[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[DiamondDave]

Spoken like a true tyrant.

No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....

We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today. No monarch.

We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.

The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.

If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring

You, sir, are an idiot

 

[PMZ]

Does anybody know who was the first of the ignorazzi to propose that the country is under the tyranny of a minority rather the democracy of majority rule?

You should huff less spray paint.

We are a Republic to protect the rights of the minority from the excess of the majority.

While you dream of doing just this, at present time you cannot vote to exterminate all Christians - even if you get a majority to vote for it. We are not a democracy, and the majority cannot impose their will on the minority.

The Founders designed a plutocratic republic.

We fought and won changing that to a democratic republic.

Perhaps someday we'll be able to advance to an educated democratic republic.

 

[PMZ]

No.. we have a republic, that is not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the masses....

We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today. No monarch.

We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.

The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.

If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring

You, sir, are an idiot

Democracy comes in two flavors. Direct and representative. Ours is the latter.

Do you know how to use a dictionary?

 

[DiamondDave]

We do have a republic like most of the governments in the world today. No monarch.

We've had a democracy since 1930 when universal suffrage was made part of our Constitution.

The choice is between rule by the majority and the tyranny of minority rule.

If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring

You, sir, are an idiot

Democracy comes in two flavors. Direct and representative. Ours is the latter.

Do you know how to use a dictionary?

And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...

You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought

We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring

 

[dcraelin]

lets me paraphrase what Patrick Henry said since I dont know if the picture is working.

He basically said this idea of the "tyranny of the masses" is sheer bullshit. He called it licentiousness though because it is idiotic to speak of the masses and tyranny which is a word meaning unlimited control by ONE person or a small clique.

He said the sophistry around "checks and balances" was also bullshit,.... which history I think has largely proven right.

He said the lust for a mighty empire was incompatible with the genius of Republicanism.

Republicanism was actually a rallying point of those who were AGAINST the Constitution. The so-called founders, the framers of constitution were mostly Federalists. They did NOT want a Bill of Rights....It was Henry and those that thought as he did, that pushed for a Bill of Rights. Hamilton actually speaks against Republics in Federalist #9.

 

[Toro]

18.74%

 

[PMZ]

If we had a democracy, all appointments to government and all matters of government would bow to popular vote... we have the rule of law (the constitution being the prime example) to PROTECT from the tyranny of the masses... our forefathers CAREFULLY crafted this to add protection against what democracy will bring

You, sir, are an idiot

Democracy comes in two flavors. Direct and representative. Ours is the latter.

Do you know how to use a dictionary?

And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...

You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought

We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring

We, the people, elect representatives to make law. When they do that to our liking, they get to keep their jobs. If not, we fire them. That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.

That means to have a long and productive career, politicians have to regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents. In a two party system a plurality is a majority.

Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority. Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.

 

[DiamondDave]

Democracy comes in two flavors. Direct and representative. Ours is the latter.

Do you know how to use a dictionary?

And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...

You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought

We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring

We, the people, elect representatives to make law. When they do that to our liking, they get to keep their jobs. If not, we fire them. That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.

That means to have a long and productive career, politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents. In a two party system a plurality is a majority.

Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority. Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.

The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..

 

[PMZ]

And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...

You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought

We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring

We, the people, elect representatives to make law. When they do that to our liking, they get to keep their jobs. If not, we fire them. That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.

That means to have a long and productive career, politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents. In a two party system a plurality is a majority.

Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority. Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.

The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..

Break a law and see.

The government is bound by the Constitution. The citizens are bound to the laws agreed to by a majority of Representatives installed by a majority of voters.

 

[Bern80]

The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free. Something for nothing.

They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.

They think they they are entitled to an AND, not the real world OR.

Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution is the bylaws of government. It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.

{A by-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) is a rule or law established by an organization or community to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority. The higher authority, generally a legislature or some other governmental body, establishes the degree of control that the by-laws may exercise. By-laws may be established by entities such as a business corporation, a neighborhood association, or depending on the jurisdiction, a municipality.}

By-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silly little Communist - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a set of bylaws.

It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Or that, while the declaration is a wonderful document, it has no standing in American law.

Try not to be such a moron. I realize you are just a troll - but seriously....

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Founders designed a plutocratic republic.

We fought and won changing that to a democratic republic.

Perhaps someday we'll be able to advance to an educated democratic republic.

You are both ignorant and uneducated. Probably the reason that you're a communist...

No moron, we are not a "democratic republic." You vote for ZERO federal office holders. Instead, you vote for legislators to REPRESENT your interests. This why what we have is a "Representative Republic." Even in presidential elections, you vote for representatives in the Electoral College to vote for the actual president.

I know that you're just a troll, but really.....

 

[DiamondDave]

We, the people, elect representatives to make law. When they do that to our liking, they get to keep their jobs. If not, we fire them. That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.

That means to have a long and productive career, politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents. In a two party system a plurality is a majority.

Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority. Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.

The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..

Break a law and see.

The government is bound by the Constitution. The citizens are bound to the laws agreed to by a majority of Representatives installed by a majority of voters.

No.. they are not.. for the representatives are bound by the rule of law which even if their majority or a majority of the populace wants something, and it is against the rule of law, it cannot be done.. and not a single citizen is bound by it

Your whim, nor the whim of any other citizen, has no power over how a representative introduces something, votes on something, or acts upon something in government... that rule of law, is what prevents or limits their actions.. not your vote and not your popular will

 

[PMZ]

The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free. Something for nothing.

They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.

They think they they are entitled to an AND, not the real world OR.

Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.

You are under the delusion that the government does nothing to contribute to the success of the country. Understand that's pure delusion, brought about by propaganda, serving THE PARTY.

You can play whatever role you choose to in our politics, but as for me, I will not empower any delusion with responsibility.

Reality is that everyone living here benefits from a successful country and key to our success as a country is government.

Businesses optimize themselves only. Business has zero responsibility for anything other than make more money regardless of the cost to others. They don't make the country successful, they make themselves successful, or at least some of them do.

People in the real world realize and accept that government services are no more free than business provided goods and services and taxes apportion that cost to the beneficiaries of the services.

So either pay your share of the costs of living in a successful country or move to a less successful but cheaper country. Your choice. An OR choice not an AND choice.

 

[PrometheusBound]

And with representatives, we STILL do not choose all leaders, nor government officials, nor actions of government by democratic or popular vote...

You sir, are an even bigger idiot than previously thought

We have a constitutional representative republic, where rule of law trumps what the tyranny of the masses would bring

We, the people, elect representatives to make law. When they do that to our liking, they get to keep their jobs. If not, we fire them. That's how the government reports to the people and how we hold them accountable.

That means to have a long and productive career, politicians have regularly demonstrate the support of a plurality of their constituents. In a two party system a plurality is a majority.

Every tyrannical government in history has been a minority imposing their beliefs on the majority. Our government prevents tyranny via democracy.

The representatives are bound by the RULE of LAW.. NOT the populace..

The Rule of Law Is the Law of the Rulers.

 

[PMZ]

The Constitution is the bylaws of government. It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.

{A by-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) is a rule or law established by an organization or community to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority. The higher authority, generally a legislature or some other governmental body, establishes the degree of control that the by-laws may exercise. By-laws may be established by entities such as a business corporation, a neighborhood association, or depending on the jurisdiction, a municipality.}

By-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silly little Communist - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a set of bylaws.

It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Or that, while the declaration is a wonderful document, it has no standing in American law.

Try not to be such a moron. I realize you are just a troll - but seriously....

Has anyone ever been arrested for doing something unconstitutional? Who? When? Why? Where?

The Constitution is a set of bylaws that the government has to follow as adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

As has already been pointed out prior, none of us has a right to privacy, just the Federal Government is prohibited from enforcing laws that infringe on what their bylaws prohibit.

This is fifth grade stuff. Didn't you attend?

 

[PrometheusBound]

There's no need for any taxes. The 1% have $73 trillion. It will be there when they are dead and no longer need it. The heirs are freeloaders; such parasites have no place in a free society and no claim to money they never earned. Or would you rather tax the living than the dead? Are you afraid some plutocrat will come back to haunt us if we don't set up his spawn to a position he never belonged in?

 

[kaz]

What threat is a gun 1000 miles away?

If you're afraid of guns the US is the last place you ought to be living. Your neighborhood is armed to the teeth.

Do you have any point that's not completely inane to add to this? Or are you just going to stay with this one?

I'm pointing out the error in your words. The government doesn't steal from you at the point of a gun.

Of course they do, try not paying taxes and see where it gets you.

That you don't see the gun is irrelevant. It's not different than the mob sending you a letter to remit payment "or else," or someone aiming their gun at you inside a pocket. Without the gun, you would not give up your money. With the gun, you do. It's armed robbery.

Making paying your share of the cost of services to all of us is not in the same zip code of criminal armed robbery, a lesson that you may be taught someday.

Sharing the cost of defense, roads, courts, that sort of thing are legitimate. Taking money from one citizen and giving it to another, giving it to foreign governments or using it to wage non defense wars are not only exactly "the same zip code" but they are the same. And interest on armed robbery is still fruit of the poisoned tree. So yes, 20-30% of taxes are legit. I'm referring to most of them, not all of them.

Say what you mean and mean what you say is the archenemy of extremism.

You're the extremist. I'm a moderate. I want a government that performs services for it's citizens that cannot reasonably be provided by a free market. Roads, police, courts, national defense, management of limited resources like water, arbiter of the recognition of land ownership, that sort of thing. I want government to then let us make our own choices. Pretty moderate.

You want government to own and control all assets in the economy. Businesses have to ask your blessing to exist. People can only earn what you'll allow. You redistribute money freely. You're an extremist whack job. AKA a Marxist.

 

[DiamondDave]

The Constitution is the bylaws of government. It's no surprise at all that you don't know that.

{A by-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) is a rule or law established by an organization or community to regulate itself, as allowed or provided for by some higher authority. The higher authority, generally a legislature or some other governmental body, establishes the degree of control that the by-laws may exercise. By-laws may be established by entities such as a business corporation, a neighborhood association, or depending on the jurisdiction, a municipality.}

By-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silly little Communist - the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a set of bylaws.

It's also not surprising that you don't know that the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Or that, while the declaration is a wonderful document, it has no standing in American law.

Try not to be such a moron. I realize you are just a troll - but seriously....

Has anyone ever been arrested for doing something unconstitutional? Who? When? Why? Where?

The Constitution is a set of bylaws that the government has to follow as adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

As has already been pointed out prior, none of us has a right to privacy, just the Federal Government is prohibited from enforcing laws that infringe on what their bylaws prohibit.

This is fifth grade stuff. Didn't you attend?

You are wrong on all accounts

First let us also clear up for your ignorant ass.. that nowhere in the constitution is the judiciary charged with the power to adjudicate or interpret the constitution.. this is a power that the court gave to itself, without constitutional process

Next let us explain that the constitution does not have a set of penalties for those who violate the constitution.. hence there is no arrest... BUT we have had several officials who have been impeached due to constitutional violations..

Maybe you should have had education beyond the 5th grade

 

[Bern80]

The essence of conservatism is to live here taking advantage of all progress for free. Something for nothing.

They must necessarily avoid the fact that they can choose free OR living among progress.

They think they they are entitled to an AND, not the real world OR.

Not even close and exactly the opposite. These evil conservative CEOs and business owners would not exist if the above were true. Again I'm afraid your projecting. The entitlment mentality of this country is comprised mainly of liberals. That you are owed enough to live on is a LIBERAL idea and constitutes an entitelment opinion. That the poor are entitled to cheap health care subsidized by the government is being pushed by LIBERALS. Welfare, an ENTITLEMENT, is supported primarily be LIBERALS.

You are under the delusion that the government does nothing to contribute to the success of the country. Understand that's pure delusion, brought about by propaganda, serving THE PARTY.

You can play whatever role you choose to in our politics, but as for me, I will not empower any delusion with responsibility.

Reality is that everyone living here benefits from a successful country and key to our success as a country is government.

Businesses optimize themselves only. Business has zero responsibility for anything other than make more money regardless of the cost to others. They don't make the country successful, they make themselves successful, or at least some of them do.

People in the real world realize and accept that government services are no more free than business provided goods and services and taxes apportion that cost to the beneficiaries of the services.

So either pay your share of the costs of living in a successful country or move to a less successful but cheaper country. Your choice. An OR choice not an AND choice.

There you go again changing the subject. The above was simply in response to your statement that conservatives want something for nothing and have an entitlement mentality. Honestly I don't know many liberals on here that would even agree with that. They might claim they don't believe that of liberals, but they would never claim it of conservatives. Don't you remember, conservatives are the ones always telling the poor to quit whining, pull up your boot straps and get to work if you want more money. Hardly constitutes a something for nothing mentality.

You don't live in reality. You live in a make believe world of excuses where your failures are not your fault and entitlement notion that you have the right to obligate others to your survival. I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. It is not right however, that government take my property by force and redistribute it to those they arbitrarily determine 'need' it.