Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[Oldstyle]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

Interesting concept, Winger...who contributes more to society...the people who get up every morning and head off to work...or the people who have never held a job nor have any intention of ever doing so? Who's REALLY the greedy group?

 

[kaz]

You blame the victim and rationalize confiscating their money by force instead of spending your own money. And you justify it all with the tiny percent that's spent on people who are "starving."

Face it Skippy, you demonstrated the answer. You're greedy.

So you think people with hundreds of millions of dollars are the "victim?"

When one person aims a gun at another person and takes their property by force, the one who aimed the gun is a criminal and the one who's property was taken by force is the victim. It's irrelevant how much money either had when the transaction occurred.

Check out the Ballad of Dennis Moore.

 

[Claudette]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

Interesting concept, Winger...who contributes more to society...the people who get up every morning and head off to work...or the people who have never held a job nor have any intention of ever doing so? Who's REALLY the greedy group?

RW and others feel that if you have you should be overjoyed to give.

Of course the folks you are giving to could care. All they want is your hard earned money so they can live on it. They don't want a job. They want a free ride.

These folks don't have a job, don't want a job and sure as shit don't want to have to support themselves or their kids.l Why should they when we taxpayers are FORCED to supply the money for their needs. Yup. Life is easy when you don't have to work for a living.

Folks who work for a living might have trouble paying the rent, mortgage or put food on the table but the freeloaders will always have OUR money in their little EBT card. The rent will be payed. The food will be payed for and the kids will go to the doctor and the dentist. All at someone elses expense. Good job if you can get it.

As for who contributes more??

Those of us who get up and go to work every day. Thats who. The freeloaders contribute nothing. They are, in fact, a drain on everything and we would be better off with out em.

 

[bripat9643]

So you think people with hundreds of millions of dollars are the "victim?"

You must be joking.

Nobody rationally considers a multimillionaire a victim, simply because they have to pay a higher tax rate.

How can you consider poor people greedy when they don't have money to spend as you suggest they should. You do realize there are many people who are literally broke and have no money at all. What is society supposed to do with them when there are rich people blowing money on extravagent stuff they don't need?

You are totally twisted.

It's like your are blaming the rape victim by calling the rapist a victim.

That's how stupid you are.

No matter if the person getting robbed has $5 in their pocket or $5000.. they are the victim

When you are forced to pay while someone else is not, for the equal services you are receiving from government... that is being victimized by government

It is greed when you want someone else to pay, while you or those you support do not

The personal situations of an individual are on that individual.. not on society, not on government, and not on 'the rich'

You are the one who is twisted

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

If I vote against the tax, I haven't consented.

 

[Mr Natural]

No matter if the person getting robbed has $5 in their pocket or $5000.. they are the victim

When you are forced to pay while someone else is not, for the equal services you are receiving from government... that is being victimized by government

It is greed when you want someone else to pay, while you or those you support do not

The personal situations of an individual are on that individual.. not on society, not on government, and not on 'the rich'

You are the one who is twisted

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

If I vote against the tax, I haven't consented.

You consented when you elected your representatives.

 

[DiamondDave]

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

It is not about consent..

Yes it is. Thousands of American colonists in fact died fighting a bloody war that was all about consent to taxation.


Our system of elected representatives don't constitute "mob rule".

I don't care if 85% of the people want to tax the rich at whatever percent and take from them what others deem as 'excess'... it is not to be done, or it SHOULD NOT be done

I know that's what you think. You'd prefer the 1% at the top have 100% of the power. The rest of us disagree. We've expressed this disagreement through our government.

And the government HAS levied a tax without the consent or popular support of 'the governed'... see OBAMACARE.. and it was wrong too

The People express their consent through their elected representatives, not media polls.



It is interesting that you think the People shouldn't be able to raise taxes through their elected representatives but they should be allowed to repeal taxes through media polls.

1) Wrong.. perhaps you should read how taxation is supposed to be levied according to the constitution... Hint: It is not how we have the system for income tax now and it is not how the 'tax' for Obamacare is applied... 'uniform' has a meaning
2) The system of government is supposed to abide by the constitution, which is set up to prevent mob rule.. hence why we do not have a democracy in place as our government
3) Since when have I ever expressed a want or wish to have the "1%" with 100% of the power?? Do I advocate for anyone or any group having different levels of vote power or voice in government?? Please show where I have done any such thing
4) The elected officials are going against both the constitution and the will of the people with Obamacare.. and the tax that was levied shows that.. the supreme court went against constitutional power and interpreted the constitution and relabeled this as a tax..

What our government has been attempting to do is have slightly over 50% of the people receiving some benefit at the expense of the others to feign this 'will of the people crap'.. many ignorant people will not vote against something that gives them benefit.. the pandering and greed overcomes them.. and our constitution attempted to protect us from that.. it cannot when government goes beyond the constitution and takes these power upon themselves, unchecked

 

[bripat9643]

Government can only levy a tax when the governed consent through their representatives.

If I vote against the tax, I haven't consented.

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

 

[Mr Natural]

If I vote against the tax, I haven't consented.

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

What is your definition of consent? Maybe you'd like your reps to contact you personally and ask what you want and then adjust legislation around your needs.

I'm beginning to think that the kid in your avatar is actually you.

Grow up.

 

[kaz]

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

What is your definition of consent? Maybe you'd like your reps to contact you personally and ask what you want and then adjust legislation around your needs.

I'm beginning to think that the kid in your avatar is actually you.

Grow up.

My God, the hypocrisy. If that's your standard, have it for both parties. It sure isn't what you said when W was in office.

Grow up.

 

[bripat9643]

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

What is your definition of consent? Maybe you'd like your reps to contact you personally and ask what you want and then adjust legislation around your needs.

"Consent" is really a simple concept. It means you give verbal or written agreement to something. That's the legal definition. Whether it's practical for politicians to ask me for my consent is irrelevant. That doesn't mean I've agreed to whatever politicians decide to do.

I'm beginning to think that the kid in your avatar is actually you.

Grow up.

Apparently your definition of "mature" means being a boot licking Nazi

 

[Oldstyle]

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

What is your definition of consent? Maybe you'd like your reps to contact you personally and ask what you want and then adjust legislation around your needs.

I'm beginning to think that the kid in your avatar is actually you.

Grow up.

If your notion of "consent" is elected representatives, Mr Clean...then kindly explain why progressives pushed ObamaCare through in a lame duck session of Congress after the 2010 mid-terms that saw the GOP make historic gains? It's quite obvious that there WAS no "consent" from the electorate. If it had been there...then the Democrats wouldn't (to use Barry's words) have gotten such a shellacking in that election. But progressives ignored that vote and rammed the bill through anyways. So how does THAT equate to "consent" in your eyes? I'm curious...

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

Contrary to your beliefs, the government exists to serve us, not the other way around.

Oh, and any government that does not fear what the public thinks is a very dangerous thing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It is not about consent..

Yes it is. Thousands of American colonists in fact died fighting a bloody war that was all about consent to taxation.


Our system of elected representatives don't constitute "mob rule".

I know that's what you think. You'd prefer the 1% at the top have 100% of the power. The rest of us disagree. We've expressed this disagreement through our government.

And the government HAS levied a tax without the consent or popular support of 'the governed'... see OBAMACARE.. and it was wrong too

The People express their consent through their elected representatives, not media polls.



It is interesting that you think the People shouldn't be able to raise taxes through their elected representatives but they should be allowed to repeal taxes through media polls.

1) Wrong.. perhaps you should read how taxation is supposed to be levied according to the constitution... Hint: It is not how we have the system for income tax now and it is not how the 'tax' for Obamacare is applied... 'uniform' has a meaning
2) The system of government is supposed to abide by the constitution, which is set up to prevent mob rule.. hence why we do not have a democracy in place as our government
3) Since when have I ever expressed a want or wish to have the "1%" with 100% of the power?? Do I advocate for anyone or any group having different levels of vote power or voice in government?? Please show where I have done any such thing
4) The elected officials are going against both the constitution and the will of the people with Obamacare.. and the tax that was levied shows that.. the supreme court went against constitutional power and interpreted the constitution and relabeled this as a tax..

What our government has been attempting to do is have slightly over 50% of the people receiving some benefit at the expense of the others to feign this 'will of the people crap'.. many ignorant people will not vote against something that gives them benefit.. the pandering and greed overcomes them.. and our constitution attempted to protect us from that.. it cannot when government goes beyond the constitution and takes these power upon themselves, unchecked

(1) I'm familiar with the 16th amendment. Thanks.
(2) Our system of government isn't obliged to conform to your reading of the Constitution.
(3) You routinely gripe about the weak and powerless and defend the wealthy and powerful. What other conclusion should I draw?
(4) No they aren't. The will as expressed through the vote in Congress with the approval of the President IS the Will of the People. The act is not unconstitutional according to the supreme body of judges whose opinion actually matters on the issue (as opposed to yours, which does not matter).

 

[DiamondDave]

If I vote against the tax, I haven't consented.

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

It is like telling an employer that they hired me for a job, and because of that they are consenting to whatever I do.... so nothing I do can be wrong or against their wishes... and I can ignore company rules because I then have their consent...

It is why companies, and even our federal government, have governing documents such as employee handbooks and the Constitution...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If I vote against the tax, I haven't consented.

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

Its democratic consent.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes it is. Thousands of American colonists in fact died fighting a bloody war that was all about consent to taxation.


Our system of elected representatives don't constitute "mob rule".

I know that's what you think. You'd prefer the 1% at the top have 100% of the power. The rest of us disagree. We've expressed this disagreement through our government.

The People express their consent through their elected representatives, not media polls.



It is interesting that you think the People shouldn't be able to raise taxes through their elected representatives but they should be allowed to repeal taxes through media polls.

1) Wrong.. perhaps you should read how taxation is supposed to be levied according to the constitution... Hint: It is not how we have the system for income tax now and it is not how the 'tax' for Obamacare is applied... 'uniform' has a meaning
2) The system of government is supposed to abide by the constitution, which is set up to prevent mob rule.. hence why we do not have a democracy in place as our government
3) Since when have I ever expressed a want or wish to have the "1%" with 100% of the power?? Do I advocate for anyone or any group having different levels of vote power or voice in government?? Please show where I have done any such thing
4) The elected officials are going against both the constitution and the will of the people with Obamacare.. and the tax that was levied shows that.. the supreme court went against constitutional power and interpreted the constitution and relabeled this as a tax..

What our government has been attempting to do is have slightly over 50% of the people receiving some benefit at the expense of the others to feign this 'will of the people crap'.. many ignorant people will not vote against something that gives them benefit.. the pandering and greed overcomes them.. and our constitution attempted to protect us from that.. it cannot when government goes beyond the constitution and takes these power upon themselves, unchecked

(1) I'm familiar with the 16th amendment. Thanks.
(2) Our system of government isn't obliged to conform to your reading of the Constitution.
(3) You routinely gripe about the weak and powerless and defend the wealthy and powerful. What other conclusion should I draw?
(4) No they aren't. The will as expressed through the vote in Congress with the approval of the President IS the Will of the People. The act is not unconstitutional according to the supreme body of judges whose opinion actually matters on the issue (as opposed to yours, which does not matter).

1) Try article 1 section 8 as well
2) They are, however, obliged to conform to the ACTUAL ******* WORDS AND POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED... and with the LIMITATIONS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to prevent these things.. even though they have stepped all over it
3) I gripe about unequal treatment.. and the use of government to target one group of people to provide for the personal wants and needs of another.. and gripe about unequal treatment by government under law... in ALL cases
4) Yes they are... hence why they DANCE when asked where the power to specifically do something comes from.. and again, show WHERE the federal judiciary has this power granted? It should be simple to show precisely where the power was granted in the document that grants and limits power... There is NOTHING that gave the judiciary the power to grant itself power by a judgement

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1) Wrong.. perhaps you should read how taxation is supposed to be levied according to the constitution... Hint: It is not how we have the system for income tax now and it is not how the 'tax' for Obamacare is applied... 'uniform' has a meaning
2) The system of government is supposed to abide by the constitution, which is set up to prevent mob rule.. hence why we do not have a democracy in place as our government
3) Since when have I ever expressed a want or wish to have the "1%" with 100% of the power?? Do I advocate for anyone or any group having different levels of vote power or voice in government?? Please show where I have done any such thing
4) The elected officials are going against both the constitution and the will of the people with Obamacare.. and the tax that was levied shows that.. the supreme court went against constitutional power and interpreted the constitution and relabeled this as a tax..

What our government has been attempting to do is have slightly over 50% of the people receiving some benefit at the expense of the others to feign this 'will of the people crap'.. many ignorant people will not vote against something that gives them benefit.. the pandering and greed overcomes them.. and our constitution attempted to protect us from that.. it cannot when government goes beyond the constitution and takes these power upon themselves, unchecked

(1) I'm familiar with the 16th amendment. Thanks.
(2) Our system of government isn't obliged to conform to your reading of the Constitution.
(3) You routinely gripe about the weak and powerless and defend the wealthy and powerful. What other conclusion should I draw?
(4) No they aren't. The will as expressed through the vote in Congress with the approval of the President IS the Will of the People. The act is not unconstitutional according to the supreme body of judges whose opinion actually matters on the issue (as opposed to yours, which does not matter).

1) Try article 1 section 8 as well
2) They are, however, obliged to conform to the ACTUAL ******* WORDS AND POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED... and with the LIMITATIONS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to prevent these things.. even though they have stepped all over it
3) I gripe about unequal treatment.. and the use of government to target one group of people to provide for the personal wants and needs of another.. and gripe about unequal treatment by government under law... in ALL cases
4) Yes they are... hence why they DANCE when asked where the power to specifically do something comes from.. and again, show WHERE the federal judiciary has this power granted? It should be simple to show precisely where the power was granted in the document that grants and limits power... There is NOTHING that gave the judiciary the power to grant itself power by a judgement

(1) The income tax is not authorized by Article I Section 8.
(2) They aren't obliged to conform to " ACTUAL ******* WORDS AND POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED" as according to you.
(3) No you don't. You only complain when the wealthy are being "oppressed".
(4) Are you telling me the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to enforce the law when you don't like the law?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

I'll be happy to:

Most Americans and most of our Representatives (local, state and federal) collect taxes so what most citizens want (roads, sewers, clean water, police and fire and medical aid at the touch of 911, etc.) they get.

Of course a small, loud and (IMO) ridiculous percentage of Americans believe they can do all of that (roads, sewers, etc.) alone, or do without it.

BTW, I don't believe it's only liberals who want a clean and safe society. Of course a minority of others seem to have other ideas on how to achieve a clean and safe environment for themselves. Maybe they can, but I doubt 300 million or so other Americans would believe so.

 

[bripat9643]

You consented when you elected your representatives.

Horseshit. That doesn't fit any definition of "consent" I've ever heard of.

Its democratic consent.

You have just been nominated for the "Oxymoron of the Month" award for your entry "Democratic consent."

Congratulations!

You must be so proud!

 

[DiamondDave]

(1) I'm familiar with the 16th amendment. Thanks.
(2) Our system of government isn't obliged to conform to your reading of the Constitution.
(3) You routinely gripe about the weak and powerless and defend the wealthy and powerful. What other conclusion should I draw?
(4) No they aren't. The will as expressed through the vote in Congress with the approval of the President IS the Will of the People. The act is not unconstitutional according to the supreme body of judges whose opinion actually matters on the issue (as opposed to yours, which does not matter).

1) Try article 1 section 8 as well
2) They are, however, obliged to conform to the ACTUAL ******* WORDS AND POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED... and with the LIMITATIONS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN to prevent these things.. even though they have stepped all over it
3) I gripe about unequal treatment.. and the use of government to target one group of people to provide for the personal wants and needs of another.. and gripe about unequal treatment by government under law... in ALL cases
4) Yes they are... hence why they DANCE when asked where the power to specifically do something comes from.. and again, show WHERE the federal judiciary has this power granted? It should be simple to show precisely where the power was granted in the document that grants and limits power... There is NOTHING that gave the judiciary the power to grant itself power by a judgement

(1) The income tax is not authorized by Article I Section 8.
(2) They aren't obliged to conform to " ACTUAL ******* WORDS AND POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED" as according to you.
(3) No you don't. You only complain when the wealthy are being "oppressed".
(4) Are you telling me the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to enforce the law when you don't like the law?

1) But the power granted to CONGRESS is to be uniform... that was on excise and tariff.. it is the same with income tax...
2) Yes.. they are.... the federal government is ONLY granted power from the states thru the constitution.. it is WHY THE CONSTITUTION WAS CRAFTED...
3) Yes.. I do... I stand for complete equal treatment in all cases... homosexual couples, taxation, election law, governmental services, etc... in MANY cases however, it is quite evident how the SOME get benefit and service given at the expense of the OTHERS.. and I do indeed speak out passionately against it
4) No... try reading again... the supreme court cannot grant itself a power by rendering judgement.. the supreme court and other federal judiciary are granted power FROM THE CONSTITUTION... and those powers are specifically listed.. and all other powers not listed are then reserved for the states and/or the people... PERIOD... if a power is to be granted to the federal government for any branch, it MUST BE DONE THRU THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, not a judge's ruling