Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Obama repeats request that ALL working Americans pay federal income tax...

Posted 9 years ago on Feb. 15, 2012, 4:28 p.m. EST by foreeverLeft (-264)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Currently, 47% of workers pay no federal income tax, under Obama's plan everyone will have to pay. Do you agree?




Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

"From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax.

That article is about corporate tax, not personal tax. So take that 47% bullshit and blow it out your ass you ignorant TROLL.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

i'm so tired of misleading titles


[+] -6 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 9 years ago

LOL! You're an angry little thing aren't you! Do you deny that 47% of workers don't currently pay federal income taxes? And yes, Obama is after the workers for more revenue, did you really ever think he was going to rob the rich to give it to you? No wonder you're so angry, no free shit for you!

He's not about to let all those moochers get away without giving him him cash. :)

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 9 years ago

FICA is a federal tax on income that accounts for 40% of ALL federal tax revenue, and all working citizens pay it.

As to the rest, I have no patience for retards. Free shit? That's what you spew here.


[-] -1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 9 years ago

FICA is NOT a tax. FICA is an acronym for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. FICA payments are insurance premiums. Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitlements;for the most part they are insurance benefits for premiums paid. The term "Entitlements" is nothing more than a ruse by the one percent to justify defrauding premium payers from their rightful benefits.

[-] 5 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Social security is a tax, regardless of its name.. What you pay in is not what you receive, and does not cover it. What you pay goes to the people who are currently collecting, the previous generation of workers. What you receive when you retire is paid by the people who are working at the time.

That said, I also object to the term "entitlements" as is it being used today. When the word was first used, it simply referred to the fact that you were entitled by law and especially by your hard work to receive the benefits of your labor. But the meaning has been twisted by right wing assholes to mean a psychological sense of entitlement, rather than something you earned.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 9 years ago

Social Security and Medicare were originally designed to operate as any other insurance--that is to eventually compensate premium payers with a return on the money paid.

Unfortunately, polticians quickly discovered they had a virtually unlimited money source to gut but then needed an excuse for the poor returns on the premiums paid.

Currently the combined employee-employer SS rate is 12.4% and Medicare 2.9% of gross wages.

Slightly more than 15% of an employee's lifelong earning should be more than enough to invest, pay the scheduled benefits, and make a profit to reinvest in the system. We know, though, the politicians have completely twisted the system into their own money tree.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

While i don't disagree with your conclusions about politicians, I'm less certain about the investment part. What happens when the market crashes at the same time as someone retires? Then rebounds the next year so that retiree gets 30% more for the same work at the same place? Why should the payouts be dependent on Wall Street? I believe they should be guaranteed, and entirely independent of the market.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 9 years ago

I agree with you, but the government certainly does not have to invest in Wall St; the most reasonable investment would be long-term T-bonds.

And you are absolutely right again. The benefits payable under SS and Medicare should be guaranteed and entirely independent of the market or any other privately owned institution.

[-] 0 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

it is a tax! and a sneaky one. i will, and many other will get far less in return, especially when you discount to present value the total value returned, and then capitalize it to account for inflation--it's taking money today and promising to possibly give me a small fraction later if it's still around when i retire. the loss is tantamount to a tax, even if it's not promulgated under the internal revenue code.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Boy, I actuall agree with your first paragraph. There you go again with the language.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Sorry, but what would YOU call people who deliberately lie, mislead, distort and dissemble every chance they get? They deliberately change even the overtones of a word in order to have more leverage against the poor. That's not benign. That's not being nice or fair or honest. It's deceitful and manipulative, and motivated by pure greed and selfishness. In other words, they are assholes. If you don't like the word applied to you, make sure you're separated from their agenda and their tactics.

[-] -3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

First of all, no matter how much I disagree with somebody, will I actually resort to calling them a name or be rude to them. I know both Democrats and Republicans and I see no difference when it comes to their human make-ups. There are good people and bad people in both parties and there are greedy and selfish people in both parties. That is human nature not party affiliation.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Party affiliation often has to do with the nature of the human. If somebody supports selfishness, deception and manipulation, they are not respectable and don't deserve to be treated with respect. Since, for the last 40 years or so, that is what the Republican party has practiced almost exclusively, those who support that get no respect from me. Period. Same for most Libertarians. And while the Democrats are quickly pulling up the rear, they are still nowhere near as mendacious as there counterparts. There are always individual exceptions, but on the whole, the pattern fits.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

I disagree with that. I know many Democrats who fall into the category you outline and I can tell you that Reagan was not selfish, deceptive or manipulative. Just because I disagree with Barbara Boxer doesn't mean I am rude to her. I

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

"Sometimes the facts get in teh way of the truth." - Ronald Reagan.

He was the MOST manipulative, lying scoundrel this country has seen since Nixon. It was barely matched by Bush the 2nd. His libertarian, mendacious selfishness, and the idiocy of a sheeplike gullible electorate got the ball rolling for every major problem we have today.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Well, I knew him personally and I can tell you that your view of him is incorrect. His economic policy got us out of a slow growth, high unemployment, high inflation period and put many people to work.

I also know Obama and I can tell you that he is not a nice guy. He is in way over his head, power hungry, egotistical and has a sharp mean streak in him. Just look at how he is pursuing the war compared to Bush. He is much more aggressive.

You have a problem if the electorate is sheeplike and gullible since that was a landlside. So you are smarter than the rest of the country?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

He may have been a really nice guy personally, But his was a politics of deception and mean spirited idiocy. And the policies and philosophy he ushered in laid the foundation for the greed and corruption that have taken over our economy and politics.

I have learned to never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate. Bush got in twice, too. As did Nixon. And the corporations with vested interests have spent a great deal of money to convince them to vote against their own best interests happily, singing jaunty tunes on their way to the poorhouse and slaughterhouse.

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Nuke, did you forget to Wiki before posting again? Oops!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 9 years ago

isnt it a mute question since soon 47% of the people will be unemployed and not have a payroll?

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

The problem he has is that even if you tax the 1% at 100%, you still don't put a dent into the budget. So he is going ot have to raise taxes across the board meaning that the 53% will pay more. It's inevitable and you should get a good tax advisor to find shelters for you.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

I do NOT believe that assertion that it wouldn't dent the debt--what's the aggregate income? We need steeper progressive taxation. income above 10 million should be at least 50% taxed. carried interest should be immediately changed. luxury home tax; lower the phase out on mortgage interest deduction... i could go on all day about ways to extract money from the 1%, other than mere income tax. the simple fact is that 50% of US citizens live in poverty,,, and you're going to try to tax poverty? ha!

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Why not just mug the rich in a dark alley and skip the paperwork?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

i like the cut of your jib, sounds french circa 1787... and they've done very nicely for their country ever since.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

I know where's there's some alleys in Detroit you can send 'em.

In fact, just send 'em all there. Be sure and have them dress in Armani, so they blend in.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

It sounds like your goal is to extract money from the 1%? They have rights as well.

The top 1% pay 40% of the budget right now. Without reducing expenses, the only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes across the board. Not to mention that when you raise taxes on the wealthy their share of revenue will decline, so the revenue has to come from somewhere.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

Its OK, they will do just fine with only 9 homes instead of 10...

Trust me, the rich don't need your sympathy.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

This really is personal and an attack against a segment of the population. Why we would want to penalize the people who produce and achieve is baffling to me. You must root for a loser sports team as well?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

Its not personal at all. Its about those who have the most paying their fair share.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

They pay more than their fair share. They worked for it.

This sounds personal to me. So how should we split it up then if working hard doesn't matter. Who gets the benefits or should it all be divided up equally.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

And the poor don't work for their money too?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

They absolutely do and they should pay the same amount as eveybody else. How is that not fair?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

Yes they should and the rich should as well. Fair is fair.

The tax code should be five pages long at best. No more loopholes!

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

In my opinion, a flat tax is the best with no loopholes. The 1992 Jerry brown plan.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 9 years ago

I could go for that. 25% of all income, 10% of all property, 25% of all capital gains and trades, 30% of all estates, no loopholes. That would be easy, effective, and fit on one page to boot!

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

So what if the top 1% pay 40% of the budget? They certainly have far more than 40% of the wealth.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

This country was founded on liberty and allowing each person to achieve their dreams and goals. You want to staunch that and penalize those people's who have worked and achieved. They have worked for their money.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

Wrong, fair is fair............

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Fair to me is not equalizing the outcome. That takign away somebody's liberty.

How is it fair today that some people work and others don't and some have to pay higher taxes and some don't pay any. I spent a tremendous amount of effort, time and money to go to graudate school. Should the govenrment pay me back fo rmy effort?

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

I find it amusing that anyone, even in the upper 30%, would try and rationalize that the outcome was equalized. Anyone with any sense can clearly see that the table is rigged and the game crooked.

Democracy only exists when the indigent rule. Our "governance" is far removed from democracy, and I mean far removed from ANY form of democracy.

Working off YOUR premise that the upper 1% pay 40% of the US government's total revenue, and there being no doubt the same group has more than 40% of the total wealth in the United States tells me that the 1% hasn't spend enough money to convince the government to reduce itself to even Constitutional levels, much less only as large as need be.

So, I guess you think your graduate degree and income makes you a 1%er, if so, you didn't learn enough about what the rest of the 1% know or your money would be spent fixing the problem.

Are you even middle class?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

No, I am not middle class, just a hard working dad who has to feed his family and is appalled at this movement. I don't begrudge anybody else for what they make and I am not jelaous of them or think less of myself because of it. I don't expect somebody in DC to produce my livelihood for me. I think everybody should be treated the same with no benefits so I don't agree with taking money from one group so that another can prosper.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

Do is not trouble you that your graduate degree doesn't put you in actual middle class area?

It would bother me greatly, I've done far better with less.

What kind of graduate degree do you have and from what school? An online college?

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

All I can say to such a irrationally thinking individual is that they do make meds for most all causes of such disconnects.

You make it sound like those who pay the 40% are not reaping far more for each dollar paid in than those who pay the lion's share of the burden.

Tell me, do you think anyone who retires in these United States, with a retirement income over $500,000 per year should receive ANY single entitlement or freebie from it's government?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

You want to judge people by how much they make, what the outcome is. Everybody should pay the same rate no matter who they are and what they do. Just because somebody is smarter than me and does better than me doesn't me I want the government to take all his money away to give to me.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

But son, people on the lower end of the spectrum, typically pay at a much higher rate than the incredible freebie, break, incentive and entitlement receiving super welfare recipients at the very top.

You're very confused about how the game works for those whose money is in power.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

47% of all people don't pay any Federal tax. The percent of people that you are speaking of with power are primarily paying the lower capital gains rate which is money that has already been taxed and is put at risk for longer than one year. However, your point is well taken in that those who have the capacity to move and avoid taxes will. just look at California and how many high income earners move out of state.

That's why a flat tax with no deductions that treats all income the same - income, dividend, and cap gains - and recognizes the increase in value of investments yearly makes the most sense. You will eliminate all incentives to avoid taxes.

[-] 1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 9 years ago

Jflynn excellent post Awesome post You hit it on the head however a good chunk of America is living check to check and there will be no tax shelters... You can tax te rich but when the current admin has used an open checkbook Taking a trillion here and there .. We are dead in the water I support and voted for the Pres... But we are spending and spending And the rich cant bail us out Prediction... Mortgage deductions will go within a few years

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

Down below you type you are not even in the middle class, 160K/year. So you somehow have enough money to pay a good tax advisor?

Here's the gig dude, anyone can file long form with various schedules to reduce liability, all they have to do is lose money in the pursuit of making profit.

What you fail to realize is that those with real money, buy congress and are able to pass very favorable laws regarding taxes and sweet deals.

The lower 99% has no chance of doing this and participating in the rigged game.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

I agree with you that the power will always rig the game, hence the point of simplifying the code and make one rate.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 9 years ago

Well gee, it's read to me like you are opposed to those who have the most money paying taxes at all. Today those who have the most, pay the least percentage wise. Those with the least pay the most, percentage wise.

Then the overly bloated and over-extended intrusive government makes plenty of above average income jobs, with phenomenal benefits, to very inefficiently dole that money back to those they deem need it.

For low income people living below poverty, it costs $0.73 to dole BACK $0.27 back to those who should have never been taxed at all.

The cost of superwelfare for those who certainly should not be entitled to anything from THE PEOPLE'S government, is staggering by comparison as are the amounts of money that is kicked up.

The money kicked down is nothing by comparison.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Like I stated, I am for treating everybody the same and that means have eveybody pay the same rate. Seems pretty simple to me, but maybe I am not as smart as all of you college educated people.

[-] 3 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

“[N]o American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas,” Obama said, according to his remarks as prepared for deliver. “From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay and hire in the United States of America.”

Just words, true, but I actually like this statement.

[-] 2 points by Progression (143) 9 years ago

So let me get this straight. This article is actually about closing the tax loopholes that companies have been exploiting to avoid paying their fair share? NICE!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 9 years ago

How are you going to tax companies headquartered overseas?

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 9 years ago

Does that include GE who paid ZERO taxes and who's CEO is Obama's Jobs Czar?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 9 years ago

New fors you: GE has NEVER paid taxes. He's responding to the question of funds which do not enter the US and are therefore not classified as "income" - they do not come "in."

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

I dont know what to call you-
a headline sucker ?
a headline fool ?
a headline liar ?
you title your thread with a lie
and you source it so we can see the lie
maybe we should call you a stupid headline liar
THANK YOU for asking me if I agree. you are an Rs

[-] 2 points by hvncb (24) 9 years ago

They print the money, why don't they print a little more so no one would have to pay back anything? Oops, I forgot, then there wouldn't be any covert slavery...

[-] 2 points by Faithntruth (997) 9 years ago

If you work you pay. If you are poor or have kids you get credits, if you are in school you get credits, improve your energy efficiency you get credits. A married couple of moderate incomes from both spouces probably gets the worst deal. But yes, it is true that anyone who is working and reports their income is taxed.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by vats (107) 9 years ago

First Obama should learn to keep the promise of banning out sourcing

[-] 1 points by FreeDiscussion5 (12) 9 years ago

I think you should pay income taxes on welfare. Every MAN should pay income taxes.

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 9 years ago

I have been paying for a long time so my first response is welcome to the club.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 9 years ago

47% of workers do pay taxes. They just get a nice return. That 47% also spend their entire income ever year, and pay sales tax, property tax if they have a house, and many other taxes.

Also to the people that don't want to pay income taxes, I suggest you try making 18 grand a year and tell me how much more awesome that is than making 40 grand a year and paying more taxes.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

tax code needs to have steeper progression. income over 10 million should be taxed at 66%.


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 9 years ago

Neo cons???

I don't like those. Why post this stuff here?

How does this aid the movement?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 9 years ago

Yes. I believe it is time for every american who works 40 hours per week to be compensated enough to cover their responsibilities to their families and to the country. Healthcare, Taxes, Transportation, Food, Housing, Clothing, Energy, and any responsibility not mentioned here but expected of every one of us should be obtainable under any job providing 40 hours of work to the employee. Anything less is a redistribution of operational cost by the company onto society and the government. If they cannot live up to these standards and stay in business, they should not be given welfare to stay afloat, that is not capitalism or free markets but fascism. They can and will be replaced by newer and better models for the industry they serve by entrepreneurs that can live up to those obligations without government assistance or depleting society.

[-] 0 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 9 years ago

Dear President Obama I have no problem paying taxes. I pay a chunk out of my paycheck, get whacked by the state, pay at tge register, get run over by car tax, gouged at the gas pump... And because I have not spawned mini me s nor am I a homeowner...I get to pay more money at tax time while illegal aliens get tax Id numbers and get about 300 million a year from people like me. I am middle class according to my salary but because of taxes...hey I am working lower middle class! Just send me mitt romneys address or one of the folks who aren't citizens and I can just directly send them a portion of my check. Btw I love the 800 million we are sending to the middle east , the 1.2 trillion we just borrowed to keep the economy afloat... Why don't we have a flat tax of 50 percent so we can just run to a two class system?

[-] 0 points by thewalrus (5) 9 years ago

Obama won't get away with that.

[-] 0 points by gosso920 (-24) 9 years ago

Wesley Snipes would respectfully disagree with that sentiment.

[-] -3 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

The United States collects taxes to pay back its debts. It's bullshit. It's not my debt.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

You mean for debts from thing like building the roads and bridges and schools and internet and computer technology and EKG machines, and public hospitals and weather satellites and all the rest that you use today or likely will need in your lifetime? Those debts?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

No, debt created by borrowing fiat money from the Federal Reserve.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Sorry, that "fiat" money was to invest in things, among them America itself. Was much it it misused? You bet. But that was not the because of the Federal Reserve and certainly not because of fiat money. It was because of political corruption and Wall Street greed. The Federal Reserve bailed out those reckless greedy banks and Wall Street firms, and it was ugly beyond measure. But if they hadn't, we would currently be in a depression that would have made 1930 look like a picnic.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

It doesn't matter what it was used for. It was an obviously poor idea to borrow notes which the United States had no way of paying back and which were not backed by wealth, then force the people of this country to pay the interest (which is impossible).

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

It matters a great deal what it was used for. It was used to maintain or improve or protect this country and/or its interests as determined by the people's freely elected representatives.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Within the context of this conversation (my individual responsibility or liability for the debt incurred by the United States) it does not matter what they used that money for.

During the civil war, Lincoln declared martial law. When congress adjourned sine die, he readjourned them under martial law authority where they then re-incorporated the District of Columbia as a private municipal corporation owned by the national government. The District of Columbia trademarked the name "United States Government" referring to themselves by consistent usage. They then adopted a constitution that was identical to the original constitution except it left out the original 13th amendment and renumbered amendments 14, 15, and 16 to 13, 14, and 15. After the civil war, the country was broke. The District of Columbia borrowed money from foreign aristocrats (which would be unlawful under the original 13th amendment) and promised to pay it back by 1912. 1912 came around and they were unable to pay it back. The foreign aristocrats settled the debt in return for all assets of the District of Columbia and all assets of the Treasury of the United States of America. The District of Columbia needed further funds in order to run the country, so they petitioned these aristocrats once again. They declined to loan money but offered a relationship with a private corporation they had created known as the Federal Reserve Bank. Shortly thereafter they adopted the 16th amendment which allowed direct taxation. They then adopted a 17th amendment, changing the way in which senators are elected (which is unconstitutional. Congress is specifically prohibited from doing so and would have had to amend the constitution to give themselves this power first). By 1914, the senators were seated ONLY in capacity as senators of the District of Columbia, since they were voted in by popular election, rather than the lawful and constitutional method (the 17th amendment was only applied to the "Constitution of The United States" which is the constitution adopted by the District of Columbia). In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected as president, but only as president of the District of Columbia, since to be elected president of the National Government would have required confirmation by the constitutionally seated Senate. From then on the "United States Government" has existed in a private corporate capacity only.

No transactions between the District of Columbia and the Federal Reserve were used to protect this country lol. The Fed was created to gain control of this country and that is what has been done. That is what most people (do not know they) are fighting against in OWS.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

"Within the context of this conversation (my individual responsibility or liability for the debt incurred by the United States) it does not matter what they used that money for." Yes it does. You are a part of this nation, unless you choose not to be and move elsewhere. That means you have the blessings of the rights it grants you and the obligations it requires.

As to the rest, take your libertardian conspiracy theories and distortions of history and total misunderstanding of constitutional law or understanding the role of the Fed, and put them back into the galactic dark hole from which they came. They have no place in even remotely intelligent conversation.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

says someone who has not even bothered to read any of the Acts Concerning the District of Columbia, nor who signed them into law and under what conditions.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Bottom line is, you belong to this society. This government is the de facto government of the United States, of which you are a citizen. You are as liable for its debts as you are blessed with its rights.

(And your history of the Fed is quite literally hysterical!)

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

I do not 'belong' to anyone or anything other than myself. I am no one's property but my own. And you're right that this is the de facto government. It is not the de jure government. I am not a citizen of the corporate United States, for I have not been naturalized according to the uniform laws of naturalization that the United States has passed.

Again, interested in your history of the Fed if you disagree with the one I provided.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

And that entire statement represents the entire problem with libertardianism, a philosophy that defines everything in terms of property, distorts all law, and takes as its highest moral value, pure selfishness.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

You don't have a different view of the Fed then? Fine. Stop telling me mine is wrong. It isn't.

You see something wrong with a man belonging to himself?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Sigh..... You are a tangled mess, aren't you?

First, the 9th amendment is among those (including the 2nd) that are among the vaguest in the Constitution. Your definitive understanding of it is belied by the debate about it among legal scholars. In other words, the best and brightest lawyers and judges aren't nearly as sure what it means as you are. That said, this is the interpretation I concur with:

The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain RIGHTS in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain POWERS in the Constitution. It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.

The legislature, moreover, is not criminal when it makes a law that presumably violates certain unenumerated rights. Indeed since they are unenumerated, those so-called rights are largely unidentifiable. It is therefore up to the courts to identify them. That is a de facto granting of rights, whether called that or not.

You can get caught up in one specific interpretation of the constitution or not. But understand that your interpretation is just that - an interpretation alone - and is by no means the universal, nor even the prevailing view. Congress did not act criminally in making the laws you site. It is even arguable whether it did so mistakenly.

In either case, it does not diminish by a hair the facts that

A. you are a citizen and have been afforded all the rights and obligations that status confers B. you are responsible for your share of your freely elected government's debts

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

I do not believe that I ever claimed congress acted criminally. The phrase I used was unlawfully, meaning not supported by law, or directly against law.

"but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain POWERS in the Constitution." Why wouldn't it? The denial of such a right would be a denial whether or not the constitution granted to congress the power to act in such a way that might violate or deny such a right. In other words, just because congress is granted the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce does not mean that it can use that power to justify prohibitions on pornography, since that pornography would be protected by the freedom of speech and of the press (despite the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that there is such a category as "unprotected speech", a category not provided for in the constitution). Congress would retain the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, but would be lawfully prevented from exercising it in such a way that violates individual rights. The bill of rights exists for a reason. If it did not, the enumerated (and implied) powers of congress could be used to bring about all sorts of blatant violations of rights, the likes of which are becoming more and more common today.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Reply to post below:

Moral rights and legal rights are two different things, and you are either conflating them, or misidentifying the one that that is legally binding. As such you talk about should one have the right to kill another. Morally, no. Legally yes, under conditions also set by law. If a society refuses to recognize that you have a right to own something or to behave in a particular way, you have no right to that possession or action within that society. You may have that right in another society, if that other one grants it to you.

No one individual decides on what your rights are or aren't. Society as a whole does. That does indeed lead to certain dangers, rightly, as you point out, to the tyranny of the majority. In this country, there are two mechanisms to minimize the occurrence of that from happening. First is the Bill of Rights, enacted by a majority of representatives. Second is the supreme Court, which is not bound by any majority opinion. It is, in fact, for that very reason - independence from politics and the majority - that the founders made it a non elected position. That supreme Court was also established by the majority, the society as a whole through the actions of those people whom they decided would speak and act on their behalf.

Rights may be respected or not by any individual, but the bottom line is that they are enforced. various penalties are levied when rights are violated or obligations of law are not met. These penalties range all the way from minor fines to loss of life.

Among the chief functions of democratic government is that it provides that place for national debate about moral/ethical issues. At least ideally, representatives argue about what is correct, and decide, via majority, what rights or obligations citizens have. They also decide on what the enforcement mechanisms are to insure these rights and obligations, and the penalties involved in that administration of justice.

Your moral rights and obligations are personal matters. Your actual behavior among people is circumscribed by the rights they grant or withhold from you, and those they grant or withhold from themselves. The very word "politics" comes from the root "polity", which means an organized society. It is the same root for the word "police."

Back to your drug laws, etc statement. The power delegated to representatives is to make law. That means they have the power, constitutionally, to allow or disallow certain behaviors, including ones regarding pornography and drugs. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional or illegal in their doing so. If the laws they passed violate or are in conflict with a foundational law in the constitution, it still does not mean that the REPRESENTATIVES violated the constitution: they simply passed legislation that doesn't meet the criteria of constitutionally acceptable law. Nor can we even say any law doesn't meet the criteria unless and until the courts decide it one way or another. In other words, passing a law that is wrong doesn't make the lawmaker a lawbreaker. There is no criminality involved. And since they and the courts together define what your rights are, no right has been violated in the process.

If you disagree with those restrictions, you can do several things. Petition (sue) to change them. Elect other representatives. Amend the constitution. Or if all else fails, rise up in rebellion. Doing the latter is something you may have the moral right to do, but not the legal one. If you win the battle, however, the mechanism for creating law you put in place will undoubtedly either pardon you or retroactively make your actions legal. The founding fathers were all criminals until they defeated the British. Then they weren't anymore.

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

"And since they and the courts together define what your rights are, no right has been violated in the process." That simply isn't true. If it were, the 9th amendment to the bill of rights -- The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -- would have no meaning. Never, in the Constitution, are the courts given the power to determine what rights exist. They are given the power only to determine if the law has been followed and to engage in activities pursuant to that decision (sentencing, awarding relief, etc), and are themselves governed by law. That law being the law of the Constitution, supreme law of the land.

Most importantly, it cannot be the case that any court would have the power to pick and choose which portions of the constitution it will uphold. The constitution must be considered as a whole document such that where one clause conflicts with another, no action can be lawfully taken pursuant to that clause. Do you disagree?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Reply to post below

Wow, is that tin foil hat you wear hot in the summer? The Federal Reserve regulates the economy. It does so by regulating know much and at what cost credit is available to banks. It does not "control" the country. You charts show corporate connection, yes, but what do you expect? It is a BANK system!

As to the central issue. Just as citizenship is a legal construct, so are rights. Any and all rights are given by law, including the right to keep breathing. Law is created by society. In this society, law is made via elected representatives and the Courts which adjudicate them based largely, though not exclusively, on another legal document, passed by other elected representatives called the Constitution. Your rhetorical spin on granting versus recognizing is meaningless. If society refuses to recognize something you consider a right, you don't have that right. Rights are always in relation to other people, as are obligations. Neither exist in a vacuum. If you are in individual standing in the middle of a crowd, you area part of that crowd. You are one of the many individuals that constitutes that crowd. That's essentially what a society is: an aggregate of people. You are a member of that aggregate.

A birth certificate functions as proof of citizenship. It is all the proof necessary, but not the only proof allowed. You don't need to have that certificate in your possession or to have ever seen it in order for you to be a citizen. Its issuance by an authorized witness of your birth is enough. You are DEEMED a citizen at your birth by parties other than you. You may renounce that privilege as an adult.

The US created property rights within its borders. Those rights are not absolute, but relative. Little is in the world of human beings, and laws made by them - including rights - are not also relative as well. Competing rights to accommodate competing needs insures they are not. Your rights are not absolute, but exist in accord or competition with the rights of everyone else around you.

As to drug and pornography laws, your assertion in another post that their existence somehow proves that this is not a representative democracy is bizarre on the face of it. When a majority of people favor such restrictions on individual behavior, the elected representative who pass laws restricting the behavior are in fact representing their constituents. That is precisely what they were elected to do, and precisely what the Constitution was designed to permit. It is the very definition of representative democracy. If a court finds that such laws violate the Constitution, they are invalidated. If public opinion changes and decides to lift restrictions, it may do so via its elected officials. Pretty simply, despite the obfuscatory nature of your pretzel-like reasoning.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Rights are a philosophical and moral concept, not an issue of law. Their protection is an issue of law. If individual citizens got to decide which rights exist at their whim, there would be no civilization, for a militant leader would subjugate all others, assuming no other militant leader rises to challenge him. The respect for other people's rights is based not on law, but on morality. As evidence, I present the fact that people who generally respect the rights of others which they recognize, often violated law which they do not agree with. For most people, excluding sociopaths, it is not the fear of punishment that provides for the recognition of the rights of others.

"If you are in individual standing in the middle of a crowd, you area part of that crowd. You are one of the many individuals that constitutes that crowd. That's essentially what a society is: an aggregate of people." Just because I stand in the middle of a crowd does not give that crowd the right to rob me, to torture me, to kill me, etc. Yes, a society is an aggregate of people, but what legitimate authority can those people have to decide that blacks should be killed? That jews should be killed? That gays should be killed? Surely no one in the party-to-be-killed would vote for legislation that allowed their wholesale slaughter. Is not their right to vote against such legislation just as compelling as the rights of others to vote in favor of it? Should that right not be considered to be the result of the fact that each and every human being has the legitimate authority to decide his own life and actions, while not violating the similar rights of others? Why leave every individual at the mercy of his peers? Why allow, and even advocate a system in which only a select few would be allowed to vote, skewing the "majority power" into the hands of a ruling elite? This situation could easily come about if rights are not protected against democracy. What if the majority voted that only politicians could vote? What would be in place to prevent that from happening? Please do not tell me that people would not do something so stupid.

My comments regarding drugs and pornography laws were not an attempt to prove that this is not a representative democracy, but that legislation which violated rights, specifically protected by the constitution, had been unlawfully passed. And again, the Constitution for the United States establishes a democratic republic whose officers are limited by that constitution, NOT a representative democracy. Though the elected officials are vested with some power to take action pursuant to the powers delegated to them, which stem from the rights of the sovereigns of this nation, they do not have the power to violate those rights. Who could have granted it to them? The only way they could obtain such power to violate rights is by force.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Reply to post WAAAAY below:

The Supreme court does not supersede the Constitution directly. It interprets it. By doing so, it it does indeed amend it, though not directly. Each court (each judge, really) interprets that document as he/she determines its meaning. IT's much like the Bible: no two people agree 100% about what each passage, let alone the whole thing, really means.

In terms of the constitution, that appears to be more or less the way the founders intended. They wanted a dynamic set of laws that could change as the country changed. They clearly wrote some parts deliberately vaguely, such as the second amendment. Other passages gained importance as new amendments were added to the document. The very issue of individual rights is bound up in the later addition of the 14th amendment, which is now used in combination with the 9th, to create more rights (or, if you prefer, discover unenumerated ones) that had never existed before in the country. Even strict originalists get stumped by certain questions. They try to find original intent, but unless they are psychic, they can't be certain they've come across it. After all, if the original intent of the second amendment was the true yardstick, Americans would have the right to bare muskets only. That other weapons are now under the umbrella of the law indicates that the constitution is a living document, constantly changing according to who it it that regards it.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

I disagree with your position on the second amendment. Both muskets and handguns (and other non-firearms) were used quite widely during the revolutionary period and the term "arms" would have applied to all of these.

I also disagree with looking at the constitution from the perspective of "original intent". They wrote many of the clauses in order to deal with specific concepts and problems that they knew of at the time, yet also made them open-ended enough (which is different from leaving them "vague") that they would apply to future concepts and events which were not on the minds of the founding fathers at the time. Further damage can be done to the legitimacy of the 'original intent' argument by noting the fact that they described a method by which the constitution could be changed -- acknowledging the fact that the document was designed such that it could deal with issues that had not yet been discovered. I think, bearing this in mind, that the only correct way to interpret the constitution is as a whole document, taken at face-value, using the definitions that the words had at the time it was written.

If the courts find that there is an issue with the constitution which allows people to violate the rights of others, it is the job of congress to propose and vote on amendments to it, not the supreme court. The supreme court is established in order to rule on all judicial matters. It is given no legislative power. When the supreme court rules that congress may make laws, the authority for which is not provided by the constitution, and congress makes such laws, congress acts outside of its authority to do so. I know I'm going back to my original position on that issue. Congress is granted the power to make legislation based only on the powers granted by the constitution. The supreme court's rulings have no authority to grant powers to congress that the constitution does not. While it's true that if the supreme court holds as constitutional an act of congress based on one of it's rulings then the law stands, it does not mean that it is constitutional. It merely means that the supreme court is protecting criminals.

The extension of authority granted to congress by the supreme court's ruling in Lopez vs. United States is one of the most obvious examples of congress overstepping its legitimate authority and the supreme court protecting it. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that congress has the power to regulate "channels of commerce", "instrumentalities of commerce", or "things which significantly affect commerce". It is only the supreme court that has granted this power to congress, not the constitution. I am familiar with the concept of implied powers, but how can it be construed that the power to regulate regulate those things can be implied by the power to regulate commerce? The supreme court's ruling allows congress to regulate aspects of commerce even when those aspects are not involved in the facilitation of commerce. Any activity can be considered to "significantly affect commerce". Does this give congress the power to regulate who may breath, how often, on what days, etc? Breathing could be considered to significantly affect commerce, couldn't it? All that oxygen being turned into carbon dioxide... there are many commercial uses for oxygen and if there weren't so many people breathing, there would be more available for those commercial uses. This is an extreme example but it follows the pattern that the courts have used to obtain convictions against people under laws based on the supreme court's ruling!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Reply to post below:

"I do not believe that I ever claimed congress acted criminally. The phrase I used was unlawfully, meaning not supported by law, or directly against law."

You are parsing words. Regardless, they did not act unlawfully. They acted as lawmakers. The laws they passed may or may not have been lawful, but the representatives acted well within the bounds of the law. As to the laws themselves, they were unlawful only if the Court deemed them as such following a lawsuit. Otherwise, they stand as law.

" Why wouldn't it? "

Take a course in constitutional law. As I said, it is what the courts have pointed to. Federal judges tend to know more about these things that amateurs.

"....the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled that there is such a category as "unprotected speech", a category not provided for in the constitution...."

It is how the Supreme Court defined the Constitution. That is all that matters in law. Unless a subsequent court says otherwise, it is constitutional, and the constitution was interpreted to have contained it.

The congress can pass any law it likes. Making laws, even unlawful ones, is not an unlawful act. It is within their constitutionally determined power to do so. It is merely the result of that act (the legislation itself) that may or may not pass muster. Whether that law is lawful is up to the courts. Generally (not always, obviously) congress, made up mostly of lawyers, attempts to make law that passes the court's test of constitutionality. If they don't, their legislation would be short lived indeed.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Fair enough regarding the lawfulness of congress. I'll stand corrected on that one.

Regarding the supreme court's relationship with the constitution: The Supreme Court was never intended to have the power to amend or supersede the constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the edicts of the SCOTUS. It would be preposterous to suggest that the Supreme Court could rule that the Constitution is more of a guideline document than a set of limitations on the powers of government, and that congress could pass any law it wished to pass, yet your interpretation of the powers of the supreme court would not prevent them from doing so.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

The Fed is not a foreign owned enterprise. It was created by an act of congress.

You "belong" (strange word, since you are not property in any way, shape or form) to yourself, and that self is a part of a larger society, which has given you all the rights that society affords in exchange for obligations of civil behavior within it that it also requires. You do not exist in a vacuum. Your understanding of citizenship is based on pure rhetorical slight of hand, and is nothing real. You are indeed a citizen, and in order for you to get out of that contract, you may formally renounce that citizenship. That you may freely make such a renunciation makes that contract of citizenship voluntary on your part. Unless and until you make such a renunciation, you enjoy the rights, including property rights, of such a citizen, and the obligations that go along with it.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Correction, the Fed is not (or at least, not when it was founded) a privately owned corporation. It is however, at least a privately controlled corporation. The Federal Reserve Act (available here in pdf format: http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf) set up the methods of creating the various branches of the Federal reserve bank, the Federal Reserve Board, and the officers who would carry out the business of the Federal reserve system. In order to found the individual branches, a minimum capital investment was needed. That capital was provided by foreign investors, who gained controlling stock in the various branches, as shown (some of it, anyway) here: http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

My self is not a part of a greater society. A society, as such, is a collection of individual selves, none of whom are a part of each other, and certainly not a part of the entire society. Society is a word used to refer to a collection of individuals having something (usually some behavior or set of beliefs, or people who freely associate with one another and consider themselves part of a distinctive group) in common. Society is not the source of my rights. How could a group of people be the source of rights? What right would they have to provide me with rights? The most the could provide me with is privileges, but that would require them to have the right to do so in the first place. And if they have the right to provide me with privileges, have I not got the same right to provide those privileges to myself? The idea that a group of people is the source of an individual's rights is utter balderdash. Society has only the power to recognize an individual's rights. Even if I did exist in a vacuum I would possess all the rights that society recognizes (or chooses not to). Citizenship is a matter of law. In law, language matters. The language of the laws regarding natural born citizens state that anyone born within the United States is a citizen of the United States. Lacking proof that I was born within the United States, it would be impossible to legally assert that I am a United States citizen. No such proof exists. There is no slight of hand here. The United States does not recognize property rights, as evidenced by Eminent Domain, drug and pornography laws, property tax laws, etc.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

That's pure speculation. The crisis of 1907 was minimal when the government did not step in. If you believe in the monetary effect, we would have cleared the system while now we still have an overhang and no confidence in investing.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

No confidence in investing? There is no demand. "Clearing the system" means collapse. We were in a liquidity trap. Saving the banks helped created the ability to extend credit again. The second step should have been far more robust job creation to increase demand and lower inventory. But the administration was afraid of political blowback if it did so, and held off long enough for Republican and Tea Party obstructionists to gain congress and block more, historically proven methods from being initiated.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Demand comes from confidence and there is very little of it from both businesses and indviduals as they are not sure where the economy is going. That's why companies are sitting on so much cash.

We don't agree on the job creation aspect and I don't agree that it is proven.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Demand comes from the ability to buy things. When unemployment rates go through the roof, and people have no money, consumer demand evaporates.


[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Well, corporations have huge ability to buy things right now and they are not.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Consumer demand, not corporate demand, is the driver of the economy. You don't buy seeds if there is no one to sell corn to.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

It's all the same in the system. Demand is demand.

Saw your man last night in SF raising money from the fat cats. He is a ruthless Chicago politician

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

It is NOT all the same in the system. Business demand is to enable greater production or adding to inventory. Without the prospect of sales doing so is disastrous and deflationary. Corporate demand does not drive the economy. Inventory is reduced by consumers. They, not corporations, drive the economy.

As to "my" man. Sorry, but when the rules allow one side to do it, and that side does, the other side is forced to do it, too. Until there is significant and real campaign finance reform, upheld by a non-right wing, corporate licking Supreme court, both sides will be forced in a race to the bottom, a race to corruption and fat cat influence. If you want to see less corruption, you have to get rid of a court that actually insists on corruption. And that means getting the right wing and libertarian influence out it during the next round of appointments. Do you think your boy Romney or especially Paul would do that? If you do, come see me about a bridge I can sell you.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

There you go again, blaming everything on the Republicans. Sorry I know Obama and am ver familair with his way. You can say what you want, he is not a nice guy and plays dirty. So make your adjective filled statements about the Republicans, but yoyr man is bad.

Nice analysis on demand but its an open system where trade and money flow across borders so demand comes from many sources. Where do you learn your economics again?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

In case you haven't noticed, the recession is world-wide. There is no demand from anywhere. What's more, the bulk of consumer demand is always domestic. Exports help (when they can be sold), but they are not the foundation for an economy supporting 300 million people. The basis for the domestic economy, the main driver of for the cycle of supply and demand is domestic demand. That demand is generated when people are employed and making a living.

Of COURSE I blame you Republitards. It was Republitard appointees in the Supreme Court that adjudicated Citizens United and struck down all sorts of campaign finance laws. None of the Democratic appointees joined that scurrilous decision. That was "your" boys. And now that the floodgates are open, it is a race to the most money, to the most influence by BOTH sides. If one side engages, the other one MUST,or else abdicate any chance of election.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

There is growth in many areas of the world, see the oil business in Canada. There is a tremendous amount of money sitting in the coffers waiting for some confidence. They are all worried what your man is going to do.

Obama is as money hungry as them all if not more. I just saw an ad this morning where he includes his wife and children in his campaign shots asking for money. Are you kidding???

You just can't keep yourself from calling people names can you?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Don't be hating 'cause no other state does politics better than Illinois. I was born and raised in Illin', and damn can those guys talk the shirt off the back of The average person. Don't hate the playa, hate the game. We windy city citizens got this shit on lock down. Booya.

[+] -4 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

Or the debts to build 23 aircraft carriers in 1943 or invest in wind farms back in 1976 or to invest in Solyndra while we don't build a gas pipeline that produces energy at a fifth of the cost.

Have you seen a private highway? Have you been to JFK since it transferred to a private contractor. So we would not have the internet if there was no government. You just want control and corruption.

[-] 7 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Lets take that one by one, shall we?

There are parts of every budget that some people support and others don't. I don't support 23 Aircraft carriers, but others in the electorate do. Some in citizens don't want to support wind farms, I do. That's what's called representative democracy. It is the entire ball of wax. It is FAR from perfect, and it's currently corrupt beyond recognition, but to claim that no part of the debt is yours, that you benefit from none of it, that you aren't a part of civil society, is simply wrong.

Second. Solyndra represents a 1% failure of the entire government's green energy investment portfolio. A 1% failure rate is something every venture capitalist would cum in their pants over. And considering that historically overall government investment in technology has resulted in anywhere from 3x to 10x the return in economic growth, at worse a 66.6% failure rate would still be break-even. But it's not 66%, it's 1%.

The Government funded the initial development of the internet. It would not exist otherwise. Neither would EKG machines, cell phones, computers, the interstate highway system, jet aircraft, weather satellites, national parks, and thousands of other things we use today. Nor would there be ongoing services like clean air and water inspections, climate monitoring, availability of annual flu shots, and thousands more of THOSE things.

That's not control or corruption. There are plenty of examples of corruption, but not all government debt is due to them.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

The idea that a particular technology would not exist had a specific entity not funded it has always been and will always be preposterous to me. Are you suggesting that who the money comes from determines whether or not a given technological advance will occur?

Furthermore, this country was not founded as a "representative democracy", but a "constitutional republic"

from: http://www.teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm

"A Republic, by definition, has two principle elements, First, it is controlled by Law, therefore it does not control Law. Second, it recognizes the private independent sovereign nature of each person (man or woman) of competent age and capacity, therefore a Republic must be representative in its nature.

A Republic recognizes Law is unchangeable, or at least that it can only be changed by a higher source than government. In a Republic the concept of “collective sovereignty” cannot exist, except with recognition that the State or nation, as a body of sovereigns, can speak through one elected voice; though that one voice can never lawfully interfere with the private rights of the individual sovereigns.

“A Constitutional Republic” is a government created and controlled, at least, by the Law of a Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America was, in Law, foundationally based on the Bible, the Magna Carta, and The Declaration of Independence. Those documents recognize man’s sovereignty, the divine nature of man’s creation and man’s divine right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of happiness. "

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

You libertardians all seen to read from the same pamphlets. A republic, by definition is a democracy. A constitutional republic is, therefore a constitution representative democracy.

Government money, and ONLY government money made the developments of various technologies possible. There was no other funding available. Venture capitalists were not interested in unproven fields of science or technology that they couldn't understand, let alone consider being profitable in the near or distant future. The private sector is not all wise and knowing. Government R&D, sometimes for ridiculously seeming (at the time) research, is the source of most of the modern technology we use today.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

thank you,,, many people, particularly the GOP, utterly fail to recognize some of the good gov't expenditures where the private sector would not go,,, GPS, i believe, is another one of those developments gov't funded initially and we wouldn't have gotten the satellites into space without NASA.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

You're suggesting then, that there is some inherent ability in someone who holds a government position to better judge what areas of research will produce beneficial results, and so justify the expense of other people's money, than someone in the private sector who would only risk their own money?

Furthermore, where do you get your definition of republic from?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

Te definition is from the dictionary.

The government has the authority to judge what investments are important to the national interest, and to use taxes to make those investments with. The "expense" has returned between 3 and 10 times the investment to the economy. Hardly a loss.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

Republic: 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

The supreme power (rights) rests with the body of people entitle to vote(all of them, which can only mean each and every one of them) and is exercised by the representatives... which means that the representatives can not exercise any power that the people (each and every one of them) do not have.

From wikipedia:

A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, have supreme control over the government and where offices of state are elected or chosen by elected people.

So a Republic is not a democracy. It is a form of government in which the source of legitimate authority is the rights held by the people under that government (consent of the governed). Our republic is a constitutional republic, which implements a democratic method of electing some, but not all officials.

What the hell do you mean by "returned between 3 and 10 times the investment to the economy."?

That "investment" has the United States $15 trillion in debt.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

republic |riˈpəblik|


a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (caps mine) , and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

That is called representative democracy.

The $15 Trillion in debt is largely due to a teensy weensy thing called the recession. It debt was exacerbated by, if you didn't notice, a huge tax gift to the wealthiest people, and of course, two wars. But the part that is due to the recession has to do with allowing people to EAT until the recession ends and they can get back on their own two feet. It would be helpful if the government doubled down on its job creation spending so that the tax base could broaden, new revenues generated, and much of that debt taken care of.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Did you capitalize 'elected representatives' to imply that they have more power than the people who elect them?

The $15 trillion dollar debt is not a positive return on investment. The end. It comes from borrowing, straight-up. There can be no other source of it. Why borrow? Because the government has to borrow (or steal [or, if it were moral, charge for the services which only it can offer]) in order to spend. The United States borrows currency from foreign private corporations (the Federal Reserve and the IMF), spends it willy nilly on things it should have no business in, then taxes us in order to pay it back which is impossible because the only currency we have to pay it back with is the SAME currency that is borrowed in the first place! THERE IS NO WAY TO PAY BACK THE INTEREST!!! Unless, of course, a National Currency is implemented, which the United States has no authority to do. (mindfuck, right? Only until you learn that the United States is not the National Government.)

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

No, I capitalized those words because they mean representative democracy which you seem not to understand the meaning of.

As to the rest, it's pure libertardian drivel with a sprinkling a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

I understand the meaning of representative democracy. But this nation was established as a democratic republic upon the Constitution for the United States. It says so right in the Constitution. Elected officials can only lawfully represent us to the extent that we grant them the power to do so. Therefore they cannot exercise any greater power than that held by the people, via their rights, which are neither granted nor definitively listed by the Constitution, but which are granted by their creator (whether you consider that creator to be God, some other deity, or the course of nature, the result is that human beings all possess the right to the ownership of their own lives and the rights logically derived from that primary right).

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

And what power beyond what the constitution has granted have your representatives taken?

And what does this have to do with the wholly appropriate activity of government investment in the country's current and future infrastructure? It has always done so, and it always will, mostly to the benefit of the society.

What's more, the 15 trillion dollar debt has to do with a lot of things, but infrastructure investment is the tiniest fraction of it, and has always returned far more to the economy than it has taken out.

(And your understanding of how to pay the interest back is, and what the Federal Reserve bank is, is frankly bizarre.)

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 9 years ago

Tell me more about paying the interest on the Fed loans and what the Fed is. If you disagree with my view of it I'd like to hear yours.

As far as overstepping their rightful powers, look at what the supreme court has done with the commerce clause. In a '96 case (Lopez vs. United States), they upheld a school's right to regulate what students may bring on campus (the original case was about a student bringing a gun to school) by extending the commerce clause to apply to things it does not apply to. The school acted lawfully in prohibiting guns on campus, but not because of the commerce clause. It was the school's property rights which allowed them to regulate how and under what conditions that property was to be used. The SCOTUS completely unnecessarily created new criteria for determining whether or not something fell under the authority of congress due to the commerce clause. They said that congress had the power to pass legislation regulating "channels of commerce", "instrumentalities of commerce", and things which "significantly affect commerce". None of those terms were defined. Now, while the SCOTUS did not act unlawfully, congress, acting on their criteria, has. While the commerce clause may give congress the power to regulate commerce and commercial activities, it does not give them the power to regulate the elements of commerce outside of commerce. The drug and pornography laws in the USC depend upon this ruling in order to be upheld as "just", not to mention countless others. They implicitly violate the liberties of the people of this nation. And that's just one example. Any time the Supreme court rules on something using one part of the constitution while ignoring the other parts dealing with the same issue, it grants congress the ability to pass unlawful legislation with impunity, which congress promptly does.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

I don't know where you are coming up with a 99% success rate for green energy investment? If that was true why don't we just tax oursleves 100% and let the government make the investment decisions. VC fims average a success rate of 20%.

The govenrment investment into green enrgy is just another crony investment. Why should some people get the benefits of government subsidies when other don't. It stinks and is grossly unfair.

The idea that the internet would not be around if the US government didn't invent is very questionable.There were many folks working on closed networks for many years. Most technologies are being worked on simultaneously in many places such as computers and jet engines, which were developed primarily in Europe.

Government is there to take on projects and needs as a whole that we as individuals can't do seperately. When power is centralized in any bureacracy corruption occurs and innovation declines. There are very few examples of large institutions that can stave off statism.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 9 years ago

The 1% figure comes from the fact that the $500 million represents 1% of R&D investment and industrial development investment this administration has made. Your question about "why don't we just let the government make all investment decisions" is pure hyperbole. The government has ALWAYS made substantial investment in untested technologies or industries that were deemed in the national interest since at least WWII, and it has paid off handsomely.

It makes many of those investments in utterly untested, and sometimes even unheard of technologies that either don't attract private venture capitol or are even secret. Computer technology, was primarily funded by the military at the beginning. The EKG was created by researchers working for NASA as a way of monitoring astronauts. Sometimes, as in the case of Solydnra, it offers loan guarantees that attract other private investors. Sometimes, also in the case of Solyndra, it places is bets badly. But the overall record is still very, very positive.

Jet engines were initially developed in Nazi Germany. After the war the technology was brought here, and developed, with heavy government investment, into commercial aviation applications.

Th reasons for government initiation of research or support of ongoing research are varied. That research has often been to support emerging industries. Denying that fact, or the succcess that investment has had, is to simply ignore history.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

and to pay it's bloated payroll for things like failing to regulate the securities industry or failing to prosecute jon corzine.

[+] -4 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 9 years ago

That's not true, There's no way he will make everybody pay any tax since his whole agenda is income redistribution.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 9 years ago

like GW bush, who wants to steal from taxpayers to pay for medicare part D? i don't want to pay for some old fogey's over-prescribed diet of stupid and unnecessary pills.