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

[PMZ]

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

I think that you just repeated what I said if you define "rule of law" as the Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

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.

'' You want government to own and control all assets in the economy.''

Of course, Adolf, this is exactly the opposite of everything that I've posted but the fact that you keep trying to think and speak for me, rather than yourself, is classic extremism.

Let me simplify.

Capitalism requires competition.

Socialism otherwise.

Just as practiced here from day 1, and the vast majority of countries around the world.

 

[PMZ]

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.

" I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "

Finally.

Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution. Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS.

If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.

 

[PMZ]

It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.

 

[Bern80]

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.

" I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "

Finally.

Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution. Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS.

If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.

When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.

 

[Bern80]

It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.

Under state funded education and democrates catering to teacher's unions? It's not hard to understand at all.

 

[PMZ]

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.

" I have no problem contributing taxes to pay for the constitutionally stipulated duties of government. "

Finally.

Now ditch the delusion that you interpret and enforce the Constitution. Everyone is denied that power except for SCOTUS.

If that principle is ever lifted we'll have 300,000,000,000 different Constitutions to deal with.

When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.

"Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution."

People spend their lives studying Constitutional law. And you can best them from the Lazy Boy?

I doubt it, but it doesn't matter. Your interpretation is as irrelevant as mine and all others.

That’s the way things were designed by the founders to be.

You're trying to redesign our government. The majority doesn't agree with you. In fact the number of people who do is getting smaller. They've seen the consequences of ideas like yours.

 

[PMZ]

It's hard to believe that as hard as we commit to education we have failed to this degree.

Under state funded education and democrates catering to teacher's unions? It's not hard to understand at all.

Students learn differently depending on who's paying the teachers? And on whether the teachers negotiate individually or collectively?

Are you against athletes having agents too? How about executives hiring lawyers to do their negotiations. Or anybody who hires a lawyer to negotiate their position in court.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

One of the features of the early United States that set this as a unique nation was that our Constitution and laws were written in plain language. Most of Europe wrote laws in Latin, to ensure that commoners were not privy to the meaning of laws. Lawyers were an elite who alone could understand the laws that governed lesser men.

But our founding fathers rejected this practice, and wrote laws in plain language that any man could understand. Remember that in 1780, there was about a 90% literacy rank - virtually everyone could read and write, not like now.

About 1830 things started to slide - while Latin is not used, the employment of obfuscatory language was added to new laws, to the point that now we have garbage like Obama's fascist care that is thousands of pages of gobbledegook.

As a result, any person with an 8th grade education can read the Constitution and understand exactly what the authors intended.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.

It's important to the leftists that the hoi poli are kept from understanding the laws that govern them - this keeps them dependent upon a ruling class of bureaucrats.

 

[PMZ]

When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

One of the features of the early United States that set this as a unique nation was that our Constitution and laws were written in plain language. Most of Europe wrote laws in Latin, to ensure that commoners were not privy to the meaning of laws. Lawyers were an elite who alone could understand the laws that governed lesser men.

But our founding fathers rejected this practice, and wrote laws in plain language that any man could understand. Remember that in 1780, there was about a 90% literacy rank - virtually everyone could read and write, not like now.

About 1830 things started to slide - while Latin is not used, the employment of obfuscatory language was added to new laws, to the point that now we have garbage like Obama's fascist care that is thousands of pages of gobbledegook.

As a result, any person with an 8th grade education can read the Constitution and understand exactly what the authors intended.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.

It's important to the leftists that the hoi poli are kept from understanding the laws that govern them - this keeps them dependent upon a ruling class of bureaucrats.

What a bunch of absolute crap. The Magna Carta was written in Latin but in a few years was translated into everyday French. In ten years, by 1225 into English.

This whole discussion is moot. Nothing will happen as a result of any body's claim to special insight into the founders agreed upon words. Only the opinion of SCOTUS has any power. That's as it should be. Allowing all half baked political extremist movements to have free reign on the text that rules our government would be insane.

 

[PMZ]

When have I ever claimed I have the power to enforce the constitution? Interpreting it is a different matter. Of course I can interpret the constitution. I can read and understand the meaning of words. Therefore I can interpret the constitution all day and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

One of the features of the early United States that set this as a unique nation was that our Constitution and laws were written in plain language. Most of Europe wrote laws in Latin, to ensure that commoners were not privy to the meaning of laws. Lawyers were an elite who alone could understand the laws that governed lesser men.

But our founding fathers rejected this practice, and wrote laws in plain language that any man could understand. Remember that in 1780, there was about a 90% literacy rank - virtually everyone could read and write, not like now.

About 1830 things started to slide - while Latin is not used, the employment of obfuscatory language was added to new laws, to the point that now we have garbage like Obama's fascist care that is thousands of pages of gobbledegook.

As a result, any person with an 8th grade education can read the Constitution and understand exactly what the authors intended.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that only SCOTUS is capable of understanding the constitution. That simply isn't the case. The founders also intended for people to be able to understand their rights. There is very little complexity in the constitution that people can't easily understand what it allows and doesn't allow the government to do. The complexity is brought in by people like you who use complexity or broad interprtation to rationalize that which you know the constitution doesn't allow.

It's important to the leftists that the hoi poli are kept from understanding the laws that govern them - this keeps them dependent upon a ruling class of bureaucrats.

Who's kept from understanding anything? And how? Even Texas can't prevent anyone from understanding natural selection despite monumental efforts. You can find how to build a fission bomb on the Internet. There are no secrets.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree with the financial harm part. The other part is, once again, only what you want to be true.

The word that he very clearly stated to describe me has a very specific meaning. It would be up to him to show why it was not merely a slanderous lie.

Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have: innocent until proven guilty. It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime; the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.

On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser. Sounds consistent with liberalism.

His post is proof that he slandered me.

Nice try, fucknut, but that nifty little liberal "move the goalposts and topic hop" trick doesn't work with me. Was I addressing whether or not he slandered you? No. Am I going to let you pretend suddenly that that was the topic I was addressing? Hell, no.

I'll try to type this as dumbed-down as I can, and please feel free to move your lips while you read it: you claimed that the burden of proof in a slander suit is on the accused slanderer to prove himself innocent. You are wrong. My post addressed your wrongness in this regard.

I don't recall what it was he called you that you think was slander, but if it denigrated your intelligence, you just proved that he was telling the truth.

 

[PMZ]

Perhaps you've heard of this quaint little philosophy American courts have: innocent until proven guilty. It means that the defendant - in this case, the person accused of slandering someone - does NOT have to prove that he's innocent of the crime; the plaintiff - in this case, the person accusing the defendant of slandering him - must prove that slander occurred.

On the other hand, you seem to know so very little about what America actually is or how it operates, it's entirely possible you've never heard of this concept at all, and labor under the delusion that anyone can accuse someone of a crime, and the burden of proof is on the accused, rather than the accuser. Sounds consistent with liberalism.

His post is proof that he slandered me.

Nice try, fucknut, but that nifty little liberal "move the goalposts and topic hop" trick doesn't work with me. Was I addressing whether or not he slandered you? No. Am I going to let you pretend suddenly that that was the topic I was addressing? Hell, no.

I'll try to type this as dumbed-down as I can, and please feel free to move your lips while you read it: you claimed that the burden of proof in a slander suit is on the accused slanderer to prove himself innocent. You are wrong. My post addressed your wrongness in this regard.

I don't recall what it was he called you that you think was slander, but if it denigrated your intelligence, you just proved that he was telling the truth.

Slander would be a civil, not a legal issue. Now take a deep breath, and start over.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are a Republic. No monarch.

On election days you don't vote for your choice for President, a Senator, and a House member?

If you ask the polling place officials they will help you read the ballot.

Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms. The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.

I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.

A republic is a government without a monarch.

Democracy is a decision making strategy. By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.

You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy. Rule by the privileged.

Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away. Our government is of, by, and for the people. Not the privileged. All the people.

Simple minds, simpleminded ideas. That's the left in a nutshell.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Remember, my position that you are disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable for growth.

Has nothing to do with your pontificating about what others think.

No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.

It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve. Who the **** are you, and what business is it of yours? Same basic concept. I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have ****-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.

If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.

Another conservative icon. Avoid accountability. Avoid responsibility.
What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.

The peak of ignorance.

In other words, I'm right and you're too big a chickenshit to admit it. You may stop waving your white flag now and run along.

 

[PMZ]

Dude, you're on the Internet with a browser, if you don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, you could just google the terms. The obvious is such an elusive grasp to liberals.

I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.

A republic is a government without a monarch.

Democracy is a decision making strategy. By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.

You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy. Rule by the privileged.

Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away. Our government is of, by, and for the people. Not the privileged. All the people.

Simple minds, simpleminded ideas. That's the left in a nutshell.

Interesting perspective. Government of, by, and for the people is a simpleminded idea.

Have the founders been notified?

 

[PMZ]

No, your position that everyone is disagreeing with is that business leaders should be held accountable to dimwits on the street like you, who have no investment in or connection with the business.

It's kinda like you saying if I cheat on my husband, I owe YOU an apology, because you don't approve. Who the **** are you, and what business is it of yours? Same basic concept. I didn't marry you, so I have no obligation to you to be a good wife, and you have ****-all to do with their business, so they have no obligation to you in regards to how they run it.

If you still don't get it, I guess I can break out the Crayolas and draw you a picture.

Another conservative icon. Avoid accountability. Avoid responsibility.
What's amazing would be anyone who would believe that a country would work based on irresponsible people with no accountability.

The peak of ignorance.

In other words, I'm right and you're too big a chickenshit to admit it. You may stop waving your white flag now and run along.

You forgot the content again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A whole lot of fire and police and military and health care professionals and parents and grandparents would disagree.

In fact, I would venture that most human beings would disagree.

If you want a real life demonstration, threaten one of my grandchildren.

We're not talking about attacking people. Not paying someone enough to live on is not an attack. Your employer doesn't owe you enough to live on. That is not the reason they pay you. They pay you based on the value of the skill you provide them. That might be enough to live on or more or it might not. At the end of the day you don't have the right to make anyone else responsible for what you need to survive.

Is this from the Bible? Constitution? From God's lips direct to your ears? Wikipedia?

Oh I know. The fount of all knowledge, Fox News. Straight out of the Republican propaganda factory.

Good recital.

"Fox, Fox, Fox. Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox, Fox. No one can possibly oppose me unless they're listening to Fox and parroting them, and if I just keep repeating that, it'll keep me from having to listen or respond to anyone. Fox, Fox, Fox!"

The only "recital" here is you, Brain Trust, every time you trot out this little speech in the mistaken belief that it fools anyone into thinking that you've said something, or that you're capable of saying something.

Truth is, every time the word "Fox" appears in one of your posts, all we see is, "He's right! I can't answer him! Auuuuggghh! Run away!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I

I know the definition of the two words and they are unrelated.

A republic is a government without a monarch.

Democracy is a decision making strategy. By voting. It's also a form of government that uses that strategy to make decisions.

You've been instructed to deny democracy as a step towards plutocracy and aristocracy. Rule by the privileged.

Unfortunately for your leaders our democracy won't go away. Our government is of, by, and for the people. Not the privileged. All the people.

We don't have a democracy in this country. Never have. It is not majority rule. This is a fundamental myth about our country that for whatever reason we can't shake. Our form of government is and always has been known as a democratic republic. Not a democracy.

Look up the word democracy. Look up the word republic. Turn off the TV. This ain't rocket science.

You're the biggest robot here.

Yes, WE are the ones who should look up those words, because the fool who blathers on based on the most basic, shallow definition of them from the dictionary, deliberately ignoring the two or three other, more in-depth definitions is the one who truly knows what they mean.

Simple minds, simpleminded ideas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Workers are paid the minimum that corporations, following their one rule, make more money regardless of the cost to others, can get away with.

Conversely, employees try to get as much money of the employers as they can get away with. It's called negotiation.

The exceptions are executives who are freed of accountability and payed by their friends as much as the corporation can get away with.

Then the consumer has only to blame themselves. Accountability of the business is their job in a free market economy. More proof that it is liberals who are anti-personal accountability. You would rather abdicate that responsibilty to government in the form of red tape and regulations as opposed to the consumers being vocal about a crooked CEO and/or not doing business with them. But you want your cake and be able to it too. You still want what he's selling, but don't like the money he's making doing it.

I get it. Accountability is the responsibility of the little people, but the aristocracy is absolved of it.

Gotcha.

I get it. "I say something, you refute it utterly, I hear that you've agreed with me and claim a win."

Gotcha.