Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[eflatminor]

What's the problem?

Here's the problem:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

As of this moment, you owe $132,380 toward the debt we've accumulated for pay for all these "feel good" programs and "essential" wars and occupations. How will you be paying? Cash or check?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you don't have some sort of safety net, you end up with a lot more crime.

Excellent play of the fear card. Rape! Rape! Redistribute more wealth or there will be more rape! Go ahead and drop the race card next...it's all you central planners have.

If you feel so passionately about a safety net, stop bitching and start a charity. Stealing money from productive members of society does not a safety net create...though it does create dependence on government and less jobs for those at risk. On the other hand, get them on the dole and they'll vote your way, eh?

The equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources via taxation is not "stealing."

To further explain my reference to America's wealth; every bit of wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting this Nation's natural, material and/or human resources is a percentage of America's wealth. For one who manages to accumulate wealth via some enterprise within the United States to assume he/she could have done just as well anywhere else is sheer arrogance as well as pronounced ignorance. Therefore taxation is payment to America for services rendered and resources provided.

"Stealing" is when one takes possession of another's wealth by force, stealth or guile. But when one who has nothing steals from another who has more than he needs the crime is mitigated by simple morality. So it may be said that the preventively expedient redistribution of excessive wealth via taxation is a charitable act.

Hoodwinked again. 'Progressive Taxation' is hardly to address inequality....it is to build big government!


1. Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.” Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”

2. The argument is advanced based on a) improvements in the general welfare, and b) allowing the degree of inequality results in injustice between individuals.

a. Whose ‘general welfare’? Instead, the welfare of one group is improved at the expense of the welfare of another group. What are the additional benefits that the wealthy receive for the surrender of wealth?

b. As to the injustice between individuals, this presupposes that the income of the wealthy is undeserved, in the sense that it was due to factors such as monopoly, fraud, duress, and chance. First, these charges must be supported, and then, some correlation shown between the amount of such income and the rate of progressive taxation. Otherwise, the implication is that all persons with large income had the same proportion of undeserved income…

3. Where in this discussion is the question of personal responsibility in achieving success or of the free market’s hand in distributing rewards? Or is the assumption that these factors don’t exist? Why not presume that the richer person merited his wealth?

4. The explanation is that the weakness of the economic basis for the tax pales in comparison to the political basis.

a. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of society’s wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. “…redistribution is in effect
Bertrand de Jouvenel, “The Ethics of Redistribution,” p. 73


5. The ‘progressive’ tax rate structure effectively imposes a penalty for producing and earning more. Consequently, it naturally results in less productive activity, reducing economic growth and GDP.

Despite these negative economic effects, the progressive tax rate structure is advanced in the name of fairness, on the grounds that it is supposed to be fair for ‘the rich’ to pay more. But it is the flat rate tax structure that is the most fair: if A earns more than B, then A pays 10 times what B pays….The penalty on higher incomes is both economically counterproductive and unfair.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 214.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's the problem?

Here's the problem:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

As of this moment, you owe $132,380 toward the debt we've accumulated for pay for all these "feel good" programs and "essential" wars and occupations. How will you be paying? Cash or check?

That seems alittle low...

 

[The T]

Excellent play of the fear card. Rape! Rape! Redistribute more wealth or there will be more rape! Go ahead and drop the race card next...it's all you central planners have.

If you feel so passionately about a safety net, stop bitching and start a charity. Stealing money from productive members of society does not a safety net create...though it does create dependence on government and less jobs for those at risk. On the other hand, get them on the dole and they'll vote your way, eh?

The equitable redistribution of America's wealth resources via taxation is not "stealing."

To further explain my reference to America's wealth; every bit of wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting this Nation's natural, material and/or human resources is a percentage of America's wealth. For one who manages to accumulate wealth via some enterprise within the United States to assume he/she could have done just as well anywhere else is sheer arrogance as well as pronounced ignorance. Therefore taxation is payment to America for services rendered and resources provided.

"Stealing" is when one takes possession of another's wealth by force, stealth or guile. But when one who has nothing steals from another who has more than he needs the crime is mitigated by simple morality. So it may be said that the preventively expedient redistribution of excessive wealth via taxation is a charitable act.

Hoodwinked again. 'Progressive Taxation' is hardly to address inequality....it is to build big government!


1. Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as “the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system,” and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, “It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have.” Blum and Klaven, jr., “The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.”

2. The argument is advanced based on a) improvements in the general welfare, and b) allowing the degree of inequality results in injustice between individuals.

a. Whose ‘general welfare’? Instead, the welfare of one group is improved at the expense of the welfare of another group. What are the additional benefits that the wealthy receive for the surrender of wealth?

b. As to the injustice between individuals, this presupposes that the income of the wealthy is undeserved, in the sense that it was due to factors such as monopoly, fraud, duress, and chance. First, these charges must be supported, and then, some correlation shown between the amount of such income and the rate of progressive taxation. Otherwise, the implication is that all persons with large income had the same proportion of undeserved income…

3. Where in this discussion is the question of personal responsibility in achieving success or of the free market’s hand in distributing rewards? Or is the assumption that these factors don’t exist? Why not presume that the richer person merited his wealth?

4. The explanation is that the weakness of the economic basis for the tax pales in comparison to the political basis.

a. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of society’s wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. “…redistribution is in effect
Bertrand de Jouvenel, “The Ethics of Redistribution,” p. 73


5. The ‘progressive’ tax rate structure effectively imposes a penalty for producing and earning more. Consequently, it naturally results in less productive activity, reducing economic growth and GDP.

Despite these negative economic effects, the progressive tax rate structure is advanced in the name of fairness, on the grounds that it is supposed to be fair for ‘the rich’ to pay more. But it is the flat rate tax structure that is the most fair: if A earns more than B, then A pays 10 times what B pays….The penalty on higher incomes is both economically counterproductive and unfair.
Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” p. 214.

And a government enslaving it's people into dependence to the point they demand thier leashes be shortened so they don't wander off the plantation into independence and self-reliability...it's a tough world out here...

 

[SAT]

What's the problem?

Here's the problem:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

As of this moment, you owe $132,380 toward the debt we've accumulated for pay for all these "feel good" programs and "essential" wars and occupations. How will you be paying? Cash or check?

By check, annually. And thankfully. We could be in your libertarian paradise, Somalia.

 

[Navy1960]

Now you don't really believe that, do you?
Sadly, you probably do.

In 1939 Finland and its southern neighbor Estonia were identical in many ways. Then, in 1940, the USSR occupied Estonia, and it remained under communist rule for 50 years. Here are the words of Mart Laar, Estonia’s former prime minister, stating what communism did to his country:

“Look at what happened in this context during these fifty years and then you can understand how terrible the communist system really is. And it’s not only in the economy. This is in all fields of life—the social structure, cultural standards, education, healthcare, or whatever. When you compare those two countries, which were exactly the same in 1939[,] in 1989, then you will find what communism really means, and how bad it is. Our economy, our nature, and our environment was [sic] destroyed.”

The conclusion:
Their economic and social differences grew so large that no informed person could honestly dispute the pernicious effect that communist rule had on occupied Estonia.
The Filter^: Finland and Estonia

In 1991 Estonia became capitalist, and experienced massive economic growth. They discovered the errors of progressive class warfare.

This is the closest example of the two systems, side by side.

While no one would ever begin to compare Estonia under the USSR and say that under the USSR things were just wonderful, Estonia is a mix of Capitalism and Socialism much like many of the advanced European economies are. For example,

Estonian health insurance is a social insurance and it relies on the principle of solidarity: the Health Insurance Fund covers the cost of health services required by the person in case of illness regardless of the amount of social tax paid for the person concerned. The Fund uses the social tax paid for the working population also for covering the cost of health services provided to persons who have no income with regard to work activities.
Health Insurance in Estonia - Eesti Haigekassa

Indeed, Estonia, does some things worth looking at, and yes in fact they do have a flat tax if anyone care's to read about them, but the most interesting thing about this nation is that they produce over 80% of their own ENERGY needs, which is something we should take pause on. My personal opinion while not perfect, things such as these do tend to point out there are good idea's no matter where you find them, both left and right and as soon as we all realize that the better off we all will be.

Fair and honest points. Still there are Principles to keep in mind and Protect with Vigilance. Why not consider how something applies from a Federalist Perspective, applying Free Market Principles. We should not always be wrestling for control. We should instead seek to establish and service what is Just.

You know Intense, I've come to the conclusion my feelings are somewhat old fahsioned when it comes to the subject of our nations health and welfare these days. I tend to believe that our nation benefits when the environment is best for that Free Trade to prosper. I suppose my reading of that old " Commerce Clause" when you apply that Occam's Razor to it, really means what it say's, our Govt. is there to actually make laws that promotes commerce and am of the feeling that when they do it benefits all Americans. Now having said that the other side of the coin is true as well, when they allow the environment to be unhealthy to the point where we Americans are the ones who really suffer here, then they do a diservice not only to us but to the nation as a whole. I've often thought, that if a company for example chooses to call themselves American, then they should act like it and take pride in the fact they are and our Govt. should help them in every way possible to see to it that they build and prosper here. When they choose not to, then treat them just like any other company that imports here. I also believe, what makes our nation great is we have always recognized that an advanced society is measured by how it takes care of those whos shoulders we stand upon, i.e. the Seniors, vets, and even those who cannot take care of themselves. In the end I will never stop believing that we Americans still have that "can do" spirit that took us to the moon and back, it just needs a nice swift kick in the backside.

 

[Intense]

It's to build Servitude, Indebtedness. That's the goal. Power Corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

 

[SAT]

We have really messed up our environment, and we don't have another planet to go to.

Any protection that the average person from the polluters has IS FROM GOVERNMENT.

Any consumer protection is from the government.

Our educational system is from the government.

Our transportation. Our military. Our police.

We vote in officials, who make decisions on expenditures for our societal benefit.

That is not servitude. I'm freer under this government [along with people in other modern democracies] than any average person in the history of the world.

 

[Cuyo]

Cuyo. I'm a hell of a lot brighter than you give me credit.

1. Likewise,
2. Then you must know I'm exactly right in what I said.

Well, my post was pretty clear that I don't think you are right, but somehow you understood differently.

And, I doubt any logical critique of what you said would influence you.

Well, likewise again... But try me?

What, you think when they prattle on about how low taxes for the wealthy will help everyone... And lifting regulations, environmental and otherwise, will benefit everyone... And even less impediments to "Free Trade" and even more lackadaisical banking oversight - These things are going to benefit everyone?

I'm sure some part of you must realize that they advocate for the wealthy. I can't believe anyone could say with a straight face that they believe otherwise.

 

[SAT]

Well, likewise again... But try me?

What, you think when they prattle on about how low taxes for the wealthy will help everyone... And lifting regulations, environmental and otherwise, will benefit everyone... And even less impediments to "Free Trade" and even more lackadaisical banking oversight - These things are going to benefit everyone?

I'm sure some part of you must realize that they advocate for the wealthy. I can't believe anyone could say with a straight face that they believe otherwise.

What he said.

These folks are fighting tooth and nail against their own freedom and for the wealthy who don't give two shits about them.

 

[Intense]

While no one would ever begin to compare Estonia under the USSR and say that under the USSR things were just wonderful, Estonia is a mix of Capitalism and Socialism much like many of the advanced European economies are. For example,

Estonian health insurance is a social insurance and it relies on the principle of solidarity: the Health Insurance Fund covers the cost of health services required by the person in case of illness regardless of the amount of social tax paid for the person concerned. The Fund uses the social tax paid for the working population also for covering the cost of health services provided to persons who have no income with regard to work activities.
Health Insurance in Estonia - Eesti Haigekassa

Indeed, Estonia, does some things worth looking at, and yes in fact they do have a flat tax if anyone care's to read about them, but the most interesting thing about this nation is that they produce over 80% of their own ENERGY needs, which is something we should take pause on. My personal opinion while not perfect, things such as these do tend to point out there are good idea's no matter where you find them, both left and right and as soon as we all realize that the better off we all will be.

Fair and honest points. Still there are Principles to keep in mind and Protect with Vigilance. Why not consider how something applies from a Federalist Perspective, applying Free Market Principles. We should not always be wrestling for control. We should instead seek to establish and service what is Just.

You know Intense, I've come to the conclusion my feelings are somewhat old fahsioned when it comes to the subject of our nations health and welfare these days. I tend to believe that our nation benefits when the environment is best for that Free Trade to prosper. I suppose my reading of that old " Commerce Clause" when you apply that Occam's Razor to it, really means what it say's, our Govt. is there to actually make laws that promotes commerce and am of the feeling that when they do it benefits all Americans. Now having said that the other side of the coin is true as well, when they allow the environment to be unhealthy to the point where we Americans are the ones who really suffer here, then they do a diservice not only to us but to the nation as a whole. I've often thought, that if a company for example chooses to call themselves American, then they should act like it and take pride in the fact they are and our Govt. should help them in every way possible to see to it that they build and prosper here. When they choose not to, then treat them just like any other company that imports here. I also believe, what makes our nation great is we have always recognized that an advanced society is measured by how it takes care of those whos shoulders we stand upon, i.e. the Seniors, vets, and even those who cannot take care of themselves. In the end I will never stop believing that we Americans still have that "can do" spirit that took us to the moon and back, it just needs a nice swift kick in the backside.

Well stated. Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. I do respect Private Property. That said, when it does come to Commerce, Business, even Daily Life, and what Our Needs are, We Each have a Responsibility to act in a way that does not cause Environmental Harm to Others. So we Establish Laws, Rules of Play, that should always include improved standards as understanding and technology make advances available. Too often, for example, Fracking, the practices are diverse, some, doing much more damage than others. Government should not be running Cover, protecting conglomerate interest, while it does us harm. The Commerce Clause was Hi-Jacked long ago, try considering from a Madison Perspective, rather than the Stacked and Marked Deck of Hamilton. The Impartial Referee, there to Protect the Rule of Play and Maintain the integrity of the Field. Progressive Statism, from Conception is in part about Centralizing Control of Vital Industry, Punishing Small Enterprise and undermining Competition, while seeking Power and control over the Conglomerates. The End does not justify the means, it is a false premise, designed to mislead. We need to better discern, and establish, even through trial and error, and be willing to make the right choices, through Conscience, Integrity, keeping it transparent, so everyone has a choice to be on the same page, as opposed to falsified documentation, to advance a unholy agenda.

 

[eflatminor]

What's the problem?

Here's the problem:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

As of this moment, you owe $132,380 toward the debt we've accumulated for pay for all these "feel good" programs and "essential" wars and occupations. How will you be paying? Cash or check?

By check, annually. And thankfully. We could be in your libertarian paradise, Somalia.

No, you don't. The federal government spends all it collects...and 40% more, which is why to continue to add to the debt. You have NOT paid one dime towards the debt but the question remains, will you? If you support all this feel good spending, someone has to pay for it. You wouldn't be so cruel as to suggest another generation should bear the burden for YOUR largess...are you?

Oh and get a dictionary. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. Somalia has NO constitutionally limited government.

 

[eflatminor]

We have really messed up our environment, and we don't have another planet to go to.

Any protection that the average person from the polluters has IS FROM GOVERNMENT.

Any consumer protection is from the government.

Our educational system is from the government.

Our transportation. Our military. Our police.

We vote in officials, who make decisions on expenditures for our societal benefit.

That is not servitude. I'm freer under this government [along with people in other modern democracies] than any average person in the history of the world.

Wow, what a little suck up to the central planners you are! How pathetic. By the way, you are NOT freer than Americans that grew up before the Progressive era. And, we don't live in a Democracy. It's a Republic. God are you confused.

 

[Utilitarian]

What you overlook is that true CENTRAL PLANNING, whatever you want to call it, has always existed and it always fails. Only limited government as envision in the founding of this country has ever proved to bring more people out of poverty and turned more middle class into rich people. America became the richest country the world has ever know precisely because we rejected central planning...which people like you insist on bringing back despite the history of its failing.

Was the Interstate Highway System a failure? Was the development of our military infrastructure leading up to WW2 a failure? Was NASA a failure?

The most successful economies MIX planning with privatization. It's not an either or thing like so many Libertarians seem to assume.

The interstate highway system was built under the Department of Defense budget and of course, or military, are a required oversight of the federal government....it's right there in the Constitution. NASA has had plenty of failures but tells us exactly how that organization represents your example of a successful centrally planned government. Still searching? Take your time...

I changed my mind, flat. I'll go with total privatization except for where a 224 year old document says otherwise.

 

[Navy1960]

Fair and honest points. Still there are Principles to keep in mind and Protect with Vigilance. Why not consider how something applies from a Federalist Perspective, applying Free Market Principles. We should not always be wrestling for control. We should instead seek to establish and service what is Just.

You know Intense, I've come to the conclusion my feelings are somewhat old fahsioned when it comes to the subject of our nations health and welfare these days. I tend to believe that our nation benefits when the environment is best for that Free Trade to prosper. I suppose my reading of that old " Commerce Clause" when you apply that Occam's Razor to it, really means what it say's, our Govt. is there to actually make laws that promotes commerce and am of the feeling that when they do it benefits all Americans. Now having said that the other side of the coin is true as well, when they allow the environment to be unhealthy to the point where we Americans are the ones who really suffer here, then they do a diservice not only to us but to the nation as a whole. I've often thought, that if a company for example chooses to call themselves American, then they should act like it and take pride in the fact they are and our Govt. should help them in every way possible to see to it that they build and prosper here. When they choose not to, then treat them just like any other company that imports here. I also believe, what makes our nation great is we have always recognized that an advanced society is measured by how it takes care of those whos shoulders we stand upon, i.e. the Seniors, vets, and even those who cannot take care of themselves. In the end I will never stop believing that we Americans still have that "can do" spirit that took us to the moon and back, it just needs a nice swift kick in the backside.

Well stated. Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. I do respect Private Property. That said, when it does come to Commerce, Business, even Daily Life, and what Our Needs are, We Each have a Responsibility to act in a way that does not cause Environmental Harm to Others. So we Establish Laws, Rules of Play, that should always include improved standards as understanding and technology make advances available. Too often, for example, Fracking, the practices are diverse, some, doing much more damage than others. Government should not be running Cover, protecting conglomerate interest, while it does us harm. The Commerce Clause was Hi-Jacked long ago, try considering from a Madison Perspective, rather than the Stacked and Marked Deck of Hamilton. The Impartial Referee, there to Protect the Rule of Play and Maintain the integrity of the Field. Progressive Statism, from Conception is in part about Centralizing Control of Vital Industry, Punishing Small Enterprise and undermining Competition, while seeking Power and control over the Conglomerates. The End does not justify the means, it is a false premise, designed to mislead. We need to better discern, and establish, even through trial and error, and be willing to make the right choices, through Conscience, Integrity, keeping it transparent, so everyone has a choice to be on the same page, as opposed to falsified documentation, to advance a unholy agenda.

James Madison's First Inaugural Address
To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality toward belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the right of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press; to observe economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; to promote by authorized means improvements friendly to agriculture, to manufactures, and to external as well as internal commerce; to favor in like manner the advancement of science and the diffusion of information as the best aliment to true liberty; to carry on the benevolent plans which have been so meritoriously applied to the conversion of our aboriginal neighbors from the degradation and wretchedness of savage life to a participation of the improvements of which the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized state—as far as sentiments and intentions such as these can aid the fulfillment of my duty, they will be a resource which can not fail me.

Always liked Madison, and have thought for a long time there was much wisdom to be learned there. There is something there for everyone of all political stripes to take from.

 

[eflatminor]

Was the Interstate Highway System a failure? Was the development of our military infrastructure leading up to WW2 a failure? Was NASA a failure?

The most successful economies MIX planning with privatization. It's not an either or thing like so many Libertarians seem to assume.

The interstate highway system was built under the Department of Defense budget and of course, or military, are a required oversight of the federal government....it's right there in the Constitution. NASA has had plenty of failures but tells us exactly how that organization represents your example of a successful centrally planned government. Still searching? Take your time...

I changed my mind, flat. I'll go with total privatization except for where a 224 year old document says otherwise.

You have a better plan for a new country? Let's hear it.

 

[Mr Liberty]

The reason that 47% pay no taxes is the result of years of Dem and Pub tax cuts. So why ***** now?

The idea that that 47% have no skin in the game is ignorant. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, road taxes, property taxes, etc.

So back to the question: Why is investment income taxed at a lower rate than income from actual work?

Keep in mind that those at the top often did little more than pick their parents wisely. Let's don't pretend that they are a bunch of geniuses.

Fifty percent of the country's millionaires are self made. Intelligence has little to do with becoming rich it has more to do with determination. BTW you only have to make $380,354 annually to be part of the 1%.
You are taxed more for payroll because you don't risk anything. When I buy a house, fix it and then sell it, I could lose my entire investment.
Finally, I pay 30% down payment on my homes. I use a hard money lender for the other 70%. he is in the 1%. If you raise his taxes for doing business with me, he will stop and I will be out business.

 

[Utilitarian]

The interstate highway system was built under the Department of Defense budget and of course, or military, are a required oversight of the federal government....it's right there in the Constitution. NASA has had plenty of failures but tells us exactly how that organization represents your example of a successful centrally planned government. Still searching? Take your time...

I changed my mind, flat. I'll go with total privatization except for where a 224 year old document says otherwise.

You have a better plan for a new country? Let's hear it.

Well, I'm currently having a look at the Articles of Confederation.

 

[SAT]

Fifty percent of the country's millionaires are self made. Intelligence has little to do with becoming rich it has more to do with determination. BTW you only have to make $380,354 annually to be part of the 1%.
You are taxed more for payroll because you don't risk anything. When I buy a house, fix it and then sell it, I could lose my entire investment.
Finally, I pay 30% down payment on my homes. I use a hard money lender for the other 70%. he is in the 1%. If you raise his taxes for doing business with me, he will stop and I will be out business.

Self made. Like Bush the Lesser?

Love the "only".

You are taxed more for payroll because the rich have too much power in this country. Not because of risk. Risk is inherent in work and investment.

 

[eflatminor]

I changed my mind, flat. I'll go with total privatization except for where a 224 year old document says otherwise.

You have a better plan for a new country? Let's hear it.

Well, I'm currently having a look at the Articles of Confederation.

But in the mean time, we should ignore the law of the land. Great plan.