Reader comments
Readers' forum: Demo tax plan question
50 comments | Read story
Roland Kayser | 12:23 a.m. June 18, 2008
While anyone can invest in stocks, lowering capital gains taxes principally
favors the top 5% of the population. Most of us regular working people own
stocks in 401Ks, IRAs, Keoghs, etc., which pay taxes at ordinary income tax
rates, not at capital gains tax rates.
michaelh | 7:25 a.m. June 18, 2008
At first one may be misled into believing that lowering capital gains taxes only
helps rich people. These cynical, covetous, haters want to derail the part of
the train that the rich are riding on and have convinced many that the entire
train will not be derailed. Ask yourself have you ever gotten a great job from a
poor person? Under Democrat Jimmy Carter the stock market was at 800 points,
high capital gains taxes stops the creation of jobs, hurts the economy and
causes poverty. This idea is brought to you by the same people who want you to
pay $10 a gallon for gas
Question | 7:31 a.m. June 18, 2008
How much of your annual income did that Electra represent in '64? How much
does the 30G represent today?
Comments continue below
fr1nk | 7:59 a.m. June 18, 2008
Because the republican plan of just letting your children (and grandchildren)
pay your taxes is SOOOOO much better.
Dave | 8:03 a.m. June 18, 2008
Everyone with 401ks iras and pension accounts are in for a shock if Obama is
elected and the dems keep control of congess.
Dick | 8:24 a.m. June 18, 2008
This is an interesting topic of discussion.
Normally, investments return a rate higher than the rate of inflation over the long term. If we want to only tax the "real" return, we would need to determine the gain that was realized above the rate of inflation for all investments. This seems the most fair thing to do but it only makes the tax code and calculations more difficult.
Also, this same principle should apply to interest and dividends. They should not be taxed at all unless they exceed the rate of inflation for the time the money invested.
Normally, investments return a rate higher than the rate of inflation over the long term. If we want to only tax the "real" return, we would need to determine the gain that was realized above the rate of inflation for all investments. This seems the most fair thing to do but it only makes the tax code and calculations more difficult.
Also, this same principle should apply to interest and dividends. They should not be taxed at all unless they exceed the rate of inflation for the time the money invested.
DBG | 8:35 a.m. June 18, 2008
There was a CNNMoney article I read just yesterday that compared McCain and
Obama tax plans and outlined the details. It was put together by the nonpartisan
tax center in DC. Might want to read up on that to understand exactly how each
of these candidates' plans will affect us.
McCain's was worse off giving us a greater defecit. The tax increases were those who earned $600K or more and the middle class benefited most by Obama's plan. McCain's plan, the benefit was towards the wealthy.
McCain's was worse off giving us a greater defecit. The tax increases were those who earned $600K or more and the middle class benefited most by Obama's plan. McCain's plan, the benefit was towards the wealthy.
Jeffrey | 8:50 a.m. June 18, 2008
The letter writer is correct that liberals (I am one, but not a Democrat) want
to increase the paltry (by comparison) tax on capital gains to a fair amount.
Unfortunately, yes, that would hit everybody that invests in stocks. But if we can get the ultra-wealthy, who avoid paying their fair share of taxes by utilizing loopholes and low capital gains taxes, then it is good for the country.
By the way, this is not an attack on the rich. Some of my heroes are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. I don't wish to steal all their money and give it to everybody else, just that they are forced to carry the same weight percentage-wise as the middle class.
And someone else would agree with me, including Warren Buffet himself.
Last I checked, Robin Hood was hero to the poor, and an evil to the rich. Seems times haven't changed much.
Unfortunately, yes, that would hit everybody that invests in stocks. But if we can get the ultra-wealthy, who avoid paying their fair share of taxes by utilizing loopholes and low capital gains taxes, then it is good for the country.
By the way, this is not an attack on the rich. Some of my heroes are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. I don't wish to steal all their money and give it to everybody else, just that they are forced to carry the same weight percentage-wise as the middle class.
And someone else would agree with me, including Warren Buffet himself.
Last I checked, Robin Hood was hero to the poor, and an evil to the rich. Seems times haven't changed much.
Mike Richards | 8:50 a.m. June 18, 2008
Anytime Government thinks that it has a mandate to provide services not allowed
by the Constitution, someone has to find a way to pay for those services. What
follows is always a variation of Class Envy, where the President or Congress
finds a way to pit the job provider against the worker. In other words, strip
the job provider from his ability to create jobs so that everyone looks to the
Government for their salvation.
Government will find a way to strip every dime from anyone as long as the citizens allow it to happen.
Today they say the top 5%. Tomorrow, after the top 5% have nothing more to offer, the Government will expand the criteria to the top 10%. They will continue until they have ensnared the top 100%. Somewhere along the way, YOU will be part of the targeted group, and YOU will be "invited" to give everything you own to the Government - for the good of the people.
Government will find a way to strip every dime from anyone as long as the citizens allow it to happen.
Today they say the top 5%. Tomorrow, after the top 5% have nothing more to offer, the Government will expand the criteria to the top 10%. They will continue until they have ensnared the top 100%. Somewhere along the way, YOU will be part of the targeted group, and YOU will be "invited" to give everything you own to the Government - for the good of the people.
Jeffrey | 9:39 a.m. June 18, 2008
But Mike, if the top 5% are gone, then the top 10% would necessarily become the
top 5%, after which the top 5% wouldn't be gone after all, which would
leave only 95% left out of the total, which makes 95% the total, which makes it
100%.
Regardless, I just don't see the percentage in it. :)
On a serious note, though, I think you're mistaken. Increasing capital gains taxes, which is what the subject is about, would hit only those who invest in capital gains, primarily affecting the rich the most as they make most of their money through such investments.
10% or even 100% of American citizens do not fall in that category.
Regardless, I just don't see the percentage in it. :)
On a serious note, though, I think you're mistaken. Increasing capital gains taxes, which is what the subject is about, would hit only those who invest in capital gains, primarily affecting the rich the most as they make most of their money through such investments.
10% or even 100% of American citizens do not fall in that category.
Lewt | 9:44 a.m. June 18, 2008
I bet the 2008 Buick has a lot more cup holders.
DBG @ Mike Richards | 9:53 a.m. June 18, 2008
Not authorized by the Constitution? I disagree since Congress has the authority
to enact laws. The Constitution CAN change. Unless you are one of the types who
stick to the original Constitution. There is room for change, an often
misunderstood concept by people like yourself.
Although, I agree with your premise that the "mandate" by government is unnecessary. I don't like the shift of responsibiliyt of Uncle Sam taking care of me from cradle to grave. But that's not necessarily prohibited by the Constitution.
Although, I agree with your premise that the "mandate" by government is unnecessary. I don't like the shift of responsibiliyt of Uncle Sam taking care of me from cradle to grave. But that's not necessarily prohibited by the Constitution.
Oh Please | 9:55 a.m. June 18, 2008
When a capitalist buys a Buick for $20K on Tuesday and sells it for $30K on
Wednesday, he hasn't added one iota of value. Tax the capitalists,
please!!!
Grover | 10:16 a.m. June 18, 2008
Dave 8:03... Do you know that capital gains have nothing to do with IRAs, 401Ks
or pensions? They are all taxed as ordinary income. So the "shock" you
mention "when the Democrats keep control and Obama is elected" might
be not as bad as you think. Whoops, your slip is showing (old joke).
Mike Richards | 10:25 a.m. June 18, 2008
To DBG 9:53,
I am one of those 'types' who sticks to the Constitution. There is a provision in place to modify the Constitution, but, until it is modified, its original content is still the Supreme Law of the Land.
Many believe that a 60 MPH Speed Limit is just a 'suggestion', that 60 MPH could mean anything, depending on how fast you want it to mean. You're late for a meeting? Then drive 120 feet per second and call it 60 MPH. Eighty-eight feet per second is such a random number anyway, why should anyone believe that it really defines 60 MPH?
If you want a rubber Constitution, just be aware that someday that rubber Constitution is going to bounce in a way that destroys you.
To me, the Constitution is a steel ruler against which all laws are measured, not something to stretch and bend until it fits the dogma of the day.
Allowing Liberals to redefine the "General Welfare" statement to mean "Individual Welfare" has not only bent the Constitution, it was reversed its meaning. The Democrats are only too happy to seize on that opportunity to tax and spend.
I am one of those 'types' who sticks to the Constitution. There is a provision in place to modify the Constitution, but, until it is modified, its original content is still the Supreme Law of the Land.
Many believe that a 60 MPH Speed Limit is just a 'suggestion', that 60 MPH could mean anything, depending on how fast you want it to mean. You're late for a meeting? Then drive 120 feet per second and call it 60 MPH. Eighty-eight feet per second is such a random number anyway, why should anyone believe that it really defines 60 MPH?
If you want a rubber Constitution, just be aware that someday that rubber Constitution is going to bounce in a way that destroys you.
To me, the Constitution is a steel ruler against which all laws are measured, not something to stretch and bend until it fits the dogma of the day.
Allowing Liberals to redefine the "General Welfare" statement to mean "Individual Welfare" has not only bent the Constitution, it was reversed its meaning. The Democrats are only too happy to seize on that opportunity to tax and spend.
Thomas | 10:49 a.m. June 18, 2008
The writer hits on the dirty little secret of capital gains taxation: Because
of inflation, a good part of it is not truly income taxation, but wealth
taxation.
Inflation is largely a result of the government's regulation (read: mismanagement) of the value of the currency. The Federal Reserve's primary mission is supposed to be maintaining price stability -- but in practice, its policy has been consistently inflationary. Inflation runs from around 2% in a "good" year to 10% or more, depending on how much the government manipulates statistics to make the number seem low.
It follows that if inflation is running at 10% annually, you need to be getting a 10% return on your money just to keep up and break even, in terms of real purchasing power. However, *the government taxes you on the 10% that you earn* -- even if, in real terms, inflation means you are no better off. Since the "income" isn't real, you're effectively being taxed at 15% on your *wealth*, not your income.
Wealth taxation is generally seen as the Holy Grail of socialism -- but because of inflationary currency manipulation and capital gains taxation, we've actually had it for decades already.
Inflation is largely a result of the government's regulation (read: mismanagement) of the value of the currency. The Federal Reserve's primary mission is supposed to be maintaining price stability -- but in practice, its policy has been consistently inflationary. Inflation runs from around 2% in a "good" year to 10% or more, depending on how much the government manipulates statistics to make the number seem low.
It follows that if inflation is running at 10% annually, you need to be getting a 10% return on your money just to keep up and break even, in terms of real purchasing power. However, *the government taxes you on the 10% that you earn* -- even if, in real terms, inflation means you are no better off. Since the "income" isn't real, you're effectively being taxed at 15% on your *wealth*, not your income.
Wealth taxation is generally seen as the Holy Grail of socialism -- but because of inflationary currency manipulation and capital gains taxation, we've actually had it for decades already.
Cameron | 11:01 a.m. June 18, 2008
For tax year 2007 a household earning 45k would have paid $0 in income tax, and
yet would still have gotten $2400 back. In 1999 that same household would have
paid $950.
The top 0.1% of US earners pay 17.4% of the total taxes. The top 1% pay 36.9% of the total tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% pay only 3.3% of the total tax.
The top 0.1% of US earners pay 17.4% of the total taxes. The top 1% pay 36.9% of the total tax. In contrast, the bottom 50% pay only 3.3% of the total tax.
Aunt Jamima | 11:13 a.m. June 18, 2008
Why is it the the have nots want what those who have have?
Go out and work if you want more. The only way to make it fair would be to do a flat tax and get rid of all the loop holes.
If the poor paid 5% of their income, it would equal out to the 5% paid by the rich. The "poor" can sometimes get more back at tax return time than they actually paid into it. Level the playing field and do a flat tax and get rid of the rest.
Go out and work if you want more. The only way to make it fair would be to do a flat tax and get rid of all the loop holes.
If the poor paid 5% of their income, it would equal out to the 5% paid by the rich. The "poor" can sometimes get more back at tax return time than they actually paid into it. Level the playing field and do a flat tax and get rid of the rest.
John | 12:01 p.m. June 18, 2008
"DBG @ Mike Richards | 9:53 a.m. June 18, 2008
Not authorized by the Constitution? I disagree since Congress has the authority to enact laws. The Constitution CAN change. Unless you are one of the types who stick to the original Constitution. There is room for change, an often misunderstood concept by people like yourself. "
And this pathetic understanding of our government, ladies and gentlemen, is why the US is no longer a free nation, a Constitutional Republic, but a Monarchy.
Imagine if when you get up in the morning, the speed limit is 65, but as you are driving 65 to work, the law changes to 55 because the "law can change" and there is "room for change"
Have a nice ticket, and a nice day.
Not authorized by the Constitution? I disagree since Congress has the authority to enact laws. The Constitution CAN change. Unless you are one of the types who stick to the original Constitution. There is room for change, an often misunderstood concept by people like yourself. "
And this pathetic understanding of our government, ladies and gentlemen, is why the US is no longer a free nation, a Constitutional Republic, but a Monarchy.
Imagine if when you get up in the morning, the speed limit is 65, but as you are driving 65 to work, the law changes to 55 because the "law can change" and there is "room for change"
Have a nice ticket, and a nice day.
Roland Kayser | 12:52 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Cameron:
Your statistics are valid only if you count nothing but the income tax. If you count the total of all taxes paid you will find that the very rich pay about the same percentage of thier income in taxes as the middle class.
Your statistics are valid only if you count nothing but the income tax. If you count the total of all taxes paid you will find that the very rich pay about the same percentage of thier income in taxes as the middle class.
Re:Roland Kayser | 12:23 a.m. | 1:20 p.m. June 18, 2008
A question for [Roland Kayser | 12:23 a.m.] and others.
Where did you come up with the criteria that... A tax is "Good" if it just affects the top 5% or at least affects them more than it affects others?
Is it OK for the Government (which is supposed to protect all of us) to design taxes such that they focus on any small group of the population (whether tha small group is determined by sex, race, or income)? I thought the Constitution guaranteed equal treatment for all, not just those outside the top 5%.
I'm not in the top 5% (by far) but I don't see the Constitutional basis for designing taxes intended to target specific groups.
Those who fight FOR taxes, as long as they affect a group you're not in, just seem bogus to me.
Where did you come up with the criteria that... A tax is "Good" if it just affects the top 5% or at least affects them more than it affects others?
Is it OK for the Government (which is supposed to protect all of us) to design taxes such that they focus on any small group of the population (whether tha small group is determined by sex, race, or income)? I thought the Constitution guaranteed equal treatment for all, not just those outside the top 5%.
I'm not in the top 5% (by far) but I don't see the Constitutional basis for designing taxes intended to target specific groups.
Those who fight FOR taxes, as long as they affect a group you're not in, just seem bogus to me.
Oh Please | 2:52 p.m. June 18, 2008
Tax the rich! They benefit from our system far out of proportion to the rest of
us and add virtually nothing. Most of them don't work. The ones that do
aren't worth what they're paid (e.g., Rick Wagoner, president of GM,
presided over a $37billion loss last year and still saw his income increase
64%). Tax the rich!
Smaller government? | 2:59 p.m. June 18, 2008
Under the conservative Bush Administration, the �shadow
government� of private companies working under federal
contract has exploded in size. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending
increased by over $175 billion dollars, making federal contracts the fastest
growing component of federal discretionary spending.
This growth in federal procurement has enriched private contractors. But it has also come at a steep cost for federal taxpayers. Overcharging has been frequent, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered.
This growth in federal procurement has enriched private contractors. But it has also come at a steep cost for federal taxpayers. Overcharging has been frequent, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered.
DBG | 3:04 p.m. June 18, 2008
To both Mike and John-Both your examples are not comparable. Especially the
speeding ticket one.
The Constitution is not "made of steel." The provision to change the Constitution is there, but that's not what we are talking about. YOU are talking about ALL CHANGES must be due that way. In fact, the needs of the folks today are not the same as the needs of the folks in the 1700's. The FF did give Congress power to enact laws, but perhaps these are laws you do not like?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no liberal, but I don't buy the conservative view that the Constitution is unchangable. If it wasn't, we'd have no laws today. But unfortunately, there are MANY UNRSPONSIBLE folks, athat therefore, laws have to be created. I have not lost any freedoms due to any laws created.
The Constitution is not "made of steel." The provision to change the Constitution is there, but that's not what we are talking about. YOU are talking about ALL CHANGES must be due that way. In fact, the needs of the folks today are not the same as the needs of the folks in the 1700's. The FF did give Congress power to enact laws, but perhaps these are laws you do not like?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no liberal, but I don't buy the conservative view that the Constitution is unchangable. If it wasn't, we'd have no laws today. But unfortunately, there are MANY UNRSPONSIBLE folks, athat therefore, laws have to be created. I have not lost any freedoms due to any laws created.
Mike Richards | 3:32 p.m. June 18, 2008
To DBG 3:04,
So, the Constitution is not made of steel? It's made of rubber?
Just what does "Law" mean to you? Just what does "Supreme Law" mean to you?
When the citizens of America have a contract with their Government that defines the limit of the Government, who changes that contract, a group of activist judges or the people?
The Constitution defines the limits that WE have placed on OUR Government. Only WE can change those limits. At least 75% of us have to agree to those changes.
The idea that the Constitution is made of rubber is an idea generated by the Liberal Left.
So, the Constitution is not made of steel? It's made of rubber?
Just what does "Law" mean to you? Just what does "Supreme Law" mean to you?
When the citizens of America have a contract with their Government that defines the limit of the Government, who changes that contract, a group of activist judges or the people?
The Constitution defines the limits that WE have placed on OUR Government. Only WE can change those limits. At least 75% of us have to agree to those changes.
The idea that the Constitution is made of rubber is an idea generated by the Liberal Left.
re: John | 3:54 p.m. June 18, 2008
"And this pathetic understanding of our government, ladies and gentlemen,
is why the US is no longer a free nation, a Constitutional Republic, but a
Monarchy.
Imagine if when you get up in the morning, the speed limit is 65, but as you are driving 65 to work, the law changes to 55 because the "law can change" and there is "room for change"
Have a nice ticket, and a nice day. "
Have you ever actually read the constitution? Because it appears to me that YOU are the one with the "pathetic understanding of our government"! The Constitution can change! (as it should as times change)in fact, it has changed twenty seven times! Please go take a remedial citizenship class before posting stupidity like that again.
Imagine if when you get up in the morning, the speed limit is 65, but as you are driving 65 to work, the law changes to 55 because the "law can change" and there is "room for change"
Have a nice ticket, and a nice day. "
Have you ever actually read the constitution? Because it appears to me that YOU are the one with the "pathetic understanding of our government"! The Constitution can change! (as it should as times change)in fact, it has changed twenty seven times! Please go take a remedial citizenship class before posting stupidity like that again.
re: Mike richards | 4:01 p.m. June 18, 2008
"The idea that the Constitution is made of rubber is an idea generated by
the Liberal Left. "
You mean like George Bush and his patriot act cronies?
You mean like George Bush and his patriot act cronies?
M.O. | 4:20 p.m. June 18, 2008
Mike Richards is just another Rush Limbaugh wannabe who likes to use the words
"left, liberal, democrat, socialist, communist" as an exclamation
point (even when it has nothing to do with the subject matter) every other
sentence.
It's the conservatives M.O.
It's the conservatives M.O.
Old One | 4:38 p.m. June 18, 2008
I'm sure that the tax increases by Democrats referred to by Werner
Ruemjmele represent a return to the tax obligations in effect prior to
Bush's tax cut for the most wealthy Americans. Since Werner does not make
over $250,000 annually, he should be happy to see a return to the previous tax
rates. As it is right now, Werner and the rest of us poor beggars are
subsidizing that tax cut for the rich.
Mike Richards | 4:46 p.m. June 18, 2008
The Liberal Left mocks the Constitution. Are they ignorant of the ownership of
that document, or, are they so corrupt that they think that they "own"
that document?
"We The People" OWN the Constitution. It is OUR contract with the Government. It tells the Government what Rights we allow the Government to have and it defines the scope of those Rights.
The Government cannot change the Constitution. The Government cannot add to it or subtract from it. Only "We The People" can change it, and then only when 75% of us agree to that change.
The Liberals and the Activist on the bench need a lesson in basic Civics.
"We The People" OWN the Constitution. It is OUR contract with the Government. It tells the Government what Rights we allow the Government to have and it defines the scope of those Rights.
The Government cannot change the Constitution. The Government cannot add to it or subtract from it. Only "We The People" can change it, and then only when 75% of us agree to that change.
The Liberals and the Activist on the bench need a lesson in basic Civics.
re: Mike Richards | 5:10 p.m. June 18, 2008
"The Government cannot change the Constitution. The Government cannot add
to it or subtract from it. Only "We The People" can change it, and
then only when 75% of us agree to that change."
Are you really that ignorant concerning the Constitution?!?! The government and politicians can change the constitution without asking you at all Mike. The legislatures amend the constitution, not the people as a whole.
Are you really that ignorant concerning the Constitution?!?! The government and politicians can change the constitution without asking you at all Mike. The legislatures amend the constitution, not the people as a whole.
no short-term memory loss | 5:28 p.m. June 18, 2008
Once again, Mike Richards (doing his best Limbaugh impression) uses the liberal
card as a punctuation to defend his conservative ideology. (whatever that is?)
He conveniently forgets what his conservative-supported President George W. Bush once said: "The Constitution is just a (blank-blank) piece of paper."
As if people have forgotten that bit of American history.
He conveniently forgets what his conservative-supported President George W. Bush once said: "The Constitution is just a (blank-blank) piece of paper."
As if people have forgotten that bit of American history.
@5:35 | 6:15 p.m. June 18, 2008
Sounds like you need anger management. I hope nobody like you takes power.
Your words expose you as a dictator and tyrant. Get some help!
splinter groups | 6:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
It always amazes me how powerful these splinter groups think they are. (ie., The
Limbaugh Party)
The modern American conservative movement, since trying to destroy the Constitution ever since Bush & Cheney took control, has only accomplished three things:
Initiated America's first preemptive war
Split the country in two because of the action
Bankrupting the country.
The modern American conservative movement, since trying to destroy the Constitution ever since Bush & Cheney took control, has only accomplished three things:
Initiated America's first preemptive war
Split the country in two because of the action
Bankrupting the country.
Mike Richards | 6:25 p.m. June 18, 2008
The Liberals are up to their eyeballs in FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) today.
They would have us believe that an Activist Judge can modify the Constitution.
They would have us think that our Legislators can pass laws contrary to the
Constitution whenever and however those Legislators wish.
Article V defines the process of Amending the Constitution. Either 2/3rds of a quorum in Congess or 2/3rds of the State Legislatures must apply for a Constititional Amendment.
When the right to amend is granted, then a vote by 3/4ths of the STATE Legislatures or a vote by 3/4ths of a special convention assembled in the STATES is required for passage of an amendment. The Congress of the United States has no voice in the vote. That right is left to the STATES and the People who choose those that vote for them in the STATE Legislature or the special convention made up of voters from the STATES.
I would much rather be called a "scum" by the Liberal Left, than to have joined with them in spreading lies about our Constitution.
Article V defines the process of Amending the Constitution. Either 2/3rds of a quorum in Congess or 2/3rds of the State Legislatures must apply for a Constititional Amendment.
When the right to amend is granted, then a vote by 3/4ths of the STATE Legislatures or a vote by 3/4ths of a special convention assembled in the STATES is required for passage of an amendment. The Congress of the United States has no voice in the vote. That right is left to the STATES and the People who choose those that vote for them in the STATE Legislature or the special convention made up of voters from the STATES.
I would much rather be called a "scum" by the Liberal Left, than to have joined with them in spreading lies about our Constitution.
Constitution is a tyrannical doc | 6:29 p.m. June 18, 2008
@5:35,
"Sounds like you need anger management. I hope nobody like you takes power. Your words expose you as a dictator and tyrant. Get some help!"
I'm not the dictator or tryant instead that would be you and those who committed treason when they wrote the Constitution. We had a free government prior to the ratification of the Constitution and yet you seem to think otherwise. I guess those in 1788 and 1789 who disagreed with those who wanted the Constitution were tyrants too. I guess that all lovers of freedom are labeled tyrants by jerks like you.
The strong opposition to the Constitution at the time was for good reason, they warned us of the oppressive taxation, they warned us of the wars of aggression and what would happen if we ratified the Constitution but instead it was forced down our throat by tyrants and dictators.
Even now it's used as a tool of oppression and anyone who challenges its deified status is labeled a dictator or tyrant even though the men who wrote it believed the government didn't have enough power over the states and people. Even now there are those of us who oppose it.
"Sounds like you need anger management. I hope nobody like you takes power. Your words expose you as a dictator and tyrant. Get some help!"
I'm not the dictator or tryant instead that would be you and those who committed treason when they wrote the Constitution. We had a free government prior to the ratification of the Constitution and yet you seem to think otherwise. I guess those in 1788 and 1789 who disagreed with those who wanted the Constitution were tyrants too. I guess that all lovers of freedom are labeled tyrants by jerks like you.
The strong opposition to the Constitution at the time was for good reason, they warned us of the oppressive taxation, they warned us of the wars of aggression and what would happen if we ratified the Constitution but instead it was forced down our throat by tyrants and dictators.
Even now it's used as a tool of oppression and anyone who challenges its deified status is labeled a dictator or tyrant even though the men who wrote it believed the government didn't have enough power over the states and people. Even now there are those of us who oppose it.
Mike Richards | 6:56 p.m. June 18, 2008
To 6:29,
Oppose with all of your might. That is your right. As an American (and I'm assuming that you really are an American, legally and lawfully residing in this great Country), you have a Right to speak your mind. You have a Right to express your opinion. You have a Right to oppose our Government.
What other Government on earth would allow you to speak like a traitor without fear?
Some use their Freedoms wisely and others use them to tear down the very foundation upon which they stand. Where will you stand when that foundation is gone?
Oppose with all of your might. That is your right. As an American (and I'm assuming that you really are an American, legally and lawfully residing in this great Country), you have a Right to speak your mind. You have a Right to express your opinion. You have a Right to oppose our Government.
What other Government on earth would allow you to speak like a traitor without fear?
Some use their Freedoms wisely and others use them to tear down the very foundation upon which they stand. Where will you stand when that foundation is gone?
Why do we praise traitors? | 6:59 p.m. June 18, 2008
The Articles of Confederation allowed the State Legislatures to choose how
delegates to Congress were appointed EVERY YEAR, allowed States to recall any of
its delegates at ANY TIME and send others in their place, prohibited any one
person from being a delegate for more than 3 out of every 6 years and provided
that each state would have no less than 2 and no more than 7 delegates to
represent it.
In addition, it required the salary and upkeep of delegates to Congress be provided by the states and not by Congress. Provided the Congress power over war (except if states were invaded), provided the appointment power of colonels and lower officers to States and provided that taxation for such purposes would be based on the value of real property in each state and that states would levy the taxes.
Some people believe that the Articles were weak but they weren't instead they provided necessary and proper safeguards against tyranny even though there were points which should have been amended. This is why the states sent the Founding Fathers to amend the Articles, not to abolish them, and it was an act of treason to do so.
In addition, it required the salary and upkeep of delegates to Congress be provided by the states and not by Congress. Provided the Congress power over war (except if states were invaded), provided the appointment power of colonels and lower officers to States and provided that taxation for such purposes would be based on the value of real property in each state and that states would levy the taxes.
Some people believe that the Articles were weak but they weren't instead they provided necessary and proper safeguards against tyranny even though there were points which should have been amended. This is why the states sent the Founding Fathers to amend the Articles, not to abolish them, and it was an act of treason to do so.
re:Mike Richards | 7:03 p.m. June 18, 2008
Exactly Mike, the STATE legislatures amend the Constitution. NOT THE PEOPLE.
There are some WORSE scumbags in our STATE legislature than can be found
anywhere in the US Congress. But either way, your implication that the PEOPLE
have any say (beyond voting in legislators) in amending the constitution is NOT
true.
Abolish the tryannical Constitut | 7:04 p.m. June 18, 2008
"Article V defines the process of Amending the Constitution. Either 2/3rds
of a quorum in Congess or 2/3rds of the State Legislatures must apply for a
Constititional Amendment...When the right to amend is granted, then a vote by
3/4ths of the STATE Legislatures or a vote by 3/4ths of a special convention
assembled in the STATES is required for passage of an amendment."
Approval of all states should be required before the organic law of our nation can be amended.
"The Congress of the United States has no voice in the vote. That right is left to the STATES and the People who choose those that vote for them in the STATE Legislature or the special convention made up of voters from the STATES."
The Constitution doesn't require the Convention is made up of voters from the States nor do the people of the states have the right to choose those whom serve in special Constitutional Conventions. In fact, we have never had one because Congress won't allow us to because they know we would amend the Constitution right out of existence just like the traitor founding fathers did when they committed treason and abolished the Articles of Confederation.
Approval of all states should be required before the organic law of our nation can be amended.
"The Congress of the United States has no voice in the vote. That right is left to the STATES and the People who choose those that vote for them in the STATE Legislature or the special convention made up of voters from the STATES."
The Constitution doesn't require the Convention is made up of voters from the States nor do the people of the states have the right to choose those whom serve in special Constitutional Conventions. In fact, we have never had one because Congress won't allow us to because they know we would amend the Constitution right out of existence just like the traitor founding fathers did when they committed treason and abolished the Articles of Confederation.
Mike Richards | 7:21 p.m. June 18, 2008
To 7:03,
We live in a Republic, not in an absolute Democracy. That means, of course, that we elect Representatives to stand as our Proxy. When I said "The People", I used the term to mean those who were not part of the Federal Government.
We elect Proxies to stand as our representatives. Proxy, in this case refers to those elected by the citizens in each State to represent the citizens of a State and that State alone, without regard to the other States in this Republic. In other words, those prozies, who represent the individual citizen, have no obligation nor ties with the Federal Government. They do the bidding of "The People", the citizens in their State - regardless of the wishes or pressures from the Federal Government.
To 7:04,
The 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) was passed using the Convention method. All other amendments were passed by at least 3/4ths of the Legislatures in the various States.
We live in a Republic, not in an absolute Democracy. That means, of course, that we elect Representatives to stand as our Proxy. When I said "The People", I used the term to mean those who were not part of the Federal Government.
We elect Proxies to stand as our representatives. Proxy, in this case refers to those elected by the citizens in each State to represent the citizens of a State and that State alone, without regard to the other States in this Republic. In other words, those prozies, who represent the individual citizen, have no obligation nor ties with the Federal Government. They do the bidding of "The People", the citizens in their State - regardless of the wishes or pressures from the Federal Government.
To 7:04,
The 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) was passed using the Convention method. All other amendments were passed by at least 3/4ths of the Legislatures in the various States.
A Short History of Traitors | 7:36 p.m. June 18, 2008
The history of these traitors is a shocking one yet it has to be told if we are
able to understand what these men hoped to accomplish.
Let's start with 1781. This is the year that the conservatives took control of Congress, created Executive Departments including Finance, Foreign Affairs, Marine and War and respectively appointed Robert Morris as Secretary of Finance, Benjamin Lincoln as Secretary of War, and Robert Livingston as Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Congress soon ceded much of its power to these department heads who were responsible to Robert Morris who had by late 1781 taken control of the government.
It was in May of 1781 that conservatives in the Congress created the first National Bank whose Board of Directors included Robert Morris, his business partner Thomas Willing, and other business associates and friends like George Clymer, William Bingham, Cadwalader Morris, Gouvernor Morris (we all know who this scumbag is) and Jeremiah Wadsworth.
Yet, the bank didn't do well financially because it wasn't supported by taxes since states were refusing to levy taxes for the support of the bank. This meant that the conservatives needed to do something about this and that is where our Constitution comes in.
Let's start with 1781. This is the year that the conservatives took control of Congress, created Executive Departments including Finance, Foreign Affairs, Marine and War and respectively appointed Robert Morris as Secretary of Finance, Benjamin Lincoln as Secretary of War, and Robert Livingston as Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Congress soon ceded much of its power to these department heads who were responsible to Robert Morris who had by late 1781 taken control of the government.
It was in May of 1781 that conservatives in the Congress created the first National Bank whose Board of Directors included Robert Morris, his business partner Thomas Willing, and other business associates and friends like George Clymer, William Bingham, Cadwalader Morris, Gouvernor Morris (we all know who this scumbag is) and Jeremiah Wadsworth.
Yet, the bank didn't do well financially because it wasn't supported by taxes since states were refusing to levy taxes for the support of the bank. This meant that the conservatives needed to do something about this and that is where our Constitution comes in.
Response to an idiot | 7:42 p.m. June 18, 2008
Mike Richards,
"The 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) was passed using the Convention method. All other amendments were passed by at least 3/4ths of the Legislatures in the various States."
The 21st Amendment to the Constitution was not the product of a Constitutional Convention instead it was ratified by a Ratification Convention. Of course you don't know the difference between the two. Maybe you can take one of my history classes and I can help you learn the difference.
"The 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) was passed using the Convention method. All other amendments were passed by at least 3/4ths of the Legislatures in the various States."
The 21st Amendment to the Constitution was not the product of a Constitutional Convention instead it was ratified by a Ratification Convention. Of course you don't know the difference between the two. Maybe you can take one of my history classes and I can help you learn the difference.
A Short History of Traitors II | 8:00 p.m. June 18, 2008
In 1782, Alexander Hamilton was appointed a Tax collector. It was during the
interim between the 1781 raise of conservatives to power in Congress and the
1786 Annapolis Convention (called by Alexander Hamilton) tht the conservatives
conspired to overthrow the Articles of Confederation and to create a strong
central government reminsicent of the British government.
We have to understand the difference between his ideas (he was appointed the first Secretary of Treasury under our current Constitution) and the philosophy of lassiez faire. He believed that the government should regulate trade and business and that trade and business should be encouraged and restrained by government who should act as its directing power.
Fellow conservative James Madison believed the sole purpose of government is the protection of the wealthy from the majority.
These men, among others believed that monarchy was the preferable form of government. Realizing that they would not achieve this aim they took it upon themselves to draft a Constitution which would centralize power in the hands of the federal government, make the elections less frequent and members of Congress less responsible to the people and states.
They debated during the Constitutional Convention ways to oppress an not grant liberty.
We have to understand the difference between his ideas (he was appointed the first Secretary of Treasury under our current Constitution) and the philosophy of lassiez faire. He believed that the government should regulate trade and business and that trade and business should be encouraged and restrained by government who should act as its directing power.
Fellow conservative James Madison believed the sole purpose of government is the protection of the wealthy from the majority.
These men, among others believed that monarchy was the preferable form of government. Realizing that they would not achieve this aim they took it upon themselves to draft a Constitution which would centralize power in the hands of the federal government, make the elections less frequent and members of Congress less responsible to the people and states.
They debated during the Constitutional Convention ways to oppress an not grant liberty.
Mike Richards | 8:09 p.m. June 18, 2008
To 7:42,
In the presence of such grace and nobility that you have offered to one as lowly as I, I must beg your forgiveness. I stand corrected.
In the presence of such grace and nobility that you have offered to one as lowly as I, I must beg your forgiveness. I stand corrected.
Mike Richards | 8:53 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Short History,
Your view of the Founding Fathers is "interesting".
Gouverneur Morris, who wrote much of the Constitution and who was credited with writing the Preamble, made a very astute observation about the character of the voters. "He ... thought that common people were incapable of self-government and feared that the poor would sell their votes to rich people." Did he see our day and realize that many would vote for whichever candidate promised more handouts?
Your statement that "James Madison believed the sole purpose of government is the protection of the wealthy from the majority" does not agree with this statement: "He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would ensure republicanism in the United States." (Banning, 1995; Kernell, 2003; Riemer, 1954.)
Your view of the Founding Fathers is "interesting".
Gouverneur Morris, who wrote much of the Constitution and who was credited with writing the Preamble, made a very astute observation about the character of the voters. "He ... thought that common people were incapable of self-government and feared that the poor would sell their votes to rich people." Did he see our day and realize that many would vote for whichever candidate promised more handouts?
Your statement that "James Madison believed the sole purpose of government is the protection of the wealthy from the majority" does not agree with this statement: "He believed very strongly that the new nation should fight against aristocracy and corruption and was deeply committed to creating mechanisms that would ensure republicanism in the United States." (Banning, 1995; Kernell, 2003; Riemer, 1954.)
Mike Richards is another Madison | 9:55 p.m. June 18, 2008
But it does agree with this statement "the role of government is to protect
the opulent [wealthy] from the majority." Also, history clearly
demonstrates that Madison believed in strong central government and advocated
for the central government to have the power of taxation.
You have to understand that these men were liars, and scumbags and revised history so that they would come out clean. For example, they didn't release the minutes of their SECRET COMBINATION until decades later.
Gouverneur Morris and his friends James Duane, Nathaniel Gorham, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Lincoln, James Madison, Robert Livingston, and mentor Robert Morris among others were scumbags.
These men threatened, harassed and killed those who opposed the Constitution. For example, in Albany, New York a group of opponents to the Constitution peacefully marched on July 4th and burned a copy of the Constitution. Supporters of that tryannical document formed a mob, and met up with opponents and started a bloody fight.
After suffering a bloody defeat at the hands of the tyrants those opposed to the Constitution retreated to the home of a private citizen when the armed mob rushed the home killing and wounding several. The sheer wickedness of your kind can't stand.
You have to understand that these men were liars, and scumbags and revised history so that they would come out clean. For example, they didn't release the minutes of their SECRET COMBINATION until decades later.
Gouverneur Morris and his friends James Duane, Nathaniel Gorham, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Lincoln, James Madison, Robert Livingston, and mentor Robert Morris among others were scumbags.
These men threatened, harassed and killed those who opposed the Constitution. For example, in Albany, New York a group of opponents to the Constitution peacefully marched on July 4th and burned a copy of the Constitution. Supporters of that tryannical document formed a mob, and met up with opponents and started a bloody fight.
After suffering a bloody defeat at the hands of the tyrants those opposed to the Constitution retreated to the home of a private citizen when the armed mob rushed the home killing and wounding several. The sheer wickedness of your kind can't stand.
Mike Richards | 10:03 p.m. June 18, 2008
To 9:55,
You have been treated with curtesy on this forum. There is no need to be abusive.
You have been treated with curtesy on this forum. There is no need to be abusive.
@ Mike Richards | 10:30 p.m. June 18, 2008
Thank you for understanding Constitutional law and attempting to explain it to
others. It's an uphill battle.
Mike Richards | 12:01 a.m. June 19, 2008
This thread has taken a lot of different paths today, with a lot of forceful
opinions - mine included.
The original question about Capital Gains and the income "class" that will be targeted by the Democrats for increased taxes is one of the most thought provoking questions that I've read.
It assumes that the Government has the right to create income "classes". It assumes that the Government can arbitrarily decide who belongs to which class based on the Government's shifting "standards". By shifting, I mean that the "standard" is subject to change, not by the vote of the people, but by the vote of the taxing authority.
It assumes that the Government can identify a "need", Constitutional or not, and then force a "class" to pay the costs of that "need" without compensation for their property or for their efforts.
It assumes that the Government has the right to pay individuals, not for services rendered to the Government, but because the Government has decided that those particular people deserve a payment.
It assumes that America accepts appropriation of assets without compensation as being both moral and ethical - as long as the person being taxed is "too rich".
The original question about Capital Gains and the income "class" that will be targeted by the Democrats for increased taxes is one of the most thought provoking questions that I've read.
It assumes that the Government has the right to create income "classes". It assumes that the Government can arbitrarily decide who belongs to which class based on the Government's shifting "standards". By shifting, I mean that the "standard" is subject to change, not by the vote of the people, but by the vote of the taxing authority.
It assumes that the Government can identify a "need", Constitutional or not, and then force a "class" to pay the costs of that "need" without compensation for their property or for their efforts.
It assumes that the Government has the right to pay individuals, not for services rendered to the Government, but because the Government has decided that those particular people deserve a payment.
It assumes that America accepts appropriation of assets without compensation as being both moral and ethical - as long as the person being taxed is "too rich".
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Shoppers with smart phones IQ 7:49 a.m.
- Citi to suspend foreclosures 30 days 7:48 a.m.
- Bernanke honored then denounced 7:47 a.m.
- Oil slips to near $72 7:46 a.m.
- New jobless benefit claims rise 7:46 a.m.
- Stock futures fall after jobs data 7:45 a.m.
- Susan Powell notebook seized 7:22 a.m.
- Top cartel kingpin killed in shootout 1:24 a.m.
- Utah Grizzlies fall to Steelheads 1:19 a.m.
- Watching over the Sacred Grove 1:16 a.m.
- Susan Powell notebook seized
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons
- Will Chambers keep his promise?
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police
- Star on field, in community
- BYU singers compete in 'Sing Off'
- David Archuleta's different mission
- Frances Monson recovering well
- Boozer plays at an All-Star level
- Jazz miss Harpring's toughness
- Jazz stunned by Timberwolves
114 - Stay the course with our president113
- Letters: 'Liberal conceit'113
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police109
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child107
- Letters: Explaining Palin101
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney100
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons97
- Tethering of pets could spur charges94
- Cougar seniors see a new Bronco84
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
As someone who actually likes Hannah Montana and the show...And I love the...
Why not begin with the salaries of Englis and company - you know those self...
How about talking with the 4 yr old? Maybe out of the mouth of babes, a...
Time to shut down Front Runner, the hundred million dollar white elephant...
For supposedly being the best (LOL) QB in BYU history it’s a bit sad...
Welcome to the good old boy world of Utah. It all depends on who you are and...
Amen, Merlin.
"..."students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and...
Great job coach A and staff. Having these kids for spring ball is huge. I'm...
What a joke this is. If UTA would give up their development funds and put it...
Advertisements