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

[PMZ]

here i would agree. Foreign oil companies take in record profits every year due to artificially changing supply. When summer hits and road trips are on the rise so do gas prices. At the same time oil production is reduced too claim there is a shortage, which magically fixed itself every winter.

i disagree only with the word "foreign".

opec

ExxonMobil.

 

[originalthought]

While it's common sense that capitalism without competition would lead to out of control profits, I don't think there is anything in the definition of it that requires competition.

You think there is such a thing as too much profit?

Consumers do. They call it high prices.

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

 

[originalthought]

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

Your logic Government prevent monopolies.
Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools. These are just several off the top of my head.
If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
You are an idiot full of contradictions.

Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.”

When the government "creates monopolies" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible. In such a market capitalism will not work. So, the government owns the means and our control over that, rather than as consumers in a competitive market, is as voters in a democracy.

As a typical conservative, you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny, and treat them the same. Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.

Thank you for showing that you are an idiot full of contracdictions. You said Government prevents monopolies, yet you turn around and say that it also creates them. CONTRADICTION.

I am not a typical conservative. I am not a republican (facist). I am not a democrat (socialist). I am a capitalist. I am more liberal than you or anyone here could ever imagine. Don't pretend that you know me.

 

[PMZ]

You think there is such a thing as too much profit?

Consumers do. They call it high prices.

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.

 

[PMZ]

Your logic Government prevent monopolies.
Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools. These are just several off the top of my head.
If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
You are an idiot full of contradictions.

Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.”

When the government "creates monopolies" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible. In such a market capitalism will not work. So, the government owns the means and our control over that, rather than as consumers in a competitive market, is as voters in a democracy.

As a typical conservative, you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny, and treat them the same. Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.

Thank you for showing that you are an idiot full of contracdictions. You said Government prevents monopolies, yet you turn around and say that it also creates them. CONTRADICTION.

I am not a typical conservative. I am not a republican (facist). I am not a democrat (socialist). I am a capitalist. I am more liberal than you or anyone here could ever imagine. Don't pretend that you know me.

Why do you hang on to the complete false belief that they can't do both?

 

[ShawnChris13]

i disagree only with the word "foreign".

opec

ExxonMobil.

True, yet Exxon doesn't raise the value of our currency as importantly when compared with countries like Oman. My cab driver in Oman filled up his car for less than $10 American.

(Also funny side note his car was running the entire time he filled up and we almost ran over kids playing kickball in some war torn neighborhood.)

 

[originalthought]

When the government "creates monopolies" what's going on is the recognition that there's a market in which competition is not practical or even possible. In such a market capitalism will not work. So, the government owns the means and our control over that, rather than as consumers in a competitive market, is as voters in a democracy.

As a typical conservative, you are blind to the difference between democracy and tyranny, and treat them the same. Doing so eliminates a whole class of solutions to real problems which is the main reason that conservative government is an oxymoron and always fails.

Thank you for showing that you are an idiot full of contracdictions. You said Government prevents monopolies, yet you turn around and say that it also creates them. CONTRADICTION.

I am not a typical conservative. I am not a republican (facist). I am not a democrat (socialist). I am a capitalist. I am more liberal than you or anyone here could ever imagine. Don't pretend that you know me.

Why do you hang on to the complete false belief that they can't do both?

Because you said that Government prevent monopolies. If it prevents them, it cannot create them, because then you are breaking your first premise.

 

[originalthought]

Consumers do. They call it high prices.

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.

How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.

 

[dcraelin]

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers. Some of the framers wanted a king....we dont have one. To pass the constitution they had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE....that alone makes us a Democracy/Republic...........

Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution.
A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.
The old Confederacy too.

What "negotiated decision"?.....small states are a problem?....I dont think that was the problem

 

[PMZ]

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers. Some of the framers wanted a king....we dont have one. To pass the constitution they had to appeal to WE THE PEOPLE....that alone makes us a Democracy/Republic...........

Many people like to recall the sides of the debate rather than the negotiated decision documented by the Constitution.
A major decision was to avoid what turned out to be a big problem in Europe. Small states with no Union. Europe is still wrestling with that.
The old Confederacy too.

What "negotiated decision"?.....small states are a problem?....I dont think that was the problem

I, mistakenly obviously, assumed that you had some knowledge of the Constitutional Convention.

One of the biggest negotiation was between Federalists, who wanted a strong country, and those who distrusted other colonies who wanted to be free of their influence. The European tradition of independent small countries as compared to a strong European Union, for instance.

Federalists won the debate and wrote it into the Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.

Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than …mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.


JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.

 

[PMZ]

No they don't.
Why do you think you have the right to put a limit on the amount of profit someone can make?

Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.

How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.

You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want. Your financial success is in their hands.

 

[PMZ]

WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.

Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than …mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.


JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.

I've read every word many times.

They did establish a republic. That means no monarch, and we've never had one, though many thought we should have followed the European tradition and not chosen a republican form over a monarch. In fact many thought that George Washington should have been king.

The Founders did not trust democracy and therefore established an aristocracy. While they left voting qualifications up to the states, generally wealthy white males were considered the aristocrats with voting privileges.

That lasted until 1930 when the universal suffrage amendment established a full representative democracy.

 

[johnwk]

Well no, it's just an incorrect statement that Capitalism would lead to monopolies. All monopolies have come into being through State intervention.

"All monopolies have come into being through State intervention"

I would say that this statement is completely wrong. Capitalism strives for monopolies. Government prevents them. At least in America.

Your logic Government prevent monopolies.
Yet the Government has created several monopolies. Post Office, AT&T. Your energy provider. Your public transportation. Your schools. These are just several off the top of my head.
If the government prevents monoplies, it cannot also be a creator of monopolies. Because you said government (in America) prevents them. But i have shown you that it also creates them.
You are an idiot full of contradictions.

Here is the true monopoly: "A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.”

Under Maryland’s Declaration of Rights we are amply informed:

“that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”

And what is the most devastating, thieving and tyrannical monopoly created by our federal government in violation of the legislative intent of our Constitution? The answer would be none other than the Federal Reserve System, and its notes being made a legal tender for all debts, public and private.

In regard to the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, Congress unconstitutionally reassigned a power of Congress to regulate the value of our nation’s currency and placed that power in the hands of private bankers. But what few people realize is the very intention of the Act was to create a money monopoly for these private bankers, and this was done by making Federal Reserve Notes a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, in spite of our founders expressed intentions to forbid Notes of any kind to be made a legal tender.


For those who are not familiar with our founder’s specifically stated intentions, here is what transpired during the convention with regard to bank notes being made a legal tender. SEE The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16


Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.


Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.


____ cut _____



Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.


Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words "(and emit bills")

On the motion for striking out
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

[FN23] This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government making a particular bank note, or any “note” a legal tender, which if allowed would literally force people and business owners to accept worthless script in payment of debt.




As a matter of fact, one of the delegates to convention who helped frame our Constitution who lived in Connecticut was defrauded by a legal tender law made in Rhode Island which required him to accept worthless script in payment of debt. As one of the delegates to the Convention he was therefore quite influential in prohibiting our government to emit bills on the credit of the united States and likewise prohibiting folks in government making notes of any kind a legal tender in payment of debt!

To lean how Roger Sherman was defrauded see his work titled: A Caveat Against Injustice … An inquiry into the evils of a fluctuating medium of exchange.


And, the question is, how is it not a crime for our Treasure of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury to sign Federal Reserve Notes which state on their face “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE“? Should they not be charged with misfeasance and malfeasance in addition to complicity in an act of fraud?


JWK


"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

 

[johnwk]

WOW some of you are posting fanatics. Tough to keep up

The US is a Democracy/Republic despite the views of some of the Framers.

Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than …mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.


JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.

I've read every word many times.

They did establish a republic. .

Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.

And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63

"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit “democracy“, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:

“…exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.”


Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?


JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson

 

[PMZ]

Apparently you have not read our Constitution which guarantees us a "Republican form of Government".


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty [witness the recent Kelo case]. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you for your love affair of democracy which is nothing more than …mob rule government, or three wolves and a sheep voting for dinner's menu.


JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.

I've read every word many times.

They did establish a republic. .

Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.

And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63

"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit “democracy“, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:

“…exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.”


Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?


JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson

Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.

Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.

As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.

Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nobody. There were loopholes and the progressives always forget INFLATION.

Back in 1956, that 90% tax rate was on incomes over $2.5M in today's dollars. That's a far cry from the Billionaire and Millionaires who make $250K today.

Back in the 50s it was just after the war. Much of the world was destroyed. Europe was a cinder, Japan a glowing hole in the ground, China was truly third world. It's easy to have high taxes when there is only one functioning economy in the world and it's yours.

 

[originalthought]

I've read every word many times.

They did establish a republic. .

Then you don't know how to read. What they established is a "Republican Form of Government". And it is so stated in our Constitution.

And why have representatives legislating and not the people themselves? As emphatically explained in Federalist Paper No. 63

"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..." __ see Federalist No. 10. And, the guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is specifically intended to prohibit “democracy“, and, as stated in Federalist Paper No. 43 no state may:

“…exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.”


Your personal opinions are not supported by historical facts. Why are you insistent on ignoring historical facts?


JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution" ___ Jefferson

Actually my opinions are well supported by historical fact.

Look up republic in an English dictionary. What you'll find is a form of government where the people's consent to be governed comes from a Constitution and not a monarch. Most of the counties in the world are republics and say so in their name.

As I said before what the founders agreed to is an aristocracy of mostly wealthy white males. Look up aristocracy in the dictionary too. The concept of a democracy was founded by we, the people, and culminated with the universal suffrage Ammendment in 1930.

Virtually all government decisions are decided by majority rule. And those that decide, are elected by a plurality of voters. Except in George Bush's case which was decided by the justices that his father appointed to the Supreme Court.

You are a retard for for babbling on about majority rule. There were more instances where a president was elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote, but you are a retard and cannot know that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Because I'm a consumer in a competitive market.

How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.

You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want. Your financial success is in their hands.

Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance. Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law. Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.

 

[itfitzme]

How does that give you the right to curb my profit? I can charge as much as I want. If we are in a "competitive market" buy from someone else.

You can charge anything that you want but consumers can buy anything that they want. Your financial success is in their hands.

Not true, OCA prohibits consumers from buying low premium high deductible insurance. Thus, affordable health care for healthy people is now against the law. Thus financial success is in the hands of tyrannical regulators.

Not true. The ACA includes HDHP (High Deductible Health Plans). There are limits on how high the deductible may be. These are addressed on page 48 of the PPACA.

ANNUAL LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLES FOR EMPLOYER SPONSORED
PLANS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a health plan offered in the small group market, the deductible under the plan shall not exceed—
(i) $2,000 in the case of a plan covering a single individual; and
(ii) $4,000 in the case of any other plan.
The amounts under clauses (i) and (ii) may be increased by the maximum amount of reimbursement which is reasonably available to a participant under a flexible spending arrangement described in section 106(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (determined without regard to any salary reduction arrangement).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

A google search provides a wealth of info on high deductible health plans.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

For instance, wikipedia has this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-deductible_health_plan

In the United States, participation in a qualifying HDHP is a requirement for health savings accounts and other tax-advantaged programs. As of 2012, HDHPs are plans with a minimum deductible of $1,200 per year for self-only coverage and $2,400 for self-and-family coverage. The maximum amount out-of-pocket limit for HDHPs is $6,050 for self-only coverage and $12,000 for self-and-family coverage. (However, according to the instructions for IRS form 8889, "this limit does not apply to deductibles and expenses for out-of-network services if the plan uses a network of providers. Instead, only deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for services within the network should be used to figure whether the limit is reached.") The Internal Revenue Service released the 2010 amounts on May 15, 2009,[3] which will be modified each year to reflect the change in cost of living.