?

They get a mere 90¢ back for every dollar taxed away, yet are somehow getting a good deal?

did I say it was a good deal?

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Then why don't you 'splain a little further.

Lots and lots of states that do have an income tax get back less than a dollar-for-a-dollar, so what's your point?

I believe I have made my point pretty clear in the preceeding posts.
Sorry, I did not take you to raise.

 

[The T]

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do.



I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.



But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever we decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about whom you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on,
you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to
cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh... and one more thing...



Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is
worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance
this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?

That sounds accurate alright. As we both know money is power, and who has the power also has the money. So you have decide if you have the power or if you are going to turn your power over to someone who doesn't know you and tell him to use your money in your best interests. He doesn't even want to know you so he hired a guy to come to home and take your money at the point of a gun. That is the middleman that insures the representative has the power with your money.

So you have to make up your mind who is going to have the power. If you want to take your government into your own hands, you will appreciate this one page of my blog.

All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

Translation?

"I still have no fucking clue and save face because someone smarter than I dared to post the truth which I haven't yet figured out and deflect by prostituting my BLOG..."

"I feel ahamed for even creating this SHAM of a THREAD..."

 

[Two Thumbs]

People in general do not like paying taxes, and they always have certain items that they rally around to support or not support. And they cry, get angry, and frustrated when required to pay taxes for these items.

So I think we could come up with a fairer way to tax Americans, by letting them donate to whatever causes they wish to, and not donate to ones they dislike. And if there are not enough people to donate to a cause, it doesn't get funded. And if you don't want to donate at all, you don't have to.

Now is that fair to everybody, or have we some whiners here?

I like that idea. As long as government is out of most of the work, most things should get done.

If I recall my American history class, before we got taxed, most things got paid through lotteries.

wanna road? get with your neighbors or pool everyones money into a lottery.

Schools? pass the hat, country fair, lottery

etc, etc.

 

[uscitizen]

Now that might be the way to do wars. If no one want to pay for it we don't have one.

 

[Sallow]

That's how the income tax started out originally.

Problem with the whole concept of direct taxes on personal production is that posturing do-gooder politicians like to tinker with the system, to reward "proper" behavior and punish the "improper".

The only flat and fair tax on personal earnings is no tax.

Actually...you may be starting to make sense. No Tax..no military. No military..no military adventurism. No adventurism..lots of deaths averted.

Not bad.

Good job of blundering into a massive indictment of one of the biggest progressive heroes of all: Woodrow Wilson.

Prior to 1913, America had both a relatively strong stay-at-home military and no tax on personal earnings.

After 1913...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, uncounted covert ops in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.....

Hmmm...

Stay at home?

Your history is as distorted as ever..

Lets see..

Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philippines
In an article, We Charge Genocide: A Brief History of US in the Philippines, appearing in the December, 2005 issue of Political Affairs (an online magazine that bills itself, "Marxist Thought Online"), E. San Juan, Jr., director of the Philippines Cultural Studies Center, Connecticut, argued that during the Philippine-American War (1899–1902) and pacification campaign (1902–1913), the operations launched by the U.S. against the Filipinos, an integral part of its pacification program, which claimed the lives of over a million Filipinos, constituted genocide.[74]

In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:"The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...."[75] U.S. Army Gen. Leonard Wood, who took part in the Moro Crater massacre in 1906, called for the extermination of all Filipino Muslims since, according to him, they were irretrievably fanatical.[76]

Gore Vidal, in an exchange of letters in the New York Review of Books about the Philippines campaign says, discussing General J. Franklin Bell's own reporting that American troops were responsible for 600,000 dead men, women, and children on the island of Luzon alone, "If this is not a policy of genocide (no dumb letters on the dictionary meaning of the word), it will do until the real thing comes along."[77]

Total Filipino casualties was and is still a highly-debated and politicized number. A discussion and analysis of this is contained in John M. Gates, “War-Related Deaths in the Philippines”, Pacific Historical Review.[78] It is estimated that some 34,000 Filipino soldiers lost their lives and as many as 200,000 civilians may have died directly or indirectly as a result of the war, most due to a major cholera epidemic that broke out near its end.[79] Another estimate, in the Encarta Encyclopedia, is that between 200,000 and 600,000 Filipinos died during the war with fewer than 5,000 American deaths. More deaths occurred during the pacification program (1902–1913) following the declaration of victory in the war.[80] One estimate of total Filipino deaths is as high as 1.4 million.[74]

An American vessel, the USS Nashville, commanded by John Hubbard, who had also helped to delay the disembarkation of the Colombian troops in Colón, continued to interfere with their mission by alleging that the "neutrality" of the railway had to be respected.

With the suppression of the troops the Revolutionary Junta proceeded to declare the separation of the Isthmus and later the independence with the declaration of the Republic of Panama. A naval squadron in the Bay of Panama was captured without resistance. Demetrio H. Brid the president of the Municipal Council of Panama became the de facto President of Panama appointing on November 4, 1903 a Provisional Government Junta that governed the country until February 1904 when the Constituent National Convention was established and elected Manuel Amador Guerrero as first constitutional president. News of the separation of Panama from Colombia arrived to Bogotá on November 6, 1903 due to a problem with the submarine cables.
Separation of Panama from Colombia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can go through this as well..

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

 

[Sallow]

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do.



I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.



But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever we decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about whom you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on,
you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to
cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh... and one more thing...



Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is
worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance
this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?

Well that's not exactly the way it works..but why ruin a good rant.

Forget the military which defends the borders, the police which provide safe streets, the firemen that put out fires, the bridges and roads that provide transportation, the mail carriers which deliver parcels and letters, the electrical grids, the waterworks, the courts which uphold contracts, the schools which provide and educated and literate workforce...heck...even the money...which provides a way to do business..

And you'd probably be right.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Now that might be the way to do wars. If no one want to pay for it we don't have one.

We are paying now.

wether you want to or not, you support the war.








this is pure fantasy for an ideal world. we know full well once people saw how much things cost, things would not get done and people would just make due.

 

[Oddball]

Actually...you may be starting to make sense. No Tax..no military. No military..no military adventurism. No adventurism..lots of deaths averted.

Not bad.

Good job of blundering into a massive indictment of one of the biggest progressive heroes of all: Woodrow Wilson.

Prior to 1913, America had both a relatively strong stay-at-home military and no tax on personal earnings.

After 1913...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, uncounted covert ops in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.....

Hmmm...

Stay at home?

Your history is as distorted as ever..

Lets see..

Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philippines
In an article, We Charge Genocide: A Brief History of US in the Philippines, appearing in the December, 2005 issue of Political Affairs (an online magazine that bills itself, "Marxist Thought Online"), E. San Juan, Jr., director of the Philippines Cultural Studies Center, Connecticut, argued that during the Philippine-American War (1899–1902) and pacification campaign (1902–1913), the operations launched by the U.S. against the Filipinos, an integral part of its pacification program, which claimed the lives of over a million Filipinos, constituted genocide.[74]

In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported:"The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog...."[75] U.S. Army Gen. Leonard Wood, who took part in the Moro Crater massacre in 1906, called for the extermination of all Filipino Muslims since, according to him, they were irretrievably fanatical.[76]

Gore Vidal, in an exchange of letters in the New York Review of Books about the Philippines campaign says, discussing General J. Franklin Bell's own reporting that American troops were responsible for 600,000 dead men, women, and children on the island of Luzon alone, "If this is not a policy of genocide (no dumb letters on the dictionary meaning of the word), it will do until the real thing comes along."[77]

Total Filipino casualties was and is still a highly-debated and politicized number. A discussion and analysis of this is contained in John M. Gates, “War-Related Deaths in the Philippines”, Pacific Historical Review.[78] It is estimated that some 34,000 Filipino soldiers lost their lives and as many as 200,000 civilians may have died directly or indirectly as a result of the war, most due to a major cholera epidemic that broke out near its end.[79] Another estimate, in the Encarta Encyclopedia, is that between 200,000 and 600,000 Filipinos died during the war with fewer than 5,000 American deaths. More deaths occurred during the pacification program (1902–1913) following the declaration of victory in the war.[80] One estimate of total Filipino deaths is as high as 1.4 million.[74]

An American vessel, the USS Nashville, commanded by John Hubbard, who had also helped to delay the disembarkation of the Colombian troops in Colón, continued to interfere with their mission by alleging that the "neutrality" of the railway had to be respected.

With the suppression of the troops the Revolutionary Junta proceeded to declare the separation of the Isthmus and later the independence with the declaration of the Republic of Panama. A naval squadron in the Bay of Panama was captured without resistance. Demetrio H. Brid the president of the Municipal Council of Panama became the de facto President of Panama appointing on November 4, 1903 a Provisional Government Junta that governed the country until February 1904 when the Constituent National Convention was established and elected Manuel Amador Guerrero as first constitutional president. News of the separation of Panama from Colombia arrived to Bogotá on November 6, 1903 due to a problem with the submarine cables.
Separation of Panama from Colombia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can go through this as well..

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

T Roosevelt (the nitwit who intervened in the Philippines) was the prototype for the modern neocon, and the drip around whom Wilson patterned is interventionist/imperial foreign policy.

Insofar as Central America is concerned, I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Monroe doctrine, have you?

Try again.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do.



I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.



But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever we decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about whom you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on,
you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to
cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh... and one more thing...



Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is
worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance
this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?

Well that's not exactly the way it works..

Actually, it IS exactly the way it works.

Except for, "I'll also take 25-35% of everything we decide to pay your employees, depending on how much they make, from them as well. So see, I'm getting it coming and going."

 

[Sallow]

Good job of blundering into a massive indictment of one of the biggest progressive heroes of all: Woodrow Wilson.

Prior to 1913, America had both a relatively strong stay-at-home military and no tax on personal earnings.

After 1913...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, uncounted covert ops in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran.....

Hmmm...

Stay at home?

Your history is as distorted as ever..

Lets see..

Genocides in history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An American vessel, the USS Nashville, commanded by John Hubbard, who had also helped to delay the disembarkation of the Colombian troops in Colón, continued to interfere with their mission by alleging that the "neutrality" of the railway had to be respected.

With the suppression of the troops the Revolutionary Junta proceeded to declare the separation of the Isthmus and later the independence with the declaration of the Republic of Panama. A naval squadron in the Bay of Panama was captured without resistance. Demetrio H. Brid the president of the Municipal Council of Panama became the de facto President of Panama appointing on November 4, 1903 a Provisional Government Junta that governed the country until February 1904 when the Constituent National Convention was established and elected Manuel Amador Guerrero as first constitutional president. News of the separation of Panama from Colombia arrived to Bogotá on November 6, 1903 due to a problem with the submarine cables.
Separation of Panama from Colombia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can go through this as well..

U.S. Interventions in Latin America

T Roosevelt (the nitwit who intervened in the Philippines) was the prototype for the modern neocon, and the drip around whom Wilson patterned is interventionist/imperial foreign policy.

Insofar as Central America is concerned, I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Monroe doctrine, have you?

Try again.

One of the biggest, bestest interventionist documents evah written. The US had the "right" to protect it's little Central American bro from big bad Europe.

You're the one who posted that the United States was not an interventionist nation. That was ridiculous.

 

[Oddball]

And America also has a right to protect its sovereignty from Europeans, who may attempt to use Central America and the Caribbean to stage military actions against it.

Now, try to 'splain away how it came to be that almost all the major military interventions of the last century were primarily perpetrated by the leftiest of leftist democratics.

 

[Sallow]

I'd like to make you a business offer.

Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...

Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do.



I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.



But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.

Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.

You're also going to have to pay me about 12% of whatever we decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about whom you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on,
you're my partner. It's only "fair."

Now... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50% or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to
cash out - to finally live the good life.

Whether or not this is "fair" - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20% of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.

I know... I know... you put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50% of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20% slice of the business.

Oh... and one more thing...



Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees... I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50% of whatever your estate is
worth.

After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's "fair" for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance
this expense for your children.

All in all, if you're a very successful entrepreneur... if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public... you'll end up paying me more than 75% of your income over your life. Thanks so much.

I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me... but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?

Well that's not exactly the way it works..

Actually, it IS exactly the way it works.

Um. No.

If what you posted is that some entrepeneur went into a feral land, cleared it, built his own roads, installed sewage lines, installed power grids, built a town, advertised and found people to populate the town, educated them, established a fire department, a police department, mail offices, established the rule of law and courts, established a monetary system and coined it, established a military to protect the town and factory, did the Research and development on his own product, established media to advertise it on, established a client list, and promoted trade for his product with clients.

Then you'd be right.

But you're not.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well that's not exactly the way it works..

Actually, it IS exactly the way it works.

Um. No.

If what you posted is that some entrepeneur went into a feral land, cleared it, built his own roads, installed sewage lines, installed power grids, built a town, advertised and found people to populate the town, educated them, established a fire department, a police department, mail offices, established the rule of law and courts, established a monetary system and coined it, established a military to protect the town and factory, did the Research and development on his own product, established media to advertise it on, established a client list, and promoted trade for his product with clients.

Then you'd be right.

But you're not.

That argument is covered.

 

[Sallow]

And America also has a right to protect its sovereignty from Europeans, who may attempt to use Central America and the Caribbean to stage military actions against it.

Now, try to 'splain away how it came to be that almost all the major military interventions of the last century were primarily perpetrated by the leftiest of leftist democratics.

Moving goalposts?

You're contention was wrong. It wasn't only central america and the caribbean either.

America did the intervention thing in China and Japan.

 

[Sallow]

Actually, it IS exactly the way it works.

Um. No.

If what you posted is that some entrepeneur went into a feral land, cleared it, built his own roads, installed sewage lines, installed power grids, built a town, advertised and found people to populate the town, educated them, established a fire department, a police department, mail offices, established the rule of law and courts, established a monetary system and coined it, established a military to protect the town and factory, did the Research and development on his own product, established media to advertise it on, established a client list, and promoted trade for his product with clients.

Then you'd be right.

But you're not.

That argument is covered.

No..it's not.

Conservatives seem to think all this stuff should come for free.

Newsflash: It's not.

 

[Oddball]

And America also has a right to protect its sovereignty from Europeans, who may attempt to use Central America and the Caribbean to stage military actions against it.

Now, try to 'splain away how it came to be that almost all the major military interventions of the last century were primarily perpetrated by the leftiest of leftist democratics.

Moving goalposts?

You're contention was wrong. It wasn't only central america and the caribbean either.

America did the intervention thing in China and Japan.

No, not moving the goalposts at all....The Monroe doctrine was enacted as a policy of national defense, not as a reason to play the world's babysitter and/or "spread 'mocracy".

American troops incurred upon Canadian soil too, when they were harboring British troops.