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

[whitehall]

The Framers never envisioned how rich and powerful the fledgling Nation would become. For the "wealth inequality" people I suggest a start in the wealth equalization plan by attacking the most flagrant displays of obscene wealth. Pay the Hollywood actors the same basic union scale as municipal workers and see how it turns out. If it works well enough start on the T.V. entertainment industry and then if that works consider the corporations that really produce a product.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Are you really going to tell me that Bush's tax cuts had no effect on our national debt. Are you really that stupid?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Are you really going to tell me that Bush's tax cuts had no effect on our national debt. Are you really that stupid?

The tax cuts were repealed last year.
Quit deflecting, asshole.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

That's the point. If it sounds good to the liberal, it's a fact. And you are intolerant if you disagree.

 

[Sallow]

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 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.

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.

 

[whitehall]

Get out there to the left coast, picket the movie studios and demand that actors cancel the flagrant obscene display of wealth and decadence at the Oscar party and demand that entertainers be paid union scale. Let us know how you make out and we might start on more substantial corporations.

 

[Iceweasel]

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 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.

 

[Duped]

Another cry for redistribution, and how the the founders were limited based on BS.

Get the dumb poor to stop reproducing, and you won't have such a disparity

 

[JakeStarkey]

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)

 

[Sallow]

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.

He was wrong.

Taxes are revenue. Cutting them will mean less revenue. Always. It's a pretty simple concept.

And Paygo expired in 2002..the year Bush put in for the tax cuts. That wouldn't have been possible under Paygo. Thus, Bush's interest was making sure it was no longer in place.

Had that not been the case he would have vetoed any bill that didn't include Paygo rules.

You're really something else.

You should work for the Ministry of Truth in Oceania.

 

[Sallow]

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 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.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

I'm so sick of hearing how the government wants to steal from the rich. The wealthy have every advantage available to them and they reap the benefits of a tax system where much of their earnings are taxed at extremely low rates via the capital gains tax. What is so mind boggling is that many of the people protecting the wealthy are actually barely middle class themselves and receive no benefit whatsoever from protecting all these advantages that are enjoyed by the super wealthy. Half of our country is brain washed. It's unbelievable.

John R. Talbott: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes?

Yea, I know it's huffpo, but it's still valid.

 

[auditor0007]

The Framers never envisioned how rich and powerful the fledgling Nation would become. For the "wealth inequality" people I suggest a start in the wealth equalization plan by attacking the most flagrant displays of obscene wealth. Pay the Hollywood actors the same basic union scale as municipal workers and see how it turns out. If it works well enough start on the T.V. entertainment industry and then if that works consider the corporations that really produce a product.

I have a real hard time understanding conservative thinking. While the super wealthy have every advantage to attaining their wealth and continuing to pile it up, I really don't have much of a problem with that other than the fact that they get away with not paying their fair percentage of taxes due to a capital gains rate that is skewed to their advantage, and which does not benefit the rest of society nearly as much if at all. But the biggest issue I have is the fact that cons continually protect the wealthy while bashing the low paid workers for wanting something as simple as having a union to represent them and help them increase their wages just a little. While the wealthy have seen their incomes and wealth explode dramatically, American workers have seen their wages stagnate and even decrease a little. When we take into account the massive increase in productivity of American workers over the years and compare it to their pay, we see they have received nothing at all in return, yet those at the top have seen their incomes balloon to extraordinary levels. At some point, being conservative became all about protecting the elite, and that is why we are beginning to see a backlash. As income disparity continues to increase, we will see more and more of a backlash until we hit the breaking point.

 

[Iceweasel]

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)

Where did he say...
"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."

The issue he was talking about was only land owners being able to vote. He was against it. Furthermore, he is recognizing that there will be a minority of rich, he doesn't suggest changing it. Some socialist saw was he wanted to see by an author that was paraphrasing him. And it spread around the loony left webworld.

 

[Bumberclyde]

The constitution isn't framed, it's under bulletproof glass.

 

[Iceweasel]

I really don't have much of a problem with that other than the fact that they get away with not paying their fair percentage of taxes due to a capital gains rate that is skewed to their advantage, and which does not benefit the rest of society nearly as much if at all. But the biggest issue I have is the fact that cons continually protect the wealthy while bashing the low paid workers for wanting something as simple as having a union to represent them and help them increase their wages just a little. While the wealthy have seen their incomes and wealth explode dramatically, American workers have seen their wages stagnate and even decrease a little. When we take into account the massive increase in productivity of American workers over the years and compare it to their pay, we see they have received nothing at all in return, yet those at the top have seen their incomes balloon to extraordinary levels. At some point, being conservative became all about protecting the elite, and that is why we are beginning to see a backlash. As income disparity continues to increase, we will see more and more of a backlash until we hit the breaking point.

You must have just awaken from a coma. There have always been socialist here and there is no sudden backlash. I remember 'eat the rich' graffitti in the 70s. Conservativism is about freemarket enterprise and freedoms. The enemy of the left. So we constantly get lied about by people like you.

Look who's been in office and ask how that's the conservatives doing. You make zero sense.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

 

[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.

I'm so sick of hearing how the government wants to steal from the rich. The wealthy have every advantage available to them and they reap the benefits of a tax system where much of their earnings are taxed at extremely low rates via the capital gains tax. What is so mind boggling is that many of the people protecting the wealthy are actually barely middle class themselves and receive no benefit whatsoever from protecting all these advantages that are enjoyed by the super wealthy. Half of our country is brain washed. It's unbelievable.

John R. Talbott: Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes?

Yea, I know it's huffpo, but it's still valid.

The new new normal of the Right is the 1980s notion of Ronald Reagan that tax cuts were revenue neutral. And he got schooled quickly that they weren't. But instead of sun setting his tax cuts, he found new ways of taxing the poor and middle class to make up for the short fall.

I dunno how it doesn't infuriate everyone that walks past the first class section in an airplane, knowing that 90% the people in that area are flying on everyone else's dime. Or eating in fancy restaurants on everyone else's dime. Or going to strip clubs on everyone else's dime. That's what "business" tax cuts look like. In practice.

And the same folks that cry bloody murder when the government pays to feed poor kids are the same folks that have blinders on when the 1% fly free.