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

[PMZ]

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.

Typical Brownie drivel. What he wishes were true. Everyone who disagrees is a POS.

Any questions?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?

 

[PMZ]

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?

Bedding with business is the mission of the Republican Party. Always has been. It's fundamental. You are, apparently, the only person in the US who is unaware of that.

What did you think??? They care about the middle class????

 

[SuMar]

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.

They're plenty of wealthy folks who put in time and money to help those without. It should never be forced upon through the government.

 

[PMZ]

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.

They're plenty of wealthy folks who put in time and money to help those without. It should never be forced upon through the government.

There is nothing prohibiting them from doing more. When it gets up to enough, welfare will no longer be required.

 

[johnwk]

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.

In answer to my question asking you "Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?", you respond by saying ”Because they were not debated, resolved, and ratified democratically.”

But the irrefutable fact is, the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted are found in the very debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified. And you admit this fact when you point out that “some around the table wanted a monarchy” during the framing of our Constitution. Of course, this was rejected.

But let us take a specific example of documenting the founder’s intentions with regard to bank notes e.g. Federal Reserve 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.

So with this evidence, how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE”, which in fact has created a money monopoly being placed in the hands of private bankers?

I would also like to know why you reject enforcing legislative intent when our Constitution under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “the rules of the common law”. I ask this because under the rules of the common law mentioned in our Constitution adhering to legislative intent is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.

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.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd comment that “the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?

They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy. Whether you think that's important is irrelevant. No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Bedding with business is the mission of the Republican Party. Always has been. It's fundamental. You are, apparently, the only person in the US who is unaware of that.

What did you think??? They care about the middle class????

In other words, you can't give an example.

That's exactly what I suspected.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They're plenty of wealthy folks who put in time and money to help those without. It should never be forced upon through the government.

There is nothing prohibiting them from doing more. When it gets up to enough, welfare will no longer be required.

Who put you in charge of decided how much other people should be forced to pay to support your pet causes?

 

[PMZ]

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.

In answer to my question asking you "Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted?", you respond by saying ”Because they were not debated, resolved, and ratified democratically.”

But the irrefutable fact is, the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted are found in the very debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified. And you admit this fact when you point out that “some around the table wanted a monarchy” during the framing of our Constitution. Of course, this was rejected.

But let us take a specific example of documenting the founder’s intentions with regard to bank notes e.g. Federal Reserve 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.

So with this evidence, how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE”, which in fact has created a money monopoly being placed in the hands of private bankers?

I would also like to know why you reject enforcing legislative intent when our Constitution under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “the rules of the common law”. I ask this because under the rules of the common law mentioned in our Constitution adhering to legislative intent is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction.

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.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd comment that “the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.

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.

You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.

How do you think that laws are made?

People with different positions present and debate those positions. At some point in give or take they are close enough to have established a common position synthesized from their original positions. When everyone is in agreement with a documented proposal, the Legislative Body votes and passes or rejects the final position.

You would like to give equal credibility to the initial positions which were not ratified.

Rule of law says that the law is not anyone's opinion that may have been part of the process leading to the law. The law is very specifically what was written and voted on and passed.


“the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

You putting your words in quotes does not make them my words.

The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

 

[PMZ]

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

God, that's funny!




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.

Tell me what the wealthy give up to pay their taxes?

They give up everything the money they pay to the government could buy. Whether you think that's important is irrelevant. No one gives a damn what you think whey they get out their checkbook to buy something.

Here's the simple truth. I have my way in the country today and you don't have your way. You never will. Dream on.

 

[johnwk]

You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.

Post my words substantiating you absurd claim.

How do you think that laws are made?

Our Constitution was made and came into effect as exhibited in Madison’s Notes, Elliot’s debates and the various state ratification documents.

People with different positions present and debate those positions. At some point in give or take they are close enough to have established a common position synthesized from their original positions. When everyone is in agreement with a documented proposal, the Legislative Body votes and passes or rejects the final position.

And the debates you talk of establishes legislative intent which is to be observed and enforced under the rules of the common law as commanded under our Constitution’s VII Amendment.

You would like to give equal credibility to the initial positions which were not ratified.

Your assertion is absolutely baseless and perhaps that is why you offer no quotes of mine establishing you absurd assertion. But that is your disingenuous method of debate ___ constantly level false accusations, make stuff up, and avoid answering pertinent question when asked.

And just what is it that I give credibility to? Our written Constitution and its legislative intent as documented during its framing and ratification process. And, my position is in harmony with the rules of the common law as understood by our founding fathers.

Rule of law says that the law is not anyone's opinion that may have been part of the process leading to the law. The law is very specifically what was written and voted on and passed.

And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the Constitution, but are required to find its meaning as understood during its framing and ratification process.

“the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

You putting your words in quotes does not make them my words.

But when someone else makes a claim, and you write those words and then agree to that claim as you did IN THIS POST you should defend that position and not run from it.

The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.

And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written in our Constitution, the Court is obligated under the rules of common law, to document legislative intent from a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to attaching its own meaning to our Constitution as it has repeatedly done.


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?

You also never answer how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” when no such power has been granted to Congress and our founders specifically agreed to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender?

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.

 

[PMZ]

You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.

Post my words substantiating you absurd claim.




Our Constitution was made and came into effect as exhibited in Madison’s Notes, Elliot’s debates and the various state ratification documents.



And the debates you talk of establishes legislative intent which is to be observed and enforced under the rules of the common law as commanded under our Constitution’s VII Amendment.



Your assertion is absolutely baseless and perhaps that is why you offer no quotes of mine establishing you absurd assertion. But that is your disingenuous method of debate ___ constantly level false accusations, make stuff up, and avoid answering pertinent question when asked.

And just what is it that I give credibility to? Our written Constitution and its legislative intent as documented during its framing and ratification process. And, my position is in harmony with the rules of the common law as understood by our founding fathers.




And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the Constitution, but are required to find its meaning as understood during its framing and ratification process.



But when someone else makes a claim, and you write those words and then agree to that claim as you did IN THIS POST you should defend that position and not run from it.

The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.

And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written in our Constitution, the Court is obligated under the rules of common law, to document legislative intent from a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to attaching its own meaning to our Constitution as it has repeatedly done.


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?

You also never answer how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” when no such power has been granted to Congress and our founders specifically agreed to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender?

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.

Same old, same old. You post quotes from dead people whose only credibility is that they lived as contemporaries to our founders. You say that those quotes empower your higher understanding of our Constitution. In fact the Constitution itself denies your sales pitch. The real interpretation of it says that your opinions hold no power it's interpretation. Only what the Supreme Court says it says is reality.

So, yammer on to yourself. The government is safe from your interference.

 

[SuMar]

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

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

 

[PMZ]

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

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

No such thing as fair.

 

[SuMar]

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

No such thing as fair.

Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.

 

[PMZ]

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

No such thing as fair.

Only when one pays a higher percentage than another.

No such thing as fair. You get more, you pay more. Not as much more as you get, but some more.

No like? Find a better deal. The ultimate consumerism.

 

[johnwk]

You are pretentious enough to believe that you can replace the founders in designing our government.

Post my words substantiating you absurd claim.

How do you think that laws are made?

Our Constitution was made and came into effect as exhibited in Madison’s Notes, Elliot’s debates and the various state ratification documents.



And the debates you talk of establishes legislative intent which is to be observed and enforced under the rules of the common law as commanded under our Constitution’s VII Amendment.



Your assertion is absolutely baseless and perhaps that is why you offer no quotes of mine establishing you absurd assertion. But that is your disingenuous method of debate ___ constantly level false accusations, make stuff up, and avoid answering pertinent question when asked.

And just what is it that I give credibility to? Our written Constitution and its legislative intent as documented during its framing and ratification process. And, my position is in harmony with the rules of the common law as understood by our founding fathers.




And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written, we are not free to attach our own meaning to the Constitution, but are required to find its meaning as understood during its framing and ratification process.

“the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

You putting your words in quotes does not make them my words.

But when someone else makes a claim, and you write those words and then agree to that claim as you did IN THIS POST you should defend that position and not run from it.

The limitations on the legislative reach of the Federal Government as determined by their bylaws as interpreted by the Supreme Court is limited primarily by the Bill of Rights and those powers relegated to the states.

And when questions arise as to the meaning of what is written in our Constitution, the Court is obligated under the rules of common law, to document legislative intent from a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to attaching its own meaning to our Constitution as it has repeatedly done.


Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?

You also never answer how is it constitutional for Federal Reserve Notes to be made a “LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” when no such power has been granted to Congress and our founders specifically agreed to forbid notes of any kind to be made a legal tender?

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.

Same old, same old. You post quotes from dead people whose only credibility is that they lived as contemporaries to our founders. You say that those quotes empower your higher understanding of our Constitution. In fact the Constitution itself denies your sales pitch. The real interpretation of it says that your opinions hold no power it's interpretation. Only what the Supreme Court says it says is reality.

So, yammer on to yourself. The government is safe from your interference.

Our Constitution was written by “dead people” and part of that Constitution under its 7th Amendment requires our courts to observe “the rules of the common law”.

Why do you reject abiding by the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted when enforcing legislative intent is adhering to the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution?

Is your refusal to answer this question because the 7th Amendment proves you absurd opinion is wrong?

Tell me, our Constitution declares that ”Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…” Our Constitution also declares ” No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” What is a “direct tax” within the meaning of our Constitution? How do we confirm what a “direct tax” is within the meaning of our Constitution?


JWK


If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[johnwk]

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

I consider myself an independent, lib and con are just the two pens they put the sheep into.

It is not a penality,......Its a recognition that we live in a market economy where Supply and Demand have a huge influence over compensation.

back in the day when people payed more attention to politics and werent soaked in propaganda, over 3/4ths of the state legislatures representing a vast super-majority of the people, thought an income tax fine and passed the 16th amendment.

I'm all for folks with jobs/careers paying taxes. Pick one flat percentage across the board. Fair enough.

Most socialists agree those who are the most productive citizens in society should finance the costs of government, and that is why they support your kind of tax which taxes the bread one has earned by the sweat of their labor.

But there was a time in our country when everyone, even the unemployed, were expected and required to contribute their fair share in meeting the expenses of government. A wonderful example of this principle is exhibited in the public laws of Maryland’s Dorchester County, under which all able bodied residents of the county above twenty and under fifty years of age were “compelled to labor two days at least in every year in repairing the roads of said county, with the privilege, however, of furnishing a substitute or paying to the road supervisors seventy-five cents for each day such person may be summoned to labor, the money thus paid to be expended in repairing the roads.”

And the law went on to indicate that “anyone neglecting or refusing to perform such labor, or to provide a substitute, or to pay seventy-five cents per day for each and every day he may be summoned to work, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon trial and conviction before a Justice of the Peace, shall be fined seventy-five cents for each day`s delinquency and costs, and shall stand committed until the fine and costs are paid.”___ SEE SHORT vs. STATE OF MARYLAND, decided February 27th, 1895, upholding the law and not violating (a) the 13th or 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or (b) the 40th section of Art. 3 of the Constitution of Maryland.

And yet, here we are today with countless factions seeking to manipulate taxation upon “incomes” so as to relieve their identifiable group from its burden, while creating various other groups upon who the burden is placed. And it is worthy to note that in many instances under a scheme which taxes “incomes”, those who do not share in financing the government are actually rewarded and allowed to feed from the public trough. How sad and discouraging it is to hear the cries and well-rehearsed arguments and excuses of those who today support and promote such tyranny. A tyranny under which the force of government is used to transfer the property of one group of citizens to another, which is carried out under the cloak of taxation. But keep in mind, there is no magic wand in the force of government which changes the definition of theft!

And exactly what was our founding father’s thinking in a matter in which the property of one is transferred to another using government force? Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 sums it up as follows:

"Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny."


JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create