Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Dad2three]

Lots of laws are just. I never said 'every law is an unfair assault on someone's freedom'. But ACA is.

only in rightwingnuthackworld

you idiots loved it when the heritage foundation came up with it

If it wasn't for the fact that they didn't come up with anything resembling Obamacare you have a really good point.

Heritage Foundation: ‘Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance’

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Obamacare / Health Care Laws - Pros and Cons - ProCon.org



Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building ‘Patient-Centered’ Health Care Market


MOFFIT (HERITAGE FOUNDATION): We’ve been honored by your request…to participate in giving our best advise and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market.

6 Years Ago: Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building 'Patient-Centered' Health Care Market | ThinkProgress



Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

"They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills



FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes



Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Insurance Exchange: Creates a “de facto public option” by “grow[ing]” government control over healthcare.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Medicaid Expansion: Expands a “broken entitlement program,” providing a “low-quality, poorly functioning program.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

In fact, in 2007, Heritage again boasted that Romney’s plan is “already showing progress.” That same year, Heritage proudly posted a video of Romney gloating that Heritage officials had supported him in creating “ultimate conservatism” with the Massachusetts health plan. Watch it:


FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes | ThinkProgress

 

[Bfgrn]

A flat tax is welfare for the rich

There is not a flat tax that doesn't reduce rates for the wealthy

BS.........They pay a flat rate and that's it. Without any loopholes............You'd see an increase in revenues as a result.

Face it. You love the dang IRS...........I don't .

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes





As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009.


Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)




Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

 

[Dad2three]

But when you have a small majority for a short period of time, you spout off the WILL OF THE PEOPLE when nearly half the country thinks your policies are BS..............

And your side continually champions the immoral side of the equation, saying their rights can't be trampled on............Like they are your pets..................But you have problem trouncing on the rights of nearly half the country on the ACA...........and the majority of the people who believe in God.

Then why did Republicans block the background check bill when it had 90% support of the People? Where did you state your outrage at that?

Doubtful that 90% of the people agreed with that. Did you receive that % from the KOS>

Nine in 10 Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a political issue and a finding that's been duplicated in nearly every major public poll.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-slam-dunk/




The vast majority of Americans remain in overwhelming support of universal background checks on all gun purchases even several months after Republicans stymied new gun control legislation in Congress.

Nearly 90% of Americans support background checks, a number basically unchanged from polls taken in the aftermath of last year’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary school, according to a Quinnipiac University poll

Poll: 9 in 10 Americans STILL support gun background checks | MSNBC




Says 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support background checks of gun purchasers.

We rate this claim as True.



http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/

 

[Dad2three]

The majority helped get your side elected for a short time, but you sure as hell didn't have a majority after you rammed it home.

Laws don't expire when the majority that enacted them no longer exists.

Nor should they. You should put some thought into this. I'm not playing a game here. I'm making an important distinction between the will of the people and majority rule. Respecting the will of the people requires an understanding that everyone has a different will, and protecting our freedom to act on our individual will is the primary purpose of government.

Yeah, THAT'S why the Founders went to a STRONG federal Gov't after 13 years of weak Articles of Confederation




"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dad2three]

And again this wasn't needed until Wilson came along..................The original plan was far better than the one we have today.

A Flat tax would generate more money, and it would be UNIFORM across the country for all people. A progressive tax structure's roots are in Socialism and Communism in their infant stages..............

You praise the use of our tax system as the current IRS abuses it's authority and attacks those who don't agree with the current administration.

The IRS needs to be castrated.

Every tax takes away the freedom of someone not to pay it just because they don't like it, which according to you is some sort of injustice.

You want taxes to be voluntary, which means we'd collect little if any.

BS........I want across the board flat taxes without the thousands of pages of BS that we currently wade through to pay our taxes. Under the original deal, States had to pay for the Federal Gov't on their share of the bill based on population. The states had to figure out how to pay it.

How many would be pissed with more spending when they actually have to pay the bill instead of using FIAT currency as it is now. We are spending money that we can't possibly pay back already.

More right wing CRAP. Why can't we pay it back? We owed more after WW 2 (percentage of GDP as ECONOMISTS measure debt and revenues)



CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low

The average tax rates for American households reached a historical low in 2009, according to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Indeed, federal taxes for American households averaged 17.4 percent in 2009, a historical low over the 1979 to 2009 period.

WEIRD, WASN'T THAT WHEN THE TP (BIRCHERS) WERE FORMED?


CBO: Fed tax rates hit historic low - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


Your taxes are really low, in one chart

The average filer saw her effective tax rate drop from 22 percent in 1979 to 18.1 percent in 2010

Your taxes are really low, in one chart - The Washington Post


Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950


Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950

Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

only in rightwingnuthackworld

you idiots loved it when the heritage foundation came up with it

If it wasn't for the fact that they didn't come up with anything resembling Obamacare you have a really good point.

Heritage Foundation: ‘Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance’

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Obamacare / Health Care Laws - Pros and Cons - ProCon.org



Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building ‘Patient-Centered’ Health Care Market


MOFFIT (HERITAGE FOUNDATION): We’ve been honored by your request…to participate in giving our best advise and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market.

6 Years Ago: Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building 'Patient-Centered' Health Care Market | ThinkProgress



Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

"They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills



FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes



Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Insurance Exchange: Creates a “de facto public option” by “grow[ing]” government control over healthcare.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Medicaid Expansion: Expands a “broken entitlement program,” providing a “low-quality, poorly functioning program.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

In fact, in 2007, Heritage again boasted that Romney’s plan is “already showing progress.” That same year, Heritage proudly posted a video of Romney gloating that Heritage officials had supported him in creating “ultimate conservatism” with the Massachusetts health plan. Watch it:


FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes | ThinkProgress

I don't care how many lying blogs you cite, the HEritage Foundation did not develop anything that even remotely resembles Obamacare.

Hint, all it would take to prove me wrong is post a link to the actual Heritage foundation version of a health care mandate. We both know why you won't do that.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm reminded of the following Heinlein quote:



"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they make better neighbors than the other sort."


Libertarians are by and large the surly curmudgeon types who just want to be left alone, and are perfectly happy leaving others alone.

Works for me.

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Dad2three]

If it wasn't for the fact that they didn't come up with anything resembling Obamacare you have a really good point.

Heritage Foundation: ‘Mandate All Households To Obtain Adequate Insurance’

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Obamacare / Health Care Laws - Pros and Cons - ProCon.org



Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building ‘Patient-Centered’ Health Care Market


MOFFIT (HERITAGE FOUNDATION): We’ve been honored by your request…to participate in giving our best advise and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market.

6 Years Ago: Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building 'Patient-Centered' Health Care Market | ThinkProgress



Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

"They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills



FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes



Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Individual Mandate: “Both unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [Heritage, 12/9/09]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Insurance Exchange: Creates a “de facto public option” by “grow[ing]” government control over healthcare.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On President Obama’s Medicaid Expansion: Expands a “broken entitlement program,” providing a “low-quality, poorly functioning program.” [Heritage, 3/30/10]

In fact, in 2007, Heritage again boasted that Romney’s plan is “already showing progress.” That same year, Heritage proudly posted a video of Romney gloating that Heritage officials had supported him in creating “ultimate conservatism” with the Massachusetts health plan. Watch it:


FLASHBACK: Heritage Touted RomneyCare, Key Elements Of Health Reform Heritage Now Opposes | ThinkProgress

I don't care how many lying blogs you cite, the HEritage Foundation did not develop anything that even remotely resembles Obamacare.

Hint, all it would take to prove me wrong is post a link to the actual Heritage foundation version of a health care mandate. We both know why you won't do that.

FIRST LINK I GAVE BUBBA, Has it right there


"[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement...

Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself...

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection."


Oct. 2, 1989

Heritage Foundation Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans (1.6 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler *


http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you're disrespecting the will of the majority.

Majority?

You do know that less than 300 people voted in favor of Obamacare, don't you? How the fuck does that rate a majority in a country with over 300 million people?

Don't know how our REPRESENTATIVE democracy (Republic) works huh? Typical

Enter the Windbag Zone at your own peril.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And your problem is that you think "We the People" amounts to simple majority rule. It doesn't. It requires that we respect of the will of ALL of the people, not just the majority. Democrats used to get this. Nowadays, not so much.

You can't respect the will of all people. That's absurd.

I seem to remember you raging against the fact that Prop 8 won.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Dad2three]

And your problem is that you think "We the People" amounts to simple majority rule. It doesn't. It requires that we respect of the will of ALL of the people, not just the majority. Democrats used to get this. Nowadays, not so much.

Do Lbertarians respect the will of ALL the people?

It seems they are only interested in themselves

You're confusing libertarians with liberals.

Okay, let's use the word "socialism," which is somewhat ambiguous.

But we can keep it simple.

Socialism - We're all in this boat together, we should help each other.

Conservatism - Every man for himself!



NOW WHICH DID THE FOUNDERS CHOOSE?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to be missing the point.

We should only resort to force when it's truly necessary.

The government was delegated the power to use force by the People. You can't have a government without the use of force. If you didn't need force you wouldn't need a government.

Which is why you shouldn't trust the government.

As my sigline says...

 

[Dad2three]

The Constitution was designed to protect all the people, which is exactly why they put in the checks and balances. They knew what happened to Greece and other pure democracies...........These systems failed in the end because of the tyranny of a simple majority of the people over the rest of the people. Well, that's part of it.

When the Dems gained all the control, they attempted to steam roll their liberal agenda through and they damn well succeed in pushing their ideologies on everyone. If it wasn't for the System in place and some Blue Dogs they would have succeeded.

They then claimed...............THE PEOPLE WILLED IT.....................No they did not...Even though you controlled all at the time you still only had a small victory in terms of the population of the United States. You forget that about 45% of the nation was telling you where you can shove your agenda.

Later your own side even went against you and you lost the house. The only reason you passed the ACA is because of Woodrow Wilson. Who changed the way Senators are selected. He took away the voice of the State Legislatures........And had that been in place, you would had a Snow Balls chance in hell passing it. Wilson understood it's much harder to buy off an Entire State than two Senators.............And now we have career politicians bought and paid for who back in the day would have been recalled for voting for the ACA..............

Your side should bow to his grave.

I believe the concepts and principles of the Constitution have been lost, and MUST be restored to save our nation from the final stages of Dependency. As we have learned that once we can get money from the coffers of the country there is no turning back.

The Founding Fathers Warned us about this and they called it USURY, and the Tyranny of the Majority.

Weird, you realize Madison objected to states selecting the Senators right?


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace.” Samuel Adams


“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.” — Alexander Hamilton




“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men…” –John Adams



“Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.” Thomas Paine





Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FIRST LINK I GAVE BUBBA, Has it right there


"[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement...

Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself...

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection."


Oct. 2, 1989

Heritage Foundation Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans (1.6 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler *


http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

So the problem is you do not know how to read?

• They expressly oppose a government funded system.
• They expressly oppose an employee mandate.
• They support not giving employers a tax break for health care, and say that it should be taxable income for the employee.
• The mandate they support is for catastrophic coverage, not everything under the sun coverage.

Sound just like Obamacare, doesn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can't respect the will of all people. That's absurd.

I seem to remember you raging against the fact that Prop 8 won.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You said the majority is always right, so how does that have nothing to do with what you said? Is it because you only support the majority when you agree with it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The majority helped get your side elected for a short time, but you sure as hell didn't have a majority after you rammed it home.

Laws don't expire when the majority that enacted them no longer exists.

Nor should they. You should put some thought into this. I'm not playing a game here. I'm making an important distinction between the will of the people and majority rule. Respecting the will of the people requires an understanding that everyone has a different will, and protecting our freedom to act on our individual will is the primary purpose of government.

No. The primary purpose of government is to carry out the will of the majority. That may very well include protections of rights and freedoms and privileges of minorities,

but that is only because the majority decided they were willing to protect the minority in one aspect or another.

My state of NY ratified the Constitution in 1788 by a vote of 30 to 27. That means that 47% of representatives of the people of NY did not want the Constitution.

What happened to their 'will'? Were they allowed to happily go on about their lives in New York oblivious of and immune to the rule of law that was imposed on them by the Constitution? Or were they effectively forced by the majority to accept its will?

In short, what are you talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution was designed to protect all the people, which is exactly why they put in the checks and balances. They knew what happened to Greece and other pure democracies...........These systems failed in the end because of the tyranny of a simple majority of the people over the rest of the people. Well, that's part of it.

When the Dems gained all the control, they attempted to steam roll their liberal agenda through and they damn well succeed in pushing their ideologies on everyone. If it wasn't for the System in place and some Blue Dogs they would have succeeded.

They then claimed...............THE PEOPLE WILLED IT.....................No they did not...Even though you controlled all at the time you still only had a small victory in terms of the population of the United States. You forget that about 45% of the nation was telling you where you can shove your agenda.

Later your own side even went against you and you lost the house. The only reason you passed the ACA is because of Woodrow Wilson. Who changed the way Senators are selected. He took away the voice of the State Legislatures........And had that been in place, you would had a Snow Balls chance in hell passing it. Wilson understood it's much harder to buy off an Entire State than two Senators.............And now we have career politicians bought and paid for who back in the day would have been recalled for voting for the ACA..............

Your side should bow to his grave.

I believe the concepts and principles of the Constitution have been lost, and MUST be restored to save our nation from the final stages of Dependency. As we have learned that once we can get money from the coffers of the country there is no turning back.

The Founding Fathers Warned us about this and they called it USURY, and the Tyranny of the Majority.

Weird, you realize Madison objected to states selecting the Senators right?


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace.” Samuel Adams


“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.” — Alexander Hamilton




“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men…” –John Adams



“Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.” Thomas Paine





Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

You realize Madison lost that argument, don't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I seem to remember you raging against the fact that Prop 8 won.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You said the majority is always right, so how does that have nothing to do with what you said? Is it because you only support the majority when you agree with it?

That's not what I said and I'm not going to re-state what I really said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You said the majority is always right, so how does that have nothing to do with what you said? Is it because you only support the majority when you agree with it?

That's not what I said and I'm not going to re-state what I really said.

You just posted that the primary purpose of the government is to enforce the will of the majority. The majority of California voted against same sex marriage. You opposed that, and and rejoiced when the government interfered in the will of the majority.

Deal with the fact that you are a liar, I already knew it.

 

[Dad2three]

And government is the only solution to that which you can contemplate. That is the first, last and only solution to you. Again, the extremist is in your mirror.

We tried a 'charity only' society...it FAILED. Educate yourself...

n

I see. Your food stamp allowance wasn't high enough so now you are ready for
V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E

Just remember vioelnce begets violence.

.

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson










What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty, and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.
Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS “True Americanism” (1915).