Any Amendments you'd like to see repealed?

[haymarket]

I would like see an amendment outlawing the stealing of jobs from one area of our great nation to a different area of our nation by promising them they will NOT have to assume the normal obligations that other companies and citizens have or by giving them monetary rewards that others do not get. Such arrangements are short sighted and ultimately benefit the company far far far more than anybody else including the people.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul only benefits Paul and leaves Peter in even worse shape.

Canada has taken steps in this area and we should pursue it ourselves.

 

[radcen]

I would like see an amendment outlawing the stealing of jobs from one area of our great nation to a different area of our nation by promising them they will NOT have to assume the normal obligations that other companies and citizens have. Such arrangements are short sighted and ultimately benefit the company far far far more than anybody else including the people.

That would be adding an amendment, not repealing one.

 

[haymarket]

That would be adding an amendment, not repealing one.

ooops - my error. Sorry. Did not mean to derail the thread or hijack - I just misread it going off the first few words on the front page without reading the entire heading when I jumped to it to post.

 

[PirateMk1]

I would like see an amendment outlawing the stealing of jobs from one area of our great nation to a different area of our nation by promising them they will NOT have to assume the normal obligations that other companies and citizens have or by giving them monetary rewards that others do not get. Such arrangements are short sighted and ultimately benefit the company far far far more than anybody else including the people.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul only benefits Paul and leaves Peter in even worse shape.

Canada has taken steps in this area and we should pursue it ourselves.

That is something I would have to examine further. To be honest though that may be something that actually comes under the commerce clause legitimately.

Grand government changing and life changing things should always come through the amendment process. By its very nature it requires cooperation and compromise to achieve something. More importantly a large majority of people have to agree with and sign off on the proposed amendment, which leads to FAR less strife because it has to be crafted in a way people would agree with it.

 

[Aberration]

I would like see an amendment outlawing the stealing of jobs from one area of our great nation to a different area of our nation by promising them they will NOT have to assume the normal obligations that other companies and citizens have or by giving them monetary rewards that others do not get. Such arrangements are short sighted and ultimately benefit the company far far far more than anybody else including the people.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul only benefits Paul and leaves Peter in even worse shape.

Canada has taken steps in this area and we should pursue it ourselves.

So you want to see the "democratic command of the economy" Constitutionalized? Wow, no thanks. Historically such arrangements have benefited the poorest the most.

It's not robbing anyone. You don't go and intentionally buy the same product for more money just to help the store out do you? Businesses should be able to seek out better deals as well. And governments should not have the benefit of commanding business to stay in spite of the poor policies they enact that makes the business want to leave.

 

[Aberration]

I think the 10th could be Strengthened. To me it seems obvious enough but the forces of populism and claimed 'democracy' have swept the country and steadily undermined the Republic. I think just about ALL the federal agencies and bureaucracies that push their power across the country are Unconstitutional and have no legal authority. A plague on our nation.

Not a fan of the 16th. The only reason it was 'needed' was because of the growing and unconstitutional federal bureaucracy. Cut all that crap away and it's unnecessary. In practice I just think it's immoral to confiscate the product of someone labor before they even get it. And I also think it's immoral to put the burden of proof on the citizen. I think the government should bill everyone EXACTLY for the services they get. Business can do it, and make profit. There is no reason government can't, except they are powerful and unaccountable so they don't care how they treat you or what you think about it. Then either vote or strike for a raise.

I think the 17th pretty much abolished the 10th. The problem was senators buying their seat. You tell me, has anything changed? No these a-holes are still buying their seats. All it did was screw up our Republic form of government. So the solution is a stronger press and a more accountable government.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[radcen]

I think the 17th pretty much abolished the 10th. The problem was senators buying their seat. You tell me, has anything changed? No these a-holes are still buying their seats. All it did was screw up our Republic form of government. So the solution is a stronger press and a more accountable government.

The biggest effect was losing the balance between the people's interests and the state's interests. Now, the states have no representation, and as such get saddled with unfunded mandates because they have no say in the process.

 

[haymarket]

So you want to see the "democratic command of the economy" Constitutionalized? Wow, no thanks. Historically such arrangements have benefited the poorest the most.

It's not robbing anyone. You don't go and intentionally buy the same product for more money just to help the store out do you? Businesses should be able to seek out better deals as well. And governments should not have the benefit of commanding business to stay in spite of the poor policies they enact that makes the business want to leave.

Why should a new company get a tax abatement deal or a gift of seed money or free land when a long standing local company does not get that preferential treatment?

And yes - I do willingly pay a higher price to some businesses that I feel give me something for my money like a better product or better service or a better community relations program or they are known for a progressive labor policy. APPLE computers would be one such example.

 

[Aberration]

Why should a new company get a tax abatement deal or a gift of seed money or free land when a long standing local company does not get that preferential treatment?

And yes - I do willingly pay a higher price to some businesses that I feel give me something for my money like a better product or better service or a better community relations program or they are known for a progressive labor policy. APPLE computers would be one such example.

Why should they? Because the government, working in the interests of the people, are interested in expanding their tax base by courting business. Why do you assume the long standing company does not get the treatment? And if not now, they did when they came.

You misunderstood my question. Do you go and by the same exact Apple for a higher price than you need to just to benefit the store? Buying a product that has a better value is not at all what I was asking.

Although it's interesting that you think you should have he right to choose which products to buy based on their policies, but you don't think others should have the same choice. Because essentially that is the choice we are talking about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Why should they? Because the government, working in the interests of the people, are interested in expanding their tax base by courting business.

How does not allowing a company to pay its full share of taxes INCREASE or EXPAND taxes since they are not being paid?

Special preferences violate equal protection of the law.

 

[Aberration]

How does not allowing a company to pay its full share of taxes INCREASE or EXPAND taxes since they are not being paid?

Special preferences violate equal protection of the law.

You perceive it a bit oddly. There is no 'not allowing them to pay their full share'. Its simply negotiating a better deal. How does that expand the tax base? That should be obvious. Additional companies bring more jobs and more competition. Intel going to Hillsboro Oregon is a perfect example. Nothing but farm fields. Nike and Intel move in, now its one of the fastest expanding places in the US.

And when Rio Rancho New Mexico decided not to negotiate further with Intel, they didnt expand.

This is such common economic knowledge that the extremely Liberal New York State is offering 10 years tax free to new companies. Even though their party talking points is that decreased taxes doesnt grow the economy. Just about everywhere in the world does this, because it works.

I think you dont understand 'equality under the law'. Thats just not how it was intended or how its ever been applied.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

You perceive it a bit oddly. There is no 'not allowing them to pay their full share'. Its simply negotiating a better deal. How does that expand the tax base? That should be obvious. Additional companies bring more jobs and more competition. Intel going to Hillsboro Oregon is a perfect example. Nothing but farm fields. Nike and Intel move in, now its one of the fastest expanding places in the US.

And when Rio Rancho New Mexico decided not to negotiate further with Intel, they didnt expand.

This is such common economic knowledge that the extremely Liberal New York State is offering 10 years tax free to new companies. Even though their party talking points is that decreased taxes doesnt grow the economy. Just about everywhere in the world does this, because it works.

I think you dont understand 'equality under the law'. Thats just not how it was intended or how its ever been applied.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why re you only looking at the winning companies at the end of the deal?

I do understand equal protection of the law. And allowing one company a far different tax deal or land deal than other companies violates that equal protection.

 

[SDET]

The sixteenth amendment followed by the seventeenth amendment followed by the twenty-first amendment.

 

[radcen]

The sixteenth amendment followed by the seventeenth amendment followed by the twenty-first amendment.

You want to bring back prohibition? Or, do you mean the 22nd Amendment (Presidential term limits)?

 

[SDET]

You want to bring back prohibition? Or, do you mean the 22nd Amendment (Presidential term limits)?

I meant what I said: No alcohol.

 

[radcen]

I meant what I said: No alcohol.

Ok, fair enough. Just checking. Thought that might be a typo or and honest brain fart, and your's is a very small minority position and I wanted to make sure.

 

[SDET]

Ok, fair enough. Just checking. Thought that might be a typo or and honest brain fart, and your's is a very small minority position and I wanted to make sure.

Those of us who are anti-alcohol score more victories than you think. In my city, we just defeated a ballot question to expand which establishments can get a liquor license.

 

[Aberration]

Why re you only looking at the winning companies at the end of the deal?

I do understand equal protection of the law. And allowing one company a far different tax deal or land deal than other companies violates that equal protection.

I didn't only look at it from the winning companies end of the deal. I specifically mentioned the expanding city which includes hundreds of thousands of people. All far more prosperous. I contrasted that to a different location of the same company.

You don't understand equal protection. Trying to apply it to taxes is rock solid proof of that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

Those of us who are anti-alcohol score more victories than you think. In my city, we just defeated a ballot question to expand which establishments can get a liquor license.

And across the country marijuana is being legalized. It's like gun grabbers celebrating closing the "gun show loophole" in Oregon while 8 States pass Constitutional carry and SCOTUS makes some definitive rulings. I understand you not wanting to drink. I never understood you wanting to tell others what to do. And not just tell them, but use the force of the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[austrianecon]

23rd: No reason to expand the vote to DC.

I biggest pet peeve. DC is a federal city and designed as one. Issue is that nobody in DC saw it that way despite the fact it was land taken from Maryland and Va at the time. If voters in DC want a vote.... A) recognize DC as a Maryland city or B) Give DC statehood and make them accountable to a balanced budget most states have to run.

 

[haymarket]

I didn't only look at it from the winning companies end of the deal. I specifically mentioned the expanding city which includes hundreds of thousands of people. All far more prosperous. I contrasted that to a different location of the same company.

You don't understand equal protection. Trying to apply it to taxes is rock solid proof of that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh but I do understand equal protection of the law... and the preferential treatment the law gives to certain companies and not others violate it.

 

[American]

Why re you only looking at the winning companies at the end of the deal?

I do understand equal protection of the law. And allowing one company a far different tax deal or land deal than other companies violates that equal protection.

Maybe you should sue.

 

[Thoreau72]

In my opinion the constitution works just fine. It has allowed this country to prosper for over 200 years. The constitution is fine. People complain about the 2nd amendment and others but the truth is they were all put in there for a reason. Our politicians are not completely stupid. They are able to make good decisions. And even if they are incapable there is a reason why we have 3 branches of government.

I agree with your sentiment that the constitution is fine, but disagree with your point about our elected officials and politicians. They may not be stupid, but they and the system they are is utterly corrupt.

 

[Aberration]

Oh but I do understand equal protection of the law... and the preferential treatment the law gives to certain companies and not others violate it.

Says what court? Because once that wins in court I am suing because I dont get the same tax benefits as poor people. And I would argue welfare follows the same rule. Its arbitrarily applying the law based on income. Bam unequal.

I like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Says what court? Because once that wins in court I am suing because I dont get the same tax benefits as poor people. And I would argue welfare follows the same rule. Its arbitrarily applying the law based on income. Bam unequal.

I like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never quoted any court so why would you ask that? I was giving you my view on the issue as is right and proper in debate.