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

[PMZ]

True, the government generally doesn't allow any competition with itself. Its customers also have no choice about paying for the wares government is offering. It's hard to compete with a "business" of that nature.

That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical. Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.

ROFL! It hardly limits itself to that. Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.

Actually it does limit itself to that judged by centrist standards, but certainly not by extremist standards.

 

[dcraelin]

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

It is amazing to me the number of windbags who say that the US is a Republic because the Consitution guarantees such. Then some even post article 4 which they have apparently not read. It guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. It says NOTHING about the federal government being one. READ.
Now I do believe we are a Republic tho not a pure one. A pure one, as Jefferson in his day said, could only exist in a small area where all citizens could decide on laws.
Madison was inconsistent, later joining Jefferson in his opposition to the rest of the framer's federalists. Republicanism was actually a rallying pint of those OPPOSED to the consitution such as PATRICK HENRY.

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..."

NO one knows for sure what was said at the convention because members were sworn to secrecy. Madsion did later say that some wanted a king.....we didnt get one did we.
Read Federalist #9 to see what Hamilton thought of historys Republics, he equated them with Democracys, as did most of the peopulation of the day.
Franklin wanted a one house legislature and no president.
Democracys/Republics require knowing the will of the people, which requires voting. Mobs dont vote. Some of the framers tho not all may have had an irrational fear of the comon man being involved in politics. They were wrong.

Words have meaning. The word republic is defined as a country not ruled by a monarch. Exactly what the Constitution says when it guarantees the STATES a republican form of government. One without a monarch.

The Founders, following the fashion of their day, did not trust the "common man", and certainly not any women or any slaves.

While they left voting qualifications up to each state, they knew that states would create an aristocracy.

It took 150 years approximately before we, the people, insisted on universal suffrage in the election of our representatives. Of course, up to then, Congress and the Supreme Court made decisions democratically, but once we could all vote in elections we became indisputably a democracy.

Well I can live with that definition, and it is supported by the consitutions prohibition of Titles etc., tho I do think it implyed more
as Jeffersons ideal shows.

Some of the founders. People seems to forget they could have differing opinions. I dont believe you are corrrect regarding aristocracy.

 

[bripat9643]

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Only if you and your family are not Americans.

Wrong again. Other Americans are entitled to nothing I've earned.

 

[itfitzme]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Yes it is. The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)

 

[PMZ]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

And what it has to do.

What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government. Other than that, there aren't many limitations.

That's wrong. It's the opposite of what the Framers intended. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited? That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution. The rest of it would be superfluous.

What the founders intended was lost with them. What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down. And what are the bylaws of our government.

 

[bripat9643]

That's why it only provides services where competition is impossible or impractical. Markets where capitalism will not work due to the lack of competition.

ROFL! It hardly limits itself to that. Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.

Actually it does limit itself to that judged by centrist standards, but certainly not by extremist standards.

In your lingo, Joseph Stalin would qualify as a" centrist." The federal government has its fingers in so many things that it's impossible to even list them all. The number of federal agencies is in the thousands. There are hundreds of programs solely devoted to provided housing.

You really are one totally deluded Obama fluffer, ya know it?

 

[itfitzme]

And what it has to do.

What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government. Other than that, there aren't many limitations.

That's wrong. It's the opposite of what the Framers intended. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited? That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution. The rest of it would be superfluous.

What the founders intended was lost with them. What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down. And what are the bylaws of our government.

Yeah, we here this a lot. "what the Framers intended." The very reason that we have a system of courts and judges is to determine what was intended by the law. Oh, yeah, the "what the Framers intended" crowd just knows what was intended and doesn't like judges because they see it differently.

 

[bripat9643]

And what it has to do.

What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government. Other than that, there aren't many limitations.

That's wrong. It's the opposite of what the Framers intended. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited? That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution. The rest of it would be superfluous.

What the founders intended was lost with them. What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down. And what are the bylaws of our government.

Hmmm, no. You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended. It's not lost. That's how we know you're full of shit.

 

[orogenicman]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.

The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes. It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.

I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in Neverland. You can't get something for nothing.

 

[Polk]

Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is ignorant.
Democracy is mob rule and The Constitution clearly addresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, the minority and NOT the majority.
The majority is what elects the leaders of government and The Constitution clearly tells government what IT CAN NOT DO.

And what it has to do.

What it can't do is legislate the areas of life defined by the Bill of Rights. And it hasn't. There are also a few things reserved for state government. Other than that, there aren't many limitations.

That's wrong. It's the opposite of what the Framers intended. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited? That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution. The rest of it would be superfluous.

I actually agree with your argument on this one, but it's also an argument that proves nothing.

 

[Polk]

That's wrong. It's the opposite of what the Framers intended. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government. What's the point of listing the powers of the federal government if the document gives it license to do whatever it wants unless expressly prohibited? That would essentially make the Bill of Rights the entire Constitution. The rest of it would be superfluous.

What the founders intended was lost with them. What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down. And what are the bylaws of our government.

Hmmm, no. You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended. It's not lost. That's how we know you're full of shit.

He does not disagree with you on that point. What he is getting at is that language is not precise and we don't know James Madison sitting here telling us how he'd address new situations.

 

[bripat9643]

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

My money is of, by, and for me and my family.

Yes it is. The money you have left after taxes, is "your money" to do spend or save as you see fit. (And as the markets allow you to.)

All the figures on my paycheck denote money that I earned and that belongs to me. The only difference is that some of the figures denote the money that the majority through its agent the federal government is stealing from me.

According to your theory, my net pay is a gift from the government. Now, a Stalinist or an Obama fluffer might agree with that viewpoint, but most Americans don't.

 

[orogenicman]

So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet? Do you abuse your own children in this way? Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?

His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar. Where do you think I got the photo?

Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.

So is a lot of child porn. Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so? Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.

The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes. It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.

I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in Neverland. You can't get something for nothing.

That doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not compel the federal government to collect taxes.

 

[itfitzme]

ROFL! It hardly limits itself to that. Of course, there's not much competition when it comes to the "service" of extracting money from other people at gunpoint to pay for your pet causes.

Actually it does limit itself to that judged by centrist standards, but certainly not by extremist standards.

In your lingo, Joseph Stalin would qualify as a" centrist." The federal government has its fingers in so many things that it's impossible to even list them all. The number of federal agencies is in the thousands. There are hundreds of programs solely devoted to provided housing.

You really are one totally deluded Obama fluffer, ya know it?

And the number of businesses is in the tens of millions. And the number of individuals in the hundreds of millions. And the number of automobiles is in hundreds of thousands. And the number of occupations is in thousands.

And the number of ways that you can be wrong is innumerable.

So what is your point?

 

[PMZ]

What the founders intended was lost with them. What remains was what they agreed to and wrote down. And what are the bylaws of our government.

Hmmm, no. You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended. It's not lost. That's how we know you're full of shit.

He does not disagree with you on that point. What he is getting at is that language is not precise and we don't know James Madison sitting here telling us how he'd address new situations.

Plus the documents that he refers to have no standing in American law. Interesting, perhaps, but as they describe as much the losing positions leading up to the negotiated Constitution as the winning positions, they are not relevant to the rule of law.

 

[Polk]

The Constitution also clear tells the government what it must do. Collecting taxes is one example.

The Constitution authorized the federal government to collect taxes. It doesn't compel it to collect taxes.

Wrong again.

I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in Neverland. You can't get something for nothing.

I think you're both dancing around each other.
He's arguing that the government doesn't have to collect taxes (legally true, but practically irrelevant).
You're arguing that even borrowing is just a claim on future revenue (also true, but that doesn't force the government to collect the future revenue).

 

[bripat9643]

So britpat, do you have that misbehaving child's parents' permission to splash his face all over the internet? Do you abuse your own children in this way? Or do you keep that kind of behavior quiet so the authorities don't find out?

His face was already all over the internet before I used his photo for my avatar. Where do you think I got the photo?

Your flailing savagely in your attempts to induce guilt in me.

So is a lot of child porn. Are you also willing to post it all over the internet because someone else has done so? Is this the kind of morality you are promoting?

If you object, then report me. Otherwise, **** off.

 

[orogenicman]

Easy to be generous through government using the money of others.

It's money of, by, and for Americans.

Wrong. The deductions from my paycheck are my money. You played no part in earning it. You're entitled to nothing from me.

Fine. Stop using the roads. Stop expecting others to die to protect you and your family. Good luck trying to round up your own army. If you aren't willing to pay your taxes, you have no cause to expect protection or services of any kind from the government.

 

[Polk]

Hmmm, no. You see, we have this thing called writing, and the Framers wrote down what they intended. It's not lost. That's how we know you're full of shit.

He does not disagree with you on that point. What he is getting at is that language is not precise and we don't know James Madison sitting here telling us how he'd address new situations.

Plus the documents that he refers to have no standing in American law. Interesting, perhaps, but as they describe as much the losing positions leading up to the negotiated Constitution as the winning positions, they are not relevant to the rule of law.

Which documents are we referring to specifically? That seems to be an important point in the discussion. Correspondence? The Federalist Papers?