• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

one,...... their is no listed right to vote in the constitution.

two ....amendments to the constitution have stated , no one can be denied the vote because of ......race, sex

three...... the congress and the states cannot make an amendment to the constitution and give anyone a right......government can only give privileges.

four......rights are recognized by the court...not congress.

five ........when a right is recognized it falls under the 9th, or it is clarified..like the right to privacy, ......which is under the 4th.

Funny that the Wikipedia article did not mention, in any way, the 9th.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

There is no"Universal Suffrage" Amendment, because such does not exist.

But let me know if non-citizens, children and felons can vote.

People living in other countries can't vote here either. Or the deceased. Or the unborn. Or those who may live on other planets.

You're right, it's far from universal.

But still, that's the name that's been given the concept.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Funny that the Wikipedia article did not mention, in any way, the 9th.

do you see a right to vote listed in the constitution?......no

everything which is recognized falls under the 9th...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

You have never seen the results of a Chicago election, have you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/u...t-finds.html?scp=3&sq=dead people&st=cse&_r=0

Oh, but people living in other countries can indeed vote. I have voted no less then 4 times when overseas. You simply fill out an absentee ballot.

The article was about the whole country, not Chicago.

I live in FL now. We take care of the registration problem by not bothering to count our votes. We just use a rough estimate.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

do you see a right to vote listed in the constitution?......no

everything which is recognized falls under the 9th...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If a right is not specific, how do you know if you've lost it or not?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It implies what I've maintained all along. That Rush's disciples merely repeat, ditto, the opinions that he issues him. And that he dittos what he is required to by the GOP.

All in all, no independent thinking required by anyone.
I see. Do you ever listen?

If so why do you believe that Rush agrees with anything the establishment Republican party is saying?

There is no point in lying. If you actually listened you would know your last sentence is false.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

I see. Do you ever listen?

If so why do you believe that Rush agrees with anything the establishment Republican party is saying?

There is no point in lying. If you actually listened you would know your last sentence is false.

I used to listen to Rush. Then I noticed that he became a jerk. So, I stopped.

What I try to understand is the almost perfect orchestration of conservative talking points. The timing. The language. The logic. The evolution of the lies. One built on another and verified by a third.

Can't be coincidence. Can't be happenstance. It's too coordinated.

So, who? How? What's the common source? Who's paying the bills?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

In your opinion only smart people deserve a life??

I am sure he is not begging to be executed.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

As I've often said, I live my whole life inside the law. I wouldn't live otherwise if all of the laws went away. Laws are for criminals. They're the ones that should be objecting to big government. It's getting awfully hard to find ways to impose on other people what's best for you without breaking a law. So my life is only peaceful collaboration, and that's the way that I want it.

I too advocate peaceful collaboration.

I object to legislation that forces taxes to be paid in order to be doled out as charity by the government. This is not peaceful collaboration; it is coercion, forced charity. It is not right to take by force what belongs to others in order to turn around and and that money out to individuals as charity.

I thought that I was pretty clear about never having seen poverty healed by those stuck in it except in a few unusual circumstances.

I see, so you've never seen anyone raise themselves out of poverty. I have.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

I too advocate peaceful collaboration.

I object to legislation that forces taxes to be paid in order to be doled out as charity by the government. This is not peaceful collaboration; it is coercion, forced charity. It is not right to take by force what belongs to others in order to turn around and and that money out to individuals as charity.



I see, so you've never seen anyone raise themselves out of poverty. I have.

I object to paying higher taxes on my income from work to support lower taxes on income from wealth.

I am aware of individuals doing that. Not enough to make even a small dent in the ranks of the poor though.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

I object to paying higher taxes on my income from work to support lower taxes on income from wealth.

Then advocate for changing the capital gains tax rates. I could give a crap. I don't make any capital gains.

My objection is to the government using tax monies to give charity checks to individuals. This is contrary to its fundamental role of protecting the person and property of citizens. It is institutionalized thuggery.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Then advocate for changing the capital gains tax rates. I could give a crap. I don't make any capital gains.

My objection is to the government using tax monies to give charity checks to individuals. This is contrary to its fundamental role of protecting the person and property of citizens. It is institutionalized thuggery.

Same issue with cheap taxes on income from wealth.

Or not taxing employer supplied health care insurance.

What do you mean fundamental role?
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

I object to paying higher taxes on my income from work to support lower taxes on income from wealth.

Sorry, there is no tax on wealth in this country, so what you said makes no sense.

There is a tax on income, there are various taxes on purchases, there is a tax in inheritances and capitol gains. But there is no tax on wealth itself, that would be confiscatory and illegal.

Nice try though. If I win or earn or inherit $1 million, I only pay taxes on the acquisition of said wealth. It is not taxed ever again so long as it is not spent or passed along to another.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Same issue with cheap taxes on income from wealth.

Or not taxing employer supplied health care insurance.

What do you mean fundamental role?

By fundamental role, I mean the role for which government exists in the first place, the protection of person and property, as an arbiter of the war of all against all.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

What's the version of history that you've been issued?

It would be the actual history of events, based on thousands upon thousands of letters sent between the founders and others, as they wanted to document the who what and why of what was going on. And your statement about the why WRT the federalist papers is pure bullcrap.

Of course, it's noted you provided NOTHING to back up your BS claims, but that is the norm isn't it?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It would be the actual history of events, based on thousands upon thousands of letters sent between the founders and others, as they wanted to document the who what and why of what was going on. And your statement about the why WRT the federalist papers is pure bullcrap.

Of course, it's noted you provided NOTHING to back up your BS claims, but that is the norm isn't it?

I've noticed that pattern, myself. Repeating a lie over and over again isn't "proof" of anything except that someone has a lack of creativity.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Sorry, there is no tax on wealth in this country, so what you said makes no sense.

There is a tax on income, there are various taxes on purchases, there is a tax in inheritances and capitol gains. But there is no tax on wealth itself, that would be confiscatory and illegal.

Nice try though. If I win or earn or inherit $1 million, I only pay taxes on the acquisition of said wealth. It is not taxed ever again so long as it is not spent or passed along to another.

"Sorry, there is no tax on wealth in this country, so what you said makes no sense."

That's why I said income from wealth.

Capital gains.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

By fundamental role, I mean the role for which government exists in the first place, the protection of person and property, as an arbiter of the war of all against all.

Why do you think that it's up to you to determine "the role for which government exists"?
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

"Sorry, there is no tax on wealth in this country, so what you said makes no sense."

That's why I said income from wealth.

Capital gains.

Uh, it already is taxed.

It is known as the "Capitol Gains Tax".
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

It would be the actual history of events, based on thousands upon thousands of letters sent between the founders and others, as they wanted to document the who what and why of what was going on. And your statement about the why WRT the federalist papers is pure bullcrap.

Of course, it's noted you provided NOTHING to back up your BS claims, but that is the norm isn't it?

The only thing that I have to back up my claims is reality.

Look around you. The world left you and is quite a ways down the road. While you've been gazing at your navel we've been making progress. While you've been reading the Federalist Papers we've been reading the new papers and keeping up with the changing times.

Try to keep up.
 
Why do you think that it's up to you to determine "the role for which government exists"?

It's not up to me. It is the social contract. People establish government to protect them from the war of all against all.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Uh, it already is taxed.

It is known as the "Capitol Gains Tax".

That's what I said.

When you invest capital (wealth) what you gain (income) is taxed at the capital gains rate, which is about one half of the rate that it would be taxed as income from work.

That's how workers subsidize the wealthy.
 
It's not up to me. It is the social contract. People establish government to protect them from the war of all against all.

We have done that through democracy. Our social contract is the Constitution. It defines the rules that government must follow in order to maintain our consent to be governed.

If you want to live here you have to so consent. If you don't want to, and you have any pride at all, you move to a place where there is a government that you respect.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

The only thing that I have to back up my claims is reality.

Look around you. The world left you and is quite a ways down the road. While you've been gazing at your navel we've been making progress. While you've been reading the Federalist Papers we've been reading the new papers and keeping up with the changing times.

Try to keep up.

So what you have, YET AGAIN, is nothing. You claim 'reality', when your reality is about as 'real' as Mr. Rourke and Tattoo. You bring nothing to back up your claims as to the intent of the Federalist letters, yet only divert with some more lame attempted personal attack stuff.

So mark another notch in the lack of credibility belt for PMZ.
 
Back
Top Bottom