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

[PMZ]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.

I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people . Only conservatives.

First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth. How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?

The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.

If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth, it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.

At the moment, I'm under-represented in Congress because a family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.

Like tea party values, those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.

I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS. the less your views are represented, the better.

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]

Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply. I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is. In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.

 

[PMZ]

At the moment, I'm under-represented in Congress because a family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.

Like tea party values, those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.

I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS. the less your views are represented, the better.

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]

Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply. I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is. In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.

"Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."

Bizarre choice of words. What did he expose my post as being? Words?

The rest of your post I fully agree with. It's the strength of democracy. You can't fool all of the people any of the time.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS. the less your views are represented, the better.

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]

Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply. I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is. In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.

"Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."

Bizarre choice of words. What did he expose my post as being? Words?

The rest of your post I fully agree with. It's the strength of democracy. You can't fool all of the people any of the time.

I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.

 

[PMZ]

[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]

Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply. I would not vote for someone based on campaign slogans, I vote based on the man, his experience, what he's done in life, who he is, not what the advertisement says he is. In short, I don't buy into advertising when I buy, I look for people who I trust to represent me and my family and you won't get that from 30second sound bite advertising or water carrying media.

"Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."

Bizarre choice of words. What did he expose my post as being? Words?

The rest of your post I fully agree with. It's the strength of democracy. You can't fool all of the people any of the time.

I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.

"anti-liberty pro-marxist"

As far as "anti-liberty" is concerned, I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.

Until that gets cleared up I will continue to treat libertarianism as a fringe whacko cognitive dysfunction.

I have no interest in Marxism. Nobody does. It would appear to me that Kim Jong Un is the only Marxist left in the world. It's only application in today's world is as a conservative boogeyman. One of many.

I choose to be working towards a vision, over running from a boogeyman.

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[PMZ]

Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers, every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.

 

[mudwhistle]

Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers, every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.

That is, of course, a phony stereotype.

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.

 

[PMZ]

Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers, every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.

That is, of course, a phony stereotype.

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.

I'm saying what I said.

 

[RKMBrown]

"Well since bri replied exposing your post, I'll reply."

Bizarre choice of words. What did he expose my post as being? Words?

The rest of your post I fully agree with. It's the strength of democracy. You can't fool all of the people any of the time.

I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.

"anti-liberty pro-marxist"

As far as "anti-liberty" is concerned, I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.

Until that gets cleared up I will continue to treat libertarianism as a fringe whacko cognitive dysfunction.

I have no interest in Marxism. Nobody does. It would appear to me that Kim Jong Un is the only Marxist left in the world. It's only application in today's world is as a conservative boogeyman. One of many.

I choose to be working towards a vision, over running from a boogeyman.

You mean this vision right?

Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology combining the scientific socialist concepts theorized by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, collectively known as Marxism, with the theoretical expansions developed by Vladimir Lenin, collectively known as Leninism, which consist of anti-imperialism, democratic centralism, and the necessity of a vanguard party of class conscious cadres to coordinate the social revolution and the construction of socialism.[1] Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the Communist International (1919 - 1943), making it the guiding ideology of the world communist movement. As such, in popular discourse, the term "Communism" is often understood in the Marxist-Leninist sense.

The core object of Marxism-Leninism is the creation of a socialist state - and ultimately a worldwide communist society - through the leadership of a vanguard party composed of "professional" revolutionaries, under the justification that a highly organized group of revolutionaries is necessary for the success and safeguarding of the revolution - which itself represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat".[2]

Marxism-Leninism rejects political pluralism, in favor of democratic centralism and single-party control in order to provide a unified base of leadership for the working class and the revolution. In Marxist-Leninist states, the ruling Communist party acts as the supreme political institution and the prime force of societal organization.[3] The model of socialism as practised in Marxist-Leninist states is typically associated with centrally-planned economies,[4] while in recent decades, Marxist-Leninist states have incorporated market methods of exchange and expanded the role played by the non-state sector in developing the national economy, such as the People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[5]

The phrase "Marxism-Leninism" was introduced by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. Marxism-Leninism has different variations, the most notable being Stalinism (which is based on the theory of Socialism in One Country) and Maoism (which is based on peasant-based revolution in underdeveloped countries).

If no compare and contrast your stated desires for forced societal organization over this one.

As far as "anti-liberty" is concerned, I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.

You still don't know what liberty is? How many thousands of times are you gonna ask? Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimers?

 

[PMZ]

I put you back on block to filter out the bulk of your 30sec anti-liberty pro-marxist advertisements. When someone quotes you, they expose your post.

"anti-liberty pro-marxist"

As far as "anti-liberty" is concerned, I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.

Until that gets cleared up I will continue to treat libertarianism as a fringe whacko cognitive dysfunction.

I have no interest in Marxism. Nobody does. It would appear to me that Kim Jong Un is the only Marxist left in the world. It's only application in today's world is as a conservative boogeyman. One of many.

I choose to be working towards a vision, over running from a boogeyman.

You mean this vision right?

Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology combining the scientific socialist concepts theorized by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, collectively known as Marxism, with the theoretical expansions developed by Vladimir Lenin, collectively known as Leninism, which consist of anti-imperialism, democratic centralism, and the necessity of a vanguard party of class conscious cadres to coordinate the social revolution and the construction of socialism.[1] Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the Communist International (1919 - 1943), making it the guiding ideology of the world communist movement. As such, in popular discourse, the term "Communism" is often understood in the Marxist-Leninist sense.

The core object of Marxism-Leninism is the creation of a socialist state - and ultimately a worldwide communist society - through the leadership of a vanguard party composed of "professional" revolutionaries, under the justification that a highly organized group of revolutionaries is necessary for the success and safeguarding of the revolution - which itself represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat".[2]

Marxism-Leninism rejects political pluralism, in favor of democratic centralism and single-party control in order to provide a unified base of leadership for the working class and the revolution. In Marxist-Leninist states, the ruling Communist party acts as the supreme political institution and the prime force of societal organization.[3] The model of socialism as practised in Marxist-Leninist states is typically associated with centrally-planned economies,[4] while in recent decades, Marxist-Leninist states have incorporated market methods of exchange and expanded the role played by the non-state sector in developing the national economy, such as the People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[5]

The phrase "Marxism-Leninism" was introduced by Joseph Stalin in the 1930s. Marxism-Leninism has different variations, the most notable being Stalinism (which is based on the theory of Socialism in One Country) and Maoism (which is based on peasant-based revolution in underdeveloped countries).

If no compare and contrast your stated desires for forced societal organization over this one.

As far as "anti-liberty" is concerned, I waiting for some libertarian to define the word and tell me what specific now illegal activity you are compelled to undertake.

You still don't know what liberty is? How many thousands of times are you gonna ask? Have you been diagnosed with Alzheimers?

Funny. You can precisely define what you wish I believed in, but not what you believe in.

Every government in the world practices socialism in some markets. As far as I know North Korea is the last remaining fully Marxist government.

Yet you equate socialism with Marxism.

Why?

It's the only argument for Libertarianism.

BTW, I agree that the Marxist boogeyman is the only reason to embrace the Libertarian brand of anarchy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers, every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.

That is, of course, a phony stereotype.

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.

I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.

As to the stereotype. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits. Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.

 

[mudwhistle]

Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers, every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.

That is, of course, a phony stereotype.

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.

I'm saying what I said.

No shit?????

 

[mudwhistle]

Only if business is doing their job of growth. With today's cadre of conservative pure defensive business followers, every dollar goes into big bonus creating profits rather than future building investment.

That is, of course, a phony stereotype.

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.

I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.

As to the stereotype. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits. Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.

Obama believes in crony capitalism.

I don't believe JFK did.

The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.

 

[johnwk]

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.


In the case of the words governing the government, their bylaws, our Constitution, the same applies.


It's only the words of the law that apply.


The intentions of some or one of the founders, as evidenced by what they left behind, were not ratified by the Constitutional Convention. They are the raw materials for discussion, not the finished product enshrined in DC.

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing “legislative intent” even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “the rules of the common law”.


In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:


But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."



Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.


You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved, and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to, written down, and in its final version, voted into law.


What you espouse is royalty. What the king wants is the law.


Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?

Oh, but I do accept and promote the rule of law, especially the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, and also follow the rules of the common law as our Constitution commands.


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?


JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

 

[PMZ]

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing “legislative intent” even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “the rules of the common law”.


In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."


It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."


And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:


But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :


"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."



Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK


Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.


You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved, and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to, written down, and in its final version, voted into law.


What you espouse is royalty. What the king wants is the law.


Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?

Oh, but I do accept and promote the rule of law, especially the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, and also follow the rules of the common law as our Constitution commands.


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?


JWK


The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

"Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?"

Because they were not debated, resolved, and ratified democratically.

They are merely the sides around the table.

As I pointed out yesterday, some around the table wanted a monarchy. It was debated but not resolved, and ratified democratically. A republican form of government was instead.

Therefore the words used by those who favored monarchy are disempowered in the law.

They can be quoted but they hold no authority over us.

 

[PMZ]

That is, of course, a phony stereotype.

What you're saying is Kennedy was lying.

I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.

As to the stereotype. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits. Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.

Obama believes in crony capitalism.

I don't believe JFK did.

The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.

Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party. It is its reason for existence. And it has been since it's formation. It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.

To whatever degree it is practiced today, as always is due to Republican influence.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.

As to the stereotype. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits. Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.

Obama believes in crony capitalism.

I don't believe JFK did.

The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.

Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party. It is its reason for existence. And it has been since it's formation. It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.

To whatever degree it is practiced today, as always is due to Republican influence.

Blah blah blah blah... republicans are the devil, it's all because of Fox, blah blah blah.. Obama's crony capitalism is because he's republican, blah blah blah, up is down, left is right, give me your money, blah blah blah...

You are nothing but a POS.

 

[bripat9643]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.

I've never known a liberal with the view that it's ok to penalize rich people . Only conservatives.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

God, that's funny!

First there is nothing safer and more comfortable than wealth. How do you penalize someone in an inherently safe and comfortable position?

The folks who suffer penalties every hour of every day are the poor as evidenced by the fact that nobody with a choice would ever change places with them.

If you find that you feel penalized because of wealth, it's easy to shed the wealth and become poor.

In other words, as long as the government doesn't confiscate everything they own, they haven't been penalized.

Thanks for making your communist ideology so obvious.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it's fair to say today's economic landscape is not the same as JFK's. As such I don't think you can use his statements that applied to that time as evidence of a lie in today's.

As to the stereotype. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cases where the stereotype fits. Look at all the Obama Crony picked green energy companies for example. Look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs IBM, GE, etc. off-shored while giving their CEOs hundreds of millions.

Obama believes in crony capitalism.

I don't believe JFK did.

The difference being that Obama believes in snatching up all of the spare cash and divvying it up to his friends while JFK believed in allowing folks to keep their cash and using it to it's greatest potential.

Crony capitalism is the foundation of the Republican Party. It is its reason for existence. And it has been since it's formation. It's what Romney was talking about when he said that he wanted to preside over the wealthy half of the country only.

To whatever degree it is practiced today, as always is due to Republican influence.

Could you provide an example of Republican crony capitalism?