[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
dhickey wrote:
There is something wrong when 40% of americans pay no income tax.
Agreed. 100% of Americans should pay no income tax.
mike
agreed.
I am starting to come around to this view.
Bring the tariffs back then.[/quote]
Why do you think this would have to be done? This is just as damaging as income tax.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
More from 2001 transcript…Constitution still has “an enormous blind spot” and “reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
[i]I think it’s a remarkable document…
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments - but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not - first of all they weren’t African-Americans - the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a “nagging problem” in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.[/i][/quote]
Not sure what your point is with this or what it has to do with scary socialist policies. Where is the fallacy in this statement? The Constitution is FAR from a perfect document, particularly as originally written before amendments such as outlawing slavery.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
More from 2001 transcript…Constitution still has “an enormous blind spot” and “reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
[i]I think it’s a remarkable document…
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments - but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not - first of all they weren’t African-Americans - the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a “nagging problem” in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.[/i]
Not sure what your point is with this or what it has to do with scary socialist policies. Where is the fallacy in this statement? The Constitution is FAR from a perfect document, particularly as originally written before amendments such as outlawing slavery.[/quote]
how so?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
There is something wrong when 40% of americans pay no income tax.
[/quote]
Yes, perhaps. The percentage of people not paying income tax has shot up 15% since 2000, mostly as a result of Bush’s expansion of the child tax credit.
As far as your question about how much is too much for the wealthy, I don’t think the cut from 70% was a bad thing by any means. But I’m fine paying the current rates which hits me at 33%. My problem is not with paying that amount. It’s what the money is used for.
I don’t mind supporting effective, well-managed programs that make positive changes. I have issues with the bottomless pit, useless initatives, and bloated bureacracy the money goes to fund.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t mind supporting effective, well-managed programs that make positive changes. [/quote]
Cool. Another anti-welfare/entitlment member.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
More from 2001 transcript…Constitution still has “an enormous blind spot” and “reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
[i]I think it’s a remarkable document…
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments - but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not - first of all they weren’t African-Americans - the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a “nagging problem” in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.[/i]
Not sure what your point is with this or what it has to do with scary socialist policies. Where is the fallacy in this statement? The Constitution is FAR from a perfect document, particularly as originally written before amendments such as outlawing slavery.
how so?[/quote]
What do you mean? The fact that black people were considered 3/5ths of a person, it took a constiutional amendment to outlaw slavery, and other constiutional amendment to bring women the vote IS relfective of blind spots and fundamental flaws in the Founders and the culture of that day. “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal.” Sure, sure. If they’re white. Out of luck if you’ve got a vagina too.
The Constitution is an amazing documents. And the Founding Fathers accomplished an amazing thing. But its not perfect. There are many things that were considered appropriate back then that underlie the constitution that are fundamentally unacceptable and in opposition to modern values.
I don’t know why people have to take this as an attack on the Constitution. It doesn’t degrade it. It values it for all the great things and recognizes that the Founding Fathers were men of great foresight and great intellect but were not omniscient and omnipitent.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t mind supporting effective, well-managed programs that make positive changes.
Cool. Another anti-welfare/entitlment member.
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean. I was definitely for welfare reform. As far as modern welfare programs go, I don’t mind funding programs that mandate job training and work to get people working. And that are of limited duration and cut benefits off.
I don’t mind paying for safety nets and providing opportunities to get people on their feet. But if they don’t take advantage of those opportunities to get themselves trained and their lives on track, it’s not my job to pay for them to sit around forever.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
how so?
What do you mean? The fact that black people were considered 3/5ths of a person, it took a constiutional amendment to outlaw slavery, and other constiutional amendment to bring women the vote IS relfective of blind spots and fundamental flaws in the Founders and the culture of that day. “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal.” Sure, sure. If they’re white. Out of luck if you’ve got a vagina too.
The Constitution is an amazing documents. And the Founding Fathers accomplished an amazing thing. But its not perfect. There are many things that were considered appropriate back then that underlie the constitution that are fundamentally unacceptable and in opposition to modern values.
I don’t know why people have to take this as an attack on the Constitution. It doesn’t degrade it. It values it for all the great things and recognizes that the Founding Fathers were men of great foresight and great intellect but were not omniscient and omnipitent.[/quote]
Thanks. That’s what I was after. You have prove yet again that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And I didn’t think you were attacking the constitution. i just had a feeling you where going to say exactly what you just said. I stopped reading after the first paragraph.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
how so?
What do you mean? The fact that black people were considered 3/5ths of a person, it took a constiutional amendment to outlaw slavery, and other constiutional amendment to bring women the vote IS relfective of blind spots and fundamental flaws in the Founders and the culture of that day. “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal.” Sure, sure. If they’re white. Out of luck if you’ve got a vagina too.
The Constitution is an amazing documents. And the Founding Fathers accomplished an amazing thing. But its not perfect. There are many things that were considered appropriate back then that underlie the constitution that are fundamentally unacceptable and in opposition to modern values.
I don’t know why people have to take this as an attack on the Constitution. It doesn’t degrade it. It values it for all the great things and recognizes that the Founding Fathers were men of great foresight and great intellect but were not omniscient and omnipitent.
Thanks. That’s what I was after. You have prove yet again that you have no idea what you are talking about.
And I didn’t think you were attacking the constitution. i just had a feeling you where going to say exactly what you just said. I stopped reading after the first paragraph.[/quote]
Congratulations.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t mind supporting effective, well-managed programs that make positive changes.
Cool. Another anti-welfare/entitlment member.
Not sure what you mean. I was definitely for welfare reform. As far as modern welfare programs go, I don’t mind funding programs that mandate job training and work to get people working. And that are of limited duration and cut benefits off.
I don’t mind paying for safety nets and providing opportunities to get people on their feet. But if they don’t take advantage of those opportunities to get themselves trained and their lives on track, it’s not my job to pay for them to sit around forever.[/quote]
I do mind all of that, even if it had never been tried which it has.
I will say that the founders were human and as such anything produced by them would reflect that which is why I refer to defining principles all the time. Slavery, as bad as it was, was not a defining principle of the body politic. I understand that it was integral to the southern economy and as such played a major role.
However, the United States was not the United States because slavery existed. The defining principles were the very negative liberties that Obama laments. Those principles are just as applicable to any race of people as it is to any other and it is tragic that it took what it did to unscrew institutionalized racism from our national fabric.
The bottom line is that the DEFINING principles of self determination unfettered by centralized intrusion are dying a grotesque illegal death. The founders viewed individual government “aid” as an intrusion nonetheless and to therefore be avoided. The private-ness of property was one of the driving forces in all they did. The early writings virtually erupt with these sentiments in preponderance.
If we really have come to the place where we no longer subscribe to these principles then let’s have a constitutional convention and rewrite the damn thing and at least abandon our roots honestly.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t mind supporting effective, well-managed programs that make positive changes.
Cool. Another anti-welfare/entitlment member.
Not sure what you mean. I was definitely for welfare reform. As far as modern welfare programs go, I don’t mind funding programs that mandate job training and work to get people working. And that are of limited duration and cut benefits off.
I don’t mind paying for safety nets and providing opportunities to get people on their feet. But if they don’t take advantage of those opportunities to get themselves trained and their lives on track, it’s not my job to pay for them to sit around forever.
I do mind all of that, even if it had never been tried which it has.
I will say that the founders were human and as such anything produced by them would reflect that which is why I refer to defining principles all the time. Slavery, as bad as it was, was not a defining principle of the body politic. I understand that it was integral to the southern economy and as such played a major role.
However, the United States was not the United States because slavery existed. The defining principles were the very negative liberties that Obama laments. Those principles are just as applicable to any race of people as it is to any other and it is tragic that it took what it did to unscrew institutionalized racism from our national fabric.
The bottom line is that the DEFINING principles of self determination unfettered by centralized intrusion are dying a grotesque illegal death. The founders viewed individual government “aid” as an intrusion nonetheless and to therefore be avoided. The private-ness of property was one of the driving forces in all they did. The early writings virtually erupt with these sentiments in preponderance.
If we really have come to the place where we no longer subscribe to these principles then let’s have a constitutional convention and rewrite the damn thing and at least abandon our roots honestly.[/quote]
Fair enough and you may well be right as far as social programs and aid go. Roosevelt ushered in a fundamental change, and its doubtful it would’ve been supported by even the Founding Fathers who advocated a strong, centralized federal government (of which there were many). But as far as a powerful, centralized federal government goes as general matter, you are promoting a revisionist view of history. You’ve done this in other threads, and I’ve said it before, and I’m not about to get in a debate about it again.
But there’s been a very real schism over the role and power of the federal government and what it does and should do. And this schism goes back even before the Constitution was ratified. It’s reflected in the Federalist Papers, the Constitutional Convention, and ambiguous aspects of the Constitution itself.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
dhickey wrote:
There is something wrong when 40% of americans pay no income tax.
Agreed. 100% of Americans should pay no income tax.
mike
agreed.
I am starting to come around to this view.
Bring the tariffs back then.[/quote]
Contract taxes and usage fees.
mike
[quote]dhickey wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
dhickey wrote:
There is something wrong when 40% of americans pay no income tax.
Agreed. 100% of Americans should pay no income tax.
mike
agreed.
I am starting to come around to this view.
Bring the tariffs back then.
Why do you think this would have to be done? This is just as damaging as income tax.[/quote]
Are you the stupidest person in this thread? Really, fake outrage over comments that someone else told you were controversial, and you don’t seem to understand the idea of revenue. Thank god the voting age is not 16.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, he wants to redistribute wealth using political means. Well, that’s better!
Meaningless.
McCain redistributes up, Obama down.
We have a progressive tax system for good reasons. A tax system of any sort redistributes wealth. Moving on…[/quote]
You’re really an idiot, aren’t you? As Tribulus said, who owns what I make? Me or the government?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
More from 2001 transcript…Constitution still has “an enormous blind spot” and “reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
[i]I think it’s a remarkable document…
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments - but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not - first of all they weren’t African-Americans - the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a “nagging problem” in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.[/i]
Not sure what your point is with this or what it has to do with scary socialist policies. Where is the fallacy in this statement? The Constitution is FAR from a perfect document, particularly as originally written before amendments such as outlawing slavery.
how so?
What do you mean? The fact that black people were considered 3/5ths of a person, it took a constiutional amendment to outlaw slavery, and other constiutional amendment to bring women the vote IS relfective of blind spots and fundamental flaws in the Founders and the culture of that day. “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal.” Sure, sure. If they’re white. Out of luck if you’ve got a vagina too.
The Constitution is an amazing documents. And the Founding Fathers accomplished an amazing thing. But its not perfect. There are many things that were considered appropriate back then that underlie the constitution that are fundamentally unacceptable and in opposition to modern values.
I don’t know why people have to take this as an attack on the Constitution. It doesn’t degrade it. It values it for all the great things and recognizes that the Founding Fathers were men of great foresight and great intellect but were not omniscient and omnipitent.[/quote]
Slavery was never legal under the Constitution – it was simply unprosecuted. We currently live under a mountain of laws that violate the Constitution. The authors of these laws are primarily those that espouse the frailty of our founding charter and call it a “living document”. Regarding blacks and women, New Jersey had universal suffrage for several years after the revolution and many of the northern states were giving out reparations to slaves as early as the late 1770’s.
The founders weren’t perfect and neither is the Constitution. That said, I sure as shit wouldn’t trust a soul in Washington or anywhere for that matter with being present at a new Constitutional Convention.
You place too much weight on modern values being right. Our current system of universal suffrage IS wrong and will bring about the downfall of the nation. Secondly, our Constitution cannot protect us. It is a piece of paper. The only thing that keeps us free is blood and steel.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
More from 2001 transcript…Constitution still has “an enormous blind spot” and “reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
[i]I think it’s a remarkable document…
The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments - but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.
African-Americans were not - first of all they weren’t African-Americans - the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a “nagging problem” in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.
And in that sense, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.[/i]
Not sure what your point is with this or what it has to do with scary socialist policies. Where is the fallacy in this statement? The Constitution is FAR from a perfect document, particularly as originally written before amendments such as outlawing slavery.
how so?
What do you mean? The fact that black people were considered 3/5ths of a person, it took a constiutional amendment to outlaw slavery, and other constiutional amendment to bring women the vote IS relfective of blind spots and fundamental flaws in the Founders and the culture of that day. “We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal.” Sure, sure. If they’re white. Out of luck if you’ve got a vagina too.
The Constitution is an amazing documents. And the Founding Fathers accomplished an amazing thing. But its not perfect. There are many things that were considered appropriate back then that underlie the constitution that are fundamentally unacceptable and in opposition to modern values.
I don’t know why people have to take this as an attack on the Constitution. It doesn’t degrade it. It values it for all the great things and recognizes that the Founding Fathers were men of great foresight and great intellect but were not omniscient and omnipitent.
Slavery was never legal under the Constitution – it was simply unprosecuted. We currently live under a mountain of laws that violate the Constitution. The authors of these laws are primarily those that espouse the frailty of our founding charter and call it a “living document”. Regarding blacks and women, New Jersey had universal suffrage for several years after the revolution and many of the northern states were giving out reparations to slaves as early as the late 1770’s.
The founders weren’t perfect and neither is the Constitution. That said, I sure as shit wouldn’t trust a soul in Washington or anywhere for that matter with being present at a new Constitutional Convention.
You place too much weight on modern values being right. Our current system of universal suffrage IS wrong and will bring about the downfall of the nation. Secondly, our Constitution cannot protect us. It is a piece of paper. The only thing that keeps us free is blood and steel.
mike[/quote]
I was not talking about a new Constitutional Convention. My point was that the Constitution is not a perfect document nor the Founders infallible. Just because the Constitutiton does not address something, does not mean it is not appropriately addressed by the government or legal system
That’s also not to say there aren’t many things government gets involved in it’d be best staying out of. There are.
As far as universal suffrage, I can’t really imagine what you are talking about. Maybe you are making the argument that their should be qualfications as far as awareness and understanding of the issues. That’s not indefensible. And in fact we do not have a system of universal suffrage. For example, felons forfeit the right to vote. But broad disqualifications based on characteristics of race or gender cannot possibly be what you’re talking about.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, he wants to redistribute wealth using political means. Well, that’s better!
Meaningless.
McCain redistributes up, Obama down.
We have a progressive tax system for good reasons. A tax system of any sort redistributes wealth. Moving on…
You’re really an idiot, aren’t you? As Tribulus said, who owns what I make? Me or the government?
[/quote]
Tribulus wasn’t able to read Obama’s comments nor grasp what they meant. And you don’t seem to understand the concept of taxes or government. It’s an odd bunch of double digit IQ’ers in here these days.
[quote]100meters wrote:
tom63 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Oh, he wants to redistribute wealth using political means. Well, that’s better!
Meaningless.
McCain redistributes up, Obama down.
We have a progressive tax system for good reasons. A tax system of any sort redistributes wealth. Moving on…
You’re really an idiot, aren’t you? As Tribulus said, who owns what I make? Me or the government?
Tribulus wasn’t able to read Obama’s comments nor grasp what they meant. And you don’t seem to understand the concept of taxes or government. It’s an odd bunch of double digit IQ’ers in here these days.[/quote]
No, we understand the concept of government and taxes, it’s just that we reject yours.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
<<< Roosevelt ushered in a fundamental change, and its doubtful it would’ve been supported by even the Founding Fathers who advocated a strong, centralized federal government (of which there were many) >>>[/quote]
Hold on a second. Are you saying here that not even the early leaders at that time who advocated the strongest federal government would’ve supported Roosevelt’s policies?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< Roosevelt ushered in a fundamental change, and its doubtful it would’ve been supported by even the Founding Fathers who advocated a strong, centralized federal government (of which there were many) >>>
Hold on a second. Are you saying here that not even the early leaders at that time who advocated the strongest federal government would’ve supported Roosevelt’s policies?[/quote]
Yeah, probably. I think that’s fair to say.