quote:The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States — the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years — are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts, he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax from 17.5% to 20%. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
Can you imagine a 20% VAT here in the U.S.? The 'poor' would be rioting...
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs are very hard to refute.
Horsesh!t, they haven't been able to prove anywhere NEAR that number...
Then there's the very structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13-to-1. Now, it's 68-to-1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11% of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89% of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
The Senate was created that way ON PURPOSE. To prevent the mob rule that a Legislative Branch based on House of Reps concept. The smaller states wouldn't have accepted anything that didn't give them equal voting rights. That's why the dual system was created.
posted
The Senate was created that way ON PURPOSE. To prevent the mob rule that a Legislative Branch based on House of Reps concept. The smaller states wouldn't have accepted anything that didn't give them equal voting rights. That's why the dual system was created.
Idiot....
actually? the Senate was appointed by the state legislatures when our system was created
furthermore? the filibuster rule was not in the Constitution, it is a rules system implemented and designed by the Senate itslef... there was no cloture rule at all..
the Supreme court flatly stated that the Senate only needs a 50/50 vote on anything,
BUT!
the Senate created a 2/3 rule to end cloture (debate) on a bill. Originally the rule only said 2/3 of those present, so a Senator had to actually hold the floor by being there...
that was rule 22
that rule was changed again to make the 60 vote rule cuz these effers are lazy... they didn't actually want to have to work (hold the floor) to maintain debate...
"cloture rule 22" was invoked in 1917 and the 60 vote rule only came into being in 1975... that allowed the effers to actaully have filibuster without doing the hard lifting (lazy effers!)
tell me again about mob rule? idiot? hmmmm...
yep we live in a Republic but the founders had NOTHING whatsoever to do with filibuisters and cloture and 3/5ths or 2/3 majrotites to END debate... they prolly would think it's idiotic like i do..... the votes were originally ot be 50/50 by appointees of the state and not to be voted in general elections
the same people that created the 18th ammendment (prohibition) are the ones that created rule 22... and it's bullcrap.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved up to 3 million jobs are very hard to refute.
Horsesh!t, they haven't been able to prove anywhere NEAR that number...
LOL... the money was just burned right the ashes were spread and that's it all gone?
fisrt off, peopl forget that about 1/4 to 1/3 of the stimulus was actually TAX CUTS..
* $264 billion Spent * $155 billion In process * $162 billion Left to spend * $163 billion Tax cuts issued * $49 billion Tax cuts remaining
Updated weekly (last update: July 27, 2010) Source: Government Agencies and ProPublica Research
i am so amused that when there's a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the gulf involving 33 rigs out of some 30,000 total rigs that "conservatives" suddenly understand how one dollar can pass thru so many hands with a "multiplying effect" on the economy and jobs created, but when it comes to trying to blame Obam for soemthing they suddenly forget it again...
33 rigs total were told to stop drilling and wait, that somehow equates to over a hundred thousand jobs lost? too ironic too ironic by a mile... Fox Liars repeat eh same thing over and over again so much that to some people perception really is their reality... but it's not Reality.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
How do you defend the finding that the top 400 households in America paid a measly 16.6% tax rate in 2007?
I acknowledge there are irregularities in the jobs counting that was done with the stimulus but show me some info that proves it was substantially less that 3 Million jobs created.
Personally I wish Dionne had stayed out of the Senate on that article. Different topic completely to my mind.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
The smaller states were afraid that the more populous states (read slave owning states) would dictate national policy. Because of this, they demanded that they be given equal voting rights, which of course the larger states would have nothing to do with. This deadlock was what caused the two house system to be adopted. By numerical equality in the Senate and by number of reps in the House an equilibrium was sought. True, both sides have added innummerable rules of conduct not found in the Constitution (see Rangel's current ethics issues), but that doesn't change the Founder's wisdom in this form of Republic based government.
If we had a ruling body based soley on population, smaller states would literally not have a voice. Using the House of Reps model, California with its 53 reps could literally dictate policy to the Nation by overridding the will of the populations of Alaska, Deleware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, and Oregon....and STILL have 3 more votes...
If you got them, Texas, New York and Florida inline...they would rule over all 46 other states. Four state making policy for all...
THAT is why we have a Senate.
As for the number of jobs 'created of saved'? We've been over this many times. The counting system used has changed several times and they STILL haven't found one that they can hold out and say that it proves they've helped that many families. None of them, Glass.
The Rigs? My beef is that the Federal Government thinks that it's ok to simply shut down privately owned rigs with no reason other than they 'might' have issues.
That sounds alot more like a Dictatorship then a Constitutional Republic.
posted
Big, how much was that 16% in dollars? What percentage of the total Federal Income does it represent? How much of that money did they see in return via government services?
Now, before Glass starts with his 'they benefit more from the system and should pay more' lines, let me ask a question:
The very same system that they benefited from, was it not available to everyone else?
We've already looked at stats that show that the bottom 40% of wage earners get more back on their returns than they pay in comparing ALL forms of federal taxes paid. They are literally being given the 'rich' and 'middle class's money. Even though ALL are the beneficiaries of American freedoms.
quote:I acknowledge there are irregularities in the jobs counting that was done with the stimulus but show me some info that proves it was substantially less that 3 Million jobs created.
That's my point, Big, I can't. Noone can. Noone has hard numbers to look at. They can't prove they accomplished that much, but noone else can argue with them due to lack of data. To say that voodoo was used to get that number is not that big of an exageration.
au contraire. the House allowed unlimited debate until just before the civil war... filibustering has nothing to do with the Republican form of Govt....
mob rule was a concern but you have to remember these were very wealthy men who watched Britain abolish slavery in 1772, long before the Constitution was finalised....
if they had wanted rule 22 or the even more lax rule we have now? they would have written a 2/3 rule in the Constitution... it's that simple, instead they originally worte
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,chosen by the Legislature thereof,for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
tie votes... nothing about 2/3s that came much later...
the 17th ammendment (right before prohibition again ) cahnged the "appointment" rules to general elctions..
that was the Republican form they envisioned...
the article as written was correct, the Senate has much more power today than it did then...
[ July 29, 2010, 21:54: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The smaller states were afraid that the more populous states (read slave owning states) would dictate national policy. Because of this, they demanded that they be given equal voting rights, which of course the larger states would have nothing to do with.
LOL, i cannot beleive you opened this can of worms...
our Founders decreed that a slave would count as 3/5ths of person for representatives even tho a slave was not considered a citizen or voter...
the Abolition in England had already shown the way things were going...
The three-fifths compromise, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: “ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.
more proof of how effed up the system you seem to think is so great really was...
keep in mind that the electoral college was elected based on those numbers too.. that's how they controlled the presidency..
yeah, let's return to the good ole days dude...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, a little deeper digging uncovers that Delaware was the main state concerned about having less representation than the other more populous states.
and they were slave-owners....
in fact? Tenn (slave owning) was the least populated and there was not much of a differnce in populations bewtween slave owning and non-slave-owning in the first states... Connecticut had more people people than either North or South Carolina, VA had the most people...
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Big, how much was that 16% in dollars? What percentage of the total Federal Income does it represent? How much of that money did they see in return via government services?
Now, before Glass starts with his 'they benefit more from the system and should pay more' lines, let me ask a question:
The very same system that they benefited from, was it not available to everyone else?
We've already looked at stats that show that the bottom 40% of wage earners get more back on their returns than they pay in comparing ALL forms of federal taxes paid. They are literally being given the 'rich' and 'middle class's money. Even though ALL are the beneficiaries of American freedoms.
That's bs rationalization SF. So a family of four subsisting (yes, I used the word subsisting) on 50k per year gets enough credits that they don't pay into federal income taxes. The income tax only brings in approximately 45% of all tax income. The rest is made up in individual taxes for gas, home, consumables, etc. Even they pay into government services.
Now...If I were in charge of the world the lowest you could get on credits would be 0. Some of the credits out there actually push beyond zero so that some are making a profit from the federal income tax. You are right, that is wrong. That money however is a drop in the bucket. A few hundred here, a few hundred there. One of the 1000 cuts that can bleed a body to death perhaps but first lets look at the slash across the carotid artery of America.
quote: "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007,"
There is term for this. It is called wealth concentration. While it is great for the families that are included it is devastating to national economics. You want to know why the top 400 have to pay more than their fair share? It is because they have more than their fair share of the nation's wealth. Simple as that; and no that is not socialist, that is realism.
There is a big danger in wealth concentration that can be seen for those with the eyes to look. You see...it is fairly well known that for the last 30 years middle class incomes have flatlined against inflation while the top 10 percent have seen double digit gains. But did you know that between 1990 and 2004 most of the top 10 percent stagnated themselves?? The only group that grew during that time period was the super rich. The top 1 percent, which saw a 3% increase in accumulation of national wealth while the bottom 9 joined the rest of us in flatlining.
You wanna know why we are in a recession? It is partly to blame on foolish derivatives trading. It is partly to blame on fraudulent mortgage and MBS activities. It is partly to blame on the exuberance of optimism in the market. It is partly to blame on institutions take larger and lager risks while cutting their reserves held for emergencies.
It is also partly because nearly 50% of this nations entire wealth resides in the hands of 10% of its citizens, 20% of that held by the top 1%.
When wealth is so super concentrated as this the structures meant to support the national economy can buckle under with any dint or ding. And in case you didn't notice we got one hell of a ding. Bush and Obama have turned on the printing presses at the Treasury and it is working as evidenced by the lack of inflation despite the large additional flow to the money supply but unless the top 1% are cut off from their accumulation patterns that is only a short term solution (one that has caused the government to go deep in debt.)
So yes. I want to be unfair. I want to make sure the super rich pay more than their fair share of the taxes that keep this country great and in return I will allow them to remain super rich in a great and functioning nation. The alternatives are all of them self destructive.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:LOL, i cannot beleive you opened this can of worms...
our Founders decreed that a slave would count as 3/5ths of person for representatives even tho a slave was not considered a citizen or voter...
.....
more proof of how effed up the system you seem to think is so great really was...
keep in mind that the electoral college was elected based on those numbers too.. that's how they controlled the presidency..
It only seems that way to the unintiated, Glass.
The 3/5ths compromise was a limit on slavery and slave states. It brought the Southern States onboard and gave the North time to grow and eventually vote slavery as illegal entirely. By the time the Civil War started, this 'eventual majority' had become a reality. The election of Abraham Lincoln, through Northern backing, and even with absolute Southern disapproval, showed that the North was going to run the national policy. Tarriffs on goods imported to the South (imposed by a congress lead by Northerners) and other issues contributed. The sectional interest division is what caused the war as much as the idividual issue of slavery.
As for the Constitution being racisit\pro slavery? Frederick Douglas (far more qualified to answer than either of us) stated it thusly:
"Take the Constitution according to its plain reading," he challenged the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York. "I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it." In fact, Douglass told the crowd gathered to hear his Independence Day address, "Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document."
quote:So yes. I want to be unfair. I want to make sure the super rich pay more than their fair share of the taxes that keep this country great and in return I will allow them to remain super rich in a great and functioning nation. The alternatives are all of them self destructive.
Wow, Big...that's so, um, big of you...I mean, it's not just anyone that's willing to be unfair with other people's money.
Wealth concentration is inevitable when dealing with finite resources. You CANNOT change that. There will always be those that know how to manage resources and those that don't. We have become a society that thrives on 'keeping up with the Jones''. Our consumerism is what has laid us low. We take in more than we produce. That is the recipe for disaster that has hurt us the most...as a government, and as individuals.
Be careful with what you wish for, Big. Confiscatory taxation is the prelude to confiscation 'for the good of the whole'.
posted
wow, you would love to live in the South. WTF school did you learn this in? Does the professor wear a pointy white hat? You seem to be indicating that the South was somehow suckered into the United States? Thats bogus as hell. The Virginians and the Pennsylvanians were the people that pulled the US together. The North had many more free people that actually voted and the South was who needed the Senate AND the 3/5ths compromise to keep some power.
The 3/5ths compromise was a limit on slavery and slave states.
this is unadulterated bs. as i pointed out earlier? Britain had already freed every slave in 1772. The movement was real and gaining steam.
what you fail to grasp is that a slaveowner was able to buy 3/5's of an advantag in Congress with every slave. The slave could not vote, but they counted toward the power the slaveowner weilded in Congress.
the fact that the South did not grow as well as the North is not due to politics at all.
it is due to the fact that the Summers are absolutely brutal without AC the insects are merciless without window screens.. Yellow fever and Malaria were very common. The landowners/slaveowners ran their states like thier own little countries managing to control every element of trade that existed in their locations. They stifled free trade instead of promoting it. People chose not to live there.
I have alot of family on both sides going back in VA and NC to the 1700's, NJ and MD in the late 1600's. I have seen receipts for quality land at 40 cents per acre in populated areas of NC in the late 1700's. The price of a feild slave at the time was 400$ (and no that was not in my families receipts, i had to look that up seperatley) So one feild slave was worth 1000 acres of quality farmland.... these were very wealthy people that owned slaves. In other words your average person did not own a slave. It has always been a mystery to me how the Rich southernors convinced all the "regular" dirt farmers to go die for them. My study of it shows that the average Southernor didn't beleive that the Northerners were really "up" for the fight. It was a major misjudgement.
BTW? i have many great-greats that fought on the Confederate sdie of the Civil War. And they were not officers. So my curiosity is not simply academic, i am truly curious about my ancestors.
have you studied the tax implications of the 3/5ths yet? that's why the North was willing to allow them to have it. The taxes were based on populations.
In the Continental congress each state had an equal vote.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will always be those that know how to manage resources and those that don't.
this is truly naive.
exploitation of resources is the correct word, not management.
management is Government by definition.
Management in all business areas and organizational activities are the acts of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources.
A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects.
the real question simply comes down to one of whether you want your leaders to be "chosen" by the few or the many. someone has to choose who will lead whatever the endeavor.
i have seen way too many people get to be in charge by being the biggest a-hole and not the most competent to trust the few to choose.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, you are lumping decades of time together as though nothing changed during it.
At the time of the Revolution, the South 'needed' their slaves and the North 'needed' the South to fight against the British. That is why the various compromises were made. The fact that the British had become anti-slavery both drove the South into the Union and kept the Brits out of the Civil War later so that they would not be seen as supporting slavery.
I'll find the exact numbers later, but if you get a minute look at the Lincoln's election and the electoral college results. Even though EVERY SOUTHERN STATE voted against him he still won. That was the last straw for the South...they knew that the North could (and would) legislate an end to slavery and their way of life, and there was nothing they could do to stop it.
posted
North 'needed' the South to fight against the British.
where are you getting this crap from?
the South was Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and James Madison... They led the damn Revolution.
you are nothing more than an apologist.
The fact that the British had become anti-slavery both drove the South into the Union
and the North? They were PIRATES and SMUGGLERS who were almost all on the list to be hung on sight by the Brits.
look them up individualy. they were dumping the Tea in Boston Harbour because the Brits were cracking down on smuggling. The SMUGGLERS were the ringleaders.
sheesh man.... our history is not Glorious. It is what it is. They were people with people strenghts and people weaknesses, nothing more.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: That's no more than wordplay, Glass.
It's well established that between 70-75% of lottery winners are broke within 5 years.
Why is that?
Because just HAVING resources isn't enough...you have to know how to UTILIZE them too.
That difference is why there are rich and poor and there always will be.
now that we agree on.
but exploitation of resources needs regulation by people not motivated by direct profit from the exploitation, and that is my point. Otherwise the exploiters end up taking everything and leaving nothing for the FUTURE.
we all know that . (except the far right)
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
i've never studied much about him, but i would have to assume he was playing political game in that statement.
he was wrong. the 3/5ths compromise is pro-slavery, and we both know that. It clearly and Constitutionally recognises that institution.
have you covered the Dred Scott decision yet? that was 1857....
the South did lose it's political power simply because the North was grwoing faster, and i gave you several good reasons for it. We take malaria nd yellow fever for granted here in the USA today mostly because the swamps were drained..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dred Scott case: the Supreme Court decision 1857
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."
women were excluded too... this what forms the basis for the "progressives" today and why i ahve left he GOP prolly forever the way things look right now.
i proudly consider myself to be progressive on this issue. I am conservative on fiscal issues and the GOP has not proven itself to be fiscally conservative EVER.They left me with nothing to hang my hat on.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thomas Jeffereson on the development of the 3/5ths compromise: , the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."
he wrote this because The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes.
quote:i've never studied much about him, but i would have to assume he was playing political game in that statement.
You should take a few mins...because he wasn't.
quote:he was wrong. the 3/5ths compromise is pro-slavery, and we both know that.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. It was the only compromise that would allow both Slavers and Abolitionists to united as a Nation. It was truly intended to only be temporary until the Nation could address the issue later. You should seriously look at Douglas and his case for this idea, Glass. He was a former slave and legal scholar far closer to this than you or I.
quote:the South did lose it's political power simply because the North was grwoing faster,...
For whatever reasons, Glass, the North was becoming more populous. That gave them more votes in the electoral college and in the House. This is absolutely why they broke from the Union. They KNEW that slavery was finished through Constitutional means.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Oh, and as for Taney...
He was from a SLAVE OWNING FAMILY...
No wonder he ruled as he did...
and that is my point. people always work in their own interest. that interest is never in other peoples interest, whether it be political or financial. Slavery was a business propositoin that was very profitable to a small few. Very few in fact, but it was extremely profitable. New Orleans was wealthier than New York city in terms of bank deposits just before the Civil War. The area around Natchez MS was the wealthiest area in the country
the abolition of slavery is one of the few issues in history where people showed interest in other people's better interests...
this is why we end up having to make political compromises and looking to judges for fair rulings that take the larger picture into account.
this is why laissez faire economics in fact DO NOT WORK! They are very nice sounding theory that mathces evolution, but evolution has no planning.
AT&T? i owned stock in them before they split up as result of the antitrust laws.... today we have real competition in communications. we could not hae had cell phones without ATT being broken up...ATT would never have allowed it...
Captialism tries to destroy itself over and over again and i am a Capitalist, but i recognise that capitalism unchecked and unregulated is just as devastating as communism is.
too much regulation is bad too, but deciding what is too much and what is not enough is the hard part...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
so, back to the Senate? the compromise was not about samll northern states being afraid of larger southern states, there was little to no differnce in their populations. The Senate was not intended to be used for a 2/3 majority either. that came much later...the 1900's WW1 to be precise. The increase in the power of the Feds is primarily due to having to fight wars, and people like Al Capone and other gangsters taking over local govenrmnets and corrupting them...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Senate was not simply a North\South state issue, Glass. It was a Large\Small state issue. From the article above:
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13-to-1. Now, it's 68-to-1.
As to the 2\3rds issue: From Section 5 of the Constitution:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The Senate has the right (Constitutionally speaking) to set up any rules or procedures that it wishes. (shrug) Whenever it was started, noone has moved to change it yet.
The Fed's Powers have long since overstepped it's Constitutionally set bounds. Liberal use of the Supremecy and Interstate Commerce clauses have worn away nearly all State Rights as well as the 10th Amendment.
posted
The Fed's Powers have long since overstepped it's Constitutionally set bounds. Liberal use of the Supremecy and Interstate Commerce clauses have worn away nearly all State Rights as well as the 10th Amendment. [Frown]
i agree abolutley. but the reasons it has happened have ben in general for the common good.
Liberal use? yes, but Conservatives have used it oo (just a pun)
seriously? the drug laws are all uncostitutional- the began about the same time as the Federal Reserve, and the 2/3 rule in the Senate and Prohibition... the temperance movement was a very "righteous" bunch of twits...
but then when you discover stats like 1/2 the population was either addicted to a patent medicine (laudanum or cocaine) or alcohol at the turn of th centruy? you begin to try to understand what's behind the rampant Federalism.
to be honest? i hate it, but also hate the idea that Al Capone could literally take over the northen midewest by use of pure terrorism tactics....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll agree that federal drug laws are probably unconstitutional. But unless individual state constitutions bar it, the 10th amendment should provide a valid basis for state specific bans.
Part of me wants to have some kind of protection from companies putting physically addicting substances in products, but I'm not sure where to draw that line specifically.
Prohibition was doomed from the start. Well intentioned though it was, people in general didn't consider drinking enough of a public threat for it to be enforceable.
posted
as for Frederick Douglas? i may try to find time to read his autobigraphy, but i see in the Constitution a definite intent to institutionalise slavery. i beleive he was simply trying to bring his ideas forward without coming on like John Brown did. self-interst is often a good thang and it's also a good idea to avoid the noose
I've fished at Harpers Ferry many times and the fact hat John was hanged for treason is kind of interesting since he was hero to many......
the irony that Lee and JEB Stuart captured him is esp. tasty
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So yes. I want to be unfair. I want to make sure the super rich pay more than their fair share of the taxes that keep this country great and in return I will allow them to remain super rich in a great and functioning nation. The alternatives are all of them self destructive.
Wow, Big...that's so, um, big of you...I mean, it's not just anyone that's willing to be unfair with other people's money.
Wealth concentration is inevitable when dealing with finite resources. You CANNOT change that. There will always be those that know how to manage resources and those that don't. We have become a society that thrives on 'keeping up with the Jones''. Our consumerism is what has laid us low. We take in more than we produce. That is the recipe for disaster that has hurt us the most...as a government, and as individuals.
Be careful with what you wish for, Big. Confiscatory taxation is the prelude to confiscation 'for the good of the whole'.
Marx would be proud.
Bah! You refuse to look at the whole just as you refuse to admit any type of insurance at all is socialism in practice disguised as capitalism by letting ING take 20% of the top.
Wealth concentration is inevitable you say.
I say liquidity is essential in a democratic society. If this inevitable trend of concentration continues unabated then our beautiful country of freedom runs a terrible risk of morphing into an oligarchy. Only has another 20% or so to go and the top 10 will have a choke hold on the nation resources.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to say plutarchy, not oligarchy. My apologies.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say liquidity is essential in a democratic society.
touche!
also consider the Chinese method we are watching right now shows how wealth concentration works. The State is literally collecting all the cream off the top and is using it as a weapon. The tip of the spear is all that we are feeling right now, and if we do not act swiflty and with strong purpose we will be fully skewered in the next decade. The wealthy here care only about themselves the Chinese are not allowing any "extra wealth" in the population the govt has it all-- about 2.5 trillion$ which is equivalent to all the wealth held in private industry in the uS right now. LOOK OUT! i've been pointing at this for years and people do not beleive me. .
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Do neither of you see the irony in those statements?
quote:Bah! You refuse to look at the whole just as you refuse to admit any type of insurance at all is socialism in practice disguised as capitalism by letting ING take 20% of the top.
The difference, Big...is choice. Here, insurance is an option, not a mandate...oh, wait...it's not even optional now...(sigh)
Socialism is FORCED upon one. Capitalistic insurance is a CHOICE.
quote:Wealth concentration is inevitable you say.
Yes, I do. And History supports the view. NO civilization has overcome this...not a single one.
quote:I say liquidity is essential in a democratic society.
Here we can both agree...the question is how that liquidity is achieved\encouraged.
quote:If this inevitable trend of concentration continues unabated then our beautiful country of freedom runs a terrible risk of morphing into an oligarchy. Only has another 20% or so to go and the top 10 will have a choke hold on the nation resources.
Here we diverge again, sad to say. Consumerism will prevail. They will buy toys, services, goods, etc. That has to be produced and paid for. Produced by whom? Paid for to whom? That exchange of wealth is what keeps the capitalistic nature of our economy alive.
Now, on to Glass...
quote:also consider the Chinese method we are watching right now shows how wealth concentration works. The State is literally collecting all the cream off the top and is using it as a weapon.
This is exactly what you both seem to be calling for here. The Government, which knows best of course, will take the 'cream off the top' (or in other words tax the @#$#$ out of the rich), and use it as it sees best. Whether that's to help friends' businesses or subsidize business sectors that they believe should get it, or simply to supply bread and circus to the masses...
You are calling for the Gov. to take a large measure of wealth out of the economy to put it back where elected officials (many who have NO business experience whatsoever) decide.
What you are decrying in the Chinese system...you are calling for here...
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Fox Liars repeat eh same thing over and over again so much that to some people perception really is their reality... but it's not Reality.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
