"Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what leftists think
K
services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
Robert of St Louis
K
> Oh so it only means what 'you' say it means?
No; I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't mean what the leftist
redistributionists want it to mean. Specifically, it does *not*
authorize the federal government to provide goods and services to people.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented K broadcast on alt.politics:
> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
With the fresh term starting up, how did the nine of you find the time to
post to Usenet? How does that work, anyway? Do you take turns typing a
letter? Or go at it a word at a time?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5882, 1993
261 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Well, no shit.
And you are a constitutional scholar in which kindergarten?
The Real Bev
> In our last episode, <H6-dnV8bj9V8rlPX...@earthlink.com>, the
> lovely and talented K broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> With the fresh term starting up, how did the nine of you find the time to
> post to Usenet? How does that work, anyway? Do you take turns typing a
> letter? Or go at it a word at a time?
We have clerks. Duh.
--
Cheers, Bev
=======================================================
...so few snipers, so many politicians...
K
> On Oct 8, 2:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> Well, no shit.
Then, we are agreed: "promote the general welfare of the United States"
does not imply either a power or a duty to provide health care. Thanks.
Wilson Woods
> In our last episode, <H6-dnV8bj9V8rlPX...@earthlink.com>, the
> lovely and talented K broadcast on alt.politics:
>
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> With the fresh term starting up, how did the nine of you find the time to
> post to Usenet? How does that work, anyway? Do you take turns typing a
> letter? Or go at it a word at a time?
Shouldn't you be in a fudgepacker bar somewhere right about now?
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 2:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
>
> Then, we are agreed: "promote the general welfare of the United States"
> does not imply either a power or a duty to provide health care. Thanks.
No.
Appears that you are the only dimwit who believes that.
Well, maybe you and Glenn Beck.
And a couple of chihuahuas.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Oh, shit -- scratch that part about the chihuahuas -- didn't mean to
slander them by equating that noble breed with you and Glenn Beck.
Beam Me Up Scotty
You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
government to "give" things to the people.
Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
the Federal Government.
People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
Look at amendment 10
Amendment X
The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
Government or "the people" of Nation.
K
> On Oct 8, 3:16 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>> Well, no shit.
>> Then, we are agreed: "promote the general welfare of the United States"
>> does not imply either a power or a duty to provide health care. Thanks.
>
> No.
Yes.
Thanks.
K
> K wrote:
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> government to "give" things to the people.
>
> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> the Federal Government.
When the words "United States" appear in the Constitution, it means
*either* (narrowly) the federal government, or (broadly) the nation as a
*political* entity. It most assuredly does *NOT* mean the people.
"If you torture the [Constitution] long enough, it will confess" --
paraphrasing Ronald Coase. Leftists attempt to torture the Constitution
until it hollers the meaning the leftists want.
hal
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>K wrote:
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
>You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
>says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
>The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>government to "give" things to the people.
>
>Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>the Federal Government.
>
>
>People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
>imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
Welfare for The People provides for a stable society and a more
healthy, functioning republic, so provides for the welfare of The
Republic. History has shown us again and again extreme disparity of
the classes provides for and unstable and violent society.
Redistribution of wealth to the lower and middle classes through
government mandated social programs is good for the economy, society,
and The Republic therefore performs the function designated in The
Constitution.
Nickname unavailable
wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
citizens. try to fight a effective war with starving sick people. what
a idiot.
Nickname unavailable
dog.com> wrote:
> K wrote:
> > The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> > services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> > the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> government to "give" things to the people.
>
here is the real truth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
we the people, to promote, and in the constitution, provide for the
general welfare.
> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> the Federal Government.
>
no, it says for,
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
the united states is a collective of citizens who all get the same
rights issued to them by the constitution. the federal government is
here to serve the people. the united states of america is only as
strong as its citizens, and the founders knew that full well. and that
is what they mean by the general welfare of the united states. we the
people, as explained in the preamble.
> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>
unless of course you have the logic skills to understand the plain
language in the constitution, which you do not. if americans are weak,
the country is weak.
> Look at amendment 10
>
> Amendment X
>
> The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the people.
>
as long as those rights and laws, do not clash with federal law,
regulation, or treaty. if they do, then federal law trumps state law.
all the 10th says is that states do have some rights, but those
rights can be trumped by the supremacy clause. and have been almost
since day one. you keep whipping a dead horse. its why you are
impervious to facts, logic, and reason.
> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
> Government or "the people" of Nation.
we the people.
Nickname unavailable
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> > K wrote:
> >> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> > You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> > says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> > The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> > government to "give" things to the people.
>
> > Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> > the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> > the Federal Government.
>
> When the words "United States" appear in the Constitution, it means
> *either* (narrowly) the federal government, or (broadly) the nation as a
> *political* entity. It most assuredly does *NOT* mean the people.
>
"We the People of the United States"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> "If you torture the [Constitution] long enough, it will confess" --
> paraphrasing Ronald Coase. Leftists attempt to torture the Constitution
> until it hollers the meaning the leftists want.
>
if you are a lying fascist, you can ignore reality, it still will not
change a thing.
Nickname unavailable
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:30:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> >K wrote:
> >> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> >You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> >says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> >The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> >government to "give" things to the people.
>
> >Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> >the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> >the Federal Government.
>
> >People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
> >imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>
> Welfare for The People provides for a stable society and a more
> healthy, functioning republic, so provides for the welfare of The
> Republic. History has shown us again and again extreme disparity of
> the classes provides for and unstable and violent society.
> Redistribution of wealth to the lower and middle classes through
> government mandated social programs is good for the economy, society,
> and The Republic therefore performs the function designated in The
> Constitution.
>
exactly. and as the first sentence in the preamble says,"we the
people" not we the government, but we the people.
K
> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
> citizens.
The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's individual
welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as a political
entity. That's what it means.
K
> On Oct 8, 2:30 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
>> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>>
>> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>> government to "give" things to the people.
>>
>
>
> here is the real truth,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> The Preamble to the United States Constitution is
An introductory statement of purpose with no force of law.
>> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>> the Federal Government.
>>
>
>
> no,
Yes.
> the united states is a collective of citizens
No.
>> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
>> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>>
>
> unless of course
No "unless". He is correct: the welfare clauses in the preamble and
Article I are not about the welfare of people as individual citizens;
they are about the welfare of the nation as a political entity.
>> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
>> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
>> Government or "the people" of Nation.
>
> we the people.
No. "The United States" in the Constitution means *either* the federal
government, *or* the nation as a political entity. It does not mean the
people.
K
> On Oct 8, 3:03 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> K wrote:
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
>>> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>>> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>>> government to "give" things to the people.
>>> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>>> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>>> the Federal Government.
>> When the words "United States" appear in the Constitution, it means
>> *either* (narrowly) the federal government, or (broadly) the nation as a
>> *political* entity. It most assuredly does *NOT* mean the people.
>>
>
>
> "We the People of the United States"
Yes?
>> "If you torture the [Constitution] long enough, it will confess" --
>> paraphrasing Ronald Coase. Leftists attempt to torture the Constitution
>> until it hollers the meaning the leftists want.
>>
>
> if you are a lying fascist,
There you go, swearing again. That's all "fascist" is - a swearword.
It is empty of meaning.
K
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:30:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> K wrote:
>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
>> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>>
>> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>> government to "give" things to the people.
>>
>> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>> the Federal Government.
>>
>>
>> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
>> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>
> Welfare for The People
...does not appear in the Constitution. Sorry.
Wilson Woods
> In article <4ACE3DF0...@Talk-n-dog.com>,
> Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com says...
> be happy in?
Happy to oblige...
One in which individual citizens are responsible for their own welfare,
and are free to contract with others, without interference of third parties.
* no one owes you anything except to leave you alone
* you owe no one anything except to leave him alone
* no one may interfere in contracts you voluntarily enter
* you keep what you earn
* amendments 1-9 of the Bill of Rights apply
That's all it takes.
K
> On Oct 8, 3:16 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>> Well, no shit.
>> Then, we are agreed: "promote the general welfare of the United States"
>> does not imply either a power or a duty to provide health care. Thanks.
>
> No.
Yes, we're agreed: no use of the word "welfare" in the Constitution
creates or implies either a power or a duty of the federal government to
provide health care. That's simply not what the use of the word
"welfare" anywhere in the Constitution means.
Thanks.
Ga...@comcast.net
and typical hillbilly fuckup
attempting to interpret the constitution,
hey gomer, stick to the back of the Budweiser bottles, and the nascar pages
of the
picayune daily
"K" <Kvis...@live.con> wrote in message
news:H6-dnV8bj9V8rlPX...@earthlink.com...
IncontinentMcCain
> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
well, you nasty neocons sure don't like it the way things are running
just now that WE, THE PEOPLE, the loving, caring, wonderful,and
totally wonderous democrats and the lower economic classes are running
the country just now, now do you nasty neocons? why sure you don't,
our now pwned chumplets!
oh, and whatevah came of your mantra, you nasty nazi/commie/fascist/
m00nie neocons, with your formerly favourite saying of "my country,
right or wrong!". due to the very bitter and ill chill wind of the
elections of 2006 and 2008, and the likewise results in 2010,
2012,2014, 2016, 2020, 2022, AND 2024, you all don't be liking dat
dat much now do you? do i make myself ENTIRELY CLEAR, you neocon
MAGGETS? you are now dismissed, OUR neocon maggots, until at least
the election of 2024, if then, even!
bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
misc.consumers.frugal-living, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
soc.retirement, alt.california
IncontinentMcCain
Re: "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean
what leftists think. KA&TN? thanks ever so much in joining with me
in CONTINUING to kick the asses of those very nasty traitors-to-OUR-
america neocons! particularly Paytriot Games, that yellow dawg
redneck neocon!
Josh Rosenbluth
I find Woods' argument compelling. Namely, healthy citizens are an
integral part of a healthy nation/political entity. Thus for example,
providing health care to all provides for the welfare of our
nation/political entity.
Josh Rosenbluth
freeisbest
> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
What a relief - we all were waiting for you to explain exactly how
OUR government should be run.
Wilson Woods
> K wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a
>>>> nation.
>>>
>>>
>>> wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
>>> citizens.
>>
>>
>> The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's
>> individual welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as
>> a political entity. That's what it means.
>
> I find Woods' argument compelling. Namely, healthy citizens
It does not provide a rationale for providing medical care to citizens.
The use of "welfare" in the Constitution doesn't provide a rationale
for Congress giving any goods and services to citizens.
Wilson Woods
> In article <JdqdnSG3ivinWlPX...@earthlink.com>, Kvis...@live.con
> says...
> welfare is no concern of the nation?
The use of the word welfare does not mean providing goods and services
to citizens.
Josh Rosenbluth
Looks like I mixed up Woods and Nickname. Nickname has the compelling
argument. Woods presents nothing more than a conclusory statement and
does not address Nickname's point.
Josh Rosenbluth
Tater Gumfries
> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
That ain't what the founders said about it. Sounds like you need a
schoolin too.
Tater
Wilson Woods
The stupid shit-4-braincell has no compelling argument at all. He
fundamentally can't read the Constitution and understand what it means.
The welfare referred to in the preamble and in Article I does not
refer to the material wellbeing of citizens. It does not provide a
rationale for providing any goods and services to citizens. People who
want to torture the text of the Constitution to try to make it mean that
know that they're lying sophists.
K
> On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> That ain't what the founders said about it.
It is.
Nickname unavailable
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 2:30 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> > dog.com> wrote:
> >> K wrote:
> >>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
> >> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> >> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> >> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> >> government to "give" things to the people.
>
> > here is the real truth,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> > The Preamble to the United States Constitution is
>
> An introductory statement of purpose with no force of law.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
gee, the courts say otherwise.
> >> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> >> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> >> the Federal Government.
>
> > no,
>
> Yes.
>
> > the united states is a collective of citizens
>
> No.
>
yes, and the courts agree,
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
its 'we the people" not we the individuals.
> >> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
> >> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>
> > unless of course
>
> No "unless". He is correct: the welfare clauses in the preamble and
> Article I are not about the welfare of people as individual citizens;
> they are about the welfare of the nation as a political entity.
>
keep lying, that hole is getting ever deeper.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> >> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
> >> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
> >> Government or "the people" of Nation.
>
> > we the people.
>
> No. "The United States" in the Constitution means *either* the federal
> government, *or* the nation as a political entity. It does not mean the
> people.
liar,
Nickname unavailable
its a fact. deal with it.
K
> On Oct 9, 12:19 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 2:30 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>>> dog.com> wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
>>>> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>>>> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>>>> government to "give" things to the people.
>>> here is the real truth,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>>> The Preamble to the United States Constitution is
>> An introductory statement of purpose with no force of law.
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>
> The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
> statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
> Constitution is meant to serve.
Exactly. And that's *ALL* it is - it has no force of law. No court has
ever held it to have force of law. You're simply wrong.
>>>> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>>>> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>>>> the Federal Government.
>>> no,
>> Yes.
>>
>>> the united states is a collective of citizens
>> No.
>>
>
>
> yes,
No, no court says that.
>>>> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
>>>> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>>> unless of course
>> No "unless". He is correct: the welfare clauses in the preamble and
>> Article I are not about the welfare of people as individual citizens;
>> they are about the welfare of the nation as a political entity.
>>
>
>
> keep lying
I never started. The use of the word welfare in the preamble and
Article I do not refer to the material welfare of people. You're just
wrong on this.
>>>> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
>>>> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
>>>> Government or "the people" of Nation.
>>> we the people.
>> No. "The United States" in the Constitution means *either* the federal
>> government, *or* the nation as a political entity. It does not mean the
>> people.
>
>
> liar,
>
Nope. Sorry, you're just wrong.
Nickname unavailable
sure it does, in fact, the courts recognize the preamble as the
original intent of the constitution, and we the people is the first
sentence, in case you have not seen it yet, its here,
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
K
It's empty of meaning. It's just swearing, that's all.
K
> On Oct 9, 12:22 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> hal wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:30:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
>>>> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>>>> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>>>> government to "give" things to the people.
>>>> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>>>> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>>>> the Federal Government.
>>>> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
>>>> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>>> Welfare for The People
>> ...does not appear in the Constitution. Sorry.
>
> sure it does,
It doesn't; not anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
You're just wrong.
Nickname unavailable
that's not what the courts see, here it is, we the people, with all
of the promoting and providing that is not only in the preamble, but
also the constitution.
K
> On Oct 9, 12:33 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 3:16 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 2:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>>> Well, no shit.
>>>> Then, we are agreed: "promote the general welfare of the United States"
>>>> does not imply either a power or a duty to provide health care. Thanks.
>>> No.
>> Yes, we're agreed: no use of the word "welfare" in the Constitution
>> creates or implies either a power or a duty of the federal government to
>> provide health care. That's simply not what the use of the word
>> "welfare" anywhere in the Constitution means.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> that's not what the courts see, here it is, we the people,
The courts have never spoken on it.
Sorry, you're just wrong, little retard.
Patriot Games
<incontin...@gmail.com> wrote:
To register a complaint with Google regarding the FRAUDULENT use of a
Free Service provided by Google follow these simple instructions:
1) Find the post:
Original:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/0c8b5c0d5be24e6d?hl=en
2) Click "More Options."
3) Click "Report This Message."
4) Select "Other."
5) Copy and Paste the following into the textbox provided:
This user is FRAUDULENTLY using your Service:
From: yourWorst <gravero...@yahoo.com>
From: Apple Crockell <sincereq...@gmail.com>
From: "Ice Cream too?" <cake_and_...@yahoo.com>
From: Freedom Fighter <i_hate...@yahoo.com>
From: Hater Of Neocons <haterof...@yahoo.com>
From: IncontinentMcCain <incontin...@gmail.com>
From: Parallelism <psyber_o...@yahoo.com>
From: cake_and_...@yahoo.com
From: everon...@yahoo.com
From: sautee...@yahoo.com
From: sincereq...@gmail.com
From: triba_...@yahoo.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.143.185.23
From: cake_and_...@yahoo.com
From: everon...@yahoo.com
From: gravero...@yahoo.com
From: haterof...@yahoo.com
From: i_hate...@yahoo.com
From: incontin...@gmail.com
From: psyber_o...@yahoo.com
From: sautee...@yahoo.com
From: sincereq...@gmail.com
From: triba_...@yahoo.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 97.82.146.167
97.82.146.167 = Hickory, North Carolina.
6) Click "Report Abuse"
All done!
K
> On Oct 8, 3:17 pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
> <old_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 3:16 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 2:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>> Well, no shit.
>>> Then, we are agreed: "promote the general welfare of the United States"
>>> does not imply either a power or a duty to provide health care. Thanks.
>> No.
>>
>> Appears that you are the only dimwit who believes that.
>>
>> Well, maybe you and Glenn Beck.
>>
>> And a couple of chihuahuas.
>
> Re: "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean
> what leftists think. KA&TN? thanks ever so much in joining with me
> in CONTINUING to kick the asses
No. You two pouncing homos haven't kicked anyone's ass.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> In article
> <0b66b539-0bcc-4de4...@j23g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> Vid...@tcq.net says...
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a
> nation.
>>> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>>>
>>> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
>>> government to "give" things to the people.
>>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>>
>> statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
>> Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
>> have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
>> intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
>> would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
>> Confederation).
>>
>> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
>> Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
>> common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
>> Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
>> establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
>>
>>
>> general welfare.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
>>> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
>>> the Federal Government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
>> Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
>>
>>
>> the united states is a collective of citizens who all get the same
>> rights issued to them by the constitution. the federal government is
>> here to serve the people. the united states of america is only as
>> strong as its citizens, and the founders knew that full well. and that
>> is what they mean by the general welfare of the united states. we the
>> people, as explained in the preamble.
>>
>>
>>> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
>>> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>>>
>> language in the constitution, which you do not. if americans are weak,
>> the country is weak.
>>
>>
>>> Look at amendment 10
>>>
>>> Amendment X
>>>
>>> The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
>>> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
>>> or to the people.
>>>
>> as long as those rights and laws, do not clash with federal law,
>> regulation, or treaty. if they do, then federal law trumps state law.
NO... as long as the Constitution hasn't delegated it to the Federal
Government or someone else.
>> all the 10th says is that states do have some rights, but those
>> rights can be trumped by the supremacy clause. and have been almost
Nothing can cancel out the rights of the people:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>> since day one. you keep whipping a dead horse. its why you are
>> impervious to facts, logic, and reason.
>>
>>
>>> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
>>> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
>>> Government or "the people" of Nation.
>> we the people.
>
> Don't forget that treaties trump Federal law. Treaties are the supreme law of
> the land.
NO treaty can usurp the Constitution. Even if signed in front of God
and everyone, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
A little liberalism like a little Liquor can be a good thing, but when
Liberalism takes control, it becomes self destructive as does liquor.
-Poetic-Justice-
Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>> citizens.
>> The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's individual
>
> welfare is no concern of the nation?
>
The preamble "suggests" that the government is to "promote" general
welfare..... that is the best we get save for the recognized rights in
the constitution and the fact that government is allowed *only* to
intrude into our life where the Constitution direct the government to
intrude.
We are free, but you seem to think we are subjects of the government.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Where in the world is the Super Hero, Nobel-Man(Al Gore) he seems to be
hiding
Beam Me Up Scotty
> In article <ca-dnSOlNMkdxFLX...@earthlink.com>, Kvis...@live.con
> says...
>
> We don't have the president, the Congress or the Supreme Court saying "L'etat,
> c'est moi!" It's We, the people. No people. no state.
>
no it's "the people" and when the writers included them selves it
became "we the people" rather than speaking in third person.
Once the constitution creates the Government, it defines the "United
States" the "States" and "The people" as different entities.
"The people" is not redundant for the "United States"
A "United States" is a collection of individual States
Beam Me Up Scotty
> In article <4ACF7D2A...@Talk-n-dog.com>,
> Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com says...
>
>> NO treaty can usurp the Constitution. Even if signed in front of God
>> and everyone, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
>> --
>
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
> Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
> Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
> Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
> Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
>
>
And you can't make any law that is NOT constitutional. Be they treaties
or what ever.
Thanks for posting the proof.
The authority of the United States, all comes from the Constitution.
ne...@millions.com
A lil' additional note to your post: The United Supreme Court
determines what the US Constitution says it says. It is the third
part, the "checks and balances", in the US form of government. And it
is a rather unique matter thought out by the Forefathers of the
nation.
DCI
Nickname unavailable
> In article
> <0b66b539-0bcc-4de4-b2bf-b1eaf391b...@j23g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> Vide...@tcq.net says...
> >> > The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >> > services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >> > the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a
> nation.
>
> >rights can be trumped by the supremacy clause. and have been almost
> >impervious to facts, logic, and reason.
>
> >> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
> >> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
> >> Government or "the people" of Nation.
>
> > we the people.
>
> the land.
treaties are federal. some treaties can trump existing federal law.
Nickname unavailable
> In article <JdqdnSG3ivinWlPXnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@earthlink.com>, Kvisi...@live.con
> says...
>
> >Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> >> citizens.
>
> >The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's individual
> >welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as a political
> >entity. That's what it means.
>
> What is a nation that it should have a life distinct from its citizens whose
> welfare is no concern of the nation?
a aristocracy or dictatorship, and they always fail.
Nickname unavailable
liar.
this of course will mean nothing to a idiot, but the rest of us will
understand its truths, and how it applies to america, today.
you can see paines hand in the preamble, and constitution.
here is one for that stupid selfish fucker galt,
"In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits."
http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.
Suggested reading
Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg)
The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin)
Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)
Nickname unavailable
Nickname unavailable
this of course will mean nothing to a idiot, but the rest of us will
Nickname unavailable
nope,
K
> On Oct 9, 7:41 am, Gogarty <Goga...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote:
>> In article <JdqdnSG3ivinWlPXnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@earthlink.com>, Kvisi...@live.con
>> says...
>>
>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>> wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
>>>> citizens.
>>> The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's individual
>>> welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as a political
>>> entity. That's what it means.
>> What is a nation that it should have a life distinct from its citizens whose
>> welfare is no concern of the nation?
>
> a aristocracy or dictatorship,
No.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 9, 9:51 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a
>>>>>> nation.
>>>>> wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
>>>>> citizens.
>>>> The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's
>>>> individual welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as
>>>> a political entity. That's what it means.
>>> I find Woods' argument compelling. Namely, healthy citizens
>> It does not provide a rationale for providing medical care to citizens.
>> The use of "welfare" in the Constitution doesn't provide a rationale
>> for Congress giving any goods and services to citizens.
>
> liar.
No. The use of the word "welfare" in the preamble and in Article I
doesn't mean what you want it to mean. It does not refer to the
material welfare of people.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 9, 9:52 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Gogarty wrote:
>>> In article <JdqdnSG3ivinWlPXnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@earthlink.com>, Kvisi...@live.con
>>> says...
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>>> wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
>>>>> citizens.
>>>> The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's individual
>>>> welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as a political
>>>> entity. That's what it means.
>>> What is a nation that it should have a life distinct from its citizens whose
>>> welfare is no concern of the nation?
>> The use of the word welfare does not mean providing goods and services
>> to citizens.
>
> yes it does.
No, definitely it does not.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 9, 10:40 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> Tater Gumfries wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>> That ain't what the founders said about it.
>> It is.
>
> nope,
Yep.
Nickname unavailable
chirp, chirp, chirp on thomas paine hey idiot:)
Tim Crowley
"plonk"
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 10, 12:21 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 10:40 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> Tater Gumfries wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>>>>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>>>>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>>>>> That ain't what the founders said about it.
>>>> It is.
>>> nope,
>> Yep.
>
> chirp, chirp, chirp
You aren't very articulate.
freeisbest
Thank you for your simple childishness. You geniuses continue to
demonstrate that you *aren't* constitutional scholars.
Irving Layton
news:H6-dnV8bj9V8rlPX...@earthlink.com...
> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of the
> United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
Giving handouts to the poor is a good way for us to keep the status quo.
Irving Layton
news:5s2dnfdszM9PVFPX...@earthlink.com...
> Gogarty wrote:
>> Just curious but would you like to sketch out what sort of country you
>> would be happy in?
>
> Happy to oblige...
>
> One in which individual citizens are responsible for their own welfare,
> and are free to contract with others, without interference of third
> parties.
>
> * no one owes you anything except to leave you alone
> * you owe no one anything except to leave him alone
> * no one may interfere in contracts you voluntarily enter
> * you keep what you earn
> * amendments 1-9 of the Bill of Rights apply
>
> That's all it takes.
OK, who's going to show Wilson Woods the door? get him out of our country!
He doesn't like the basic principles the United States of America was based
on.
> amendments 1-9 of the Bill of Rights apply
Selective Constitutional acceptance... LOL
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Irving Layton" <irv...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hbh3dv$4qg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Wilson Woods" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5s2dnfdszM9PVFPX...@earthlink.com...
>> Gogarty wrote:
>
>>> Just curious but would you like to sketch out what sort of country you
>>> would be happy in?
>>
>> Happy to oblige...
>>
>> One in which individual citizens are responsible for their own welfare,
>> and are free to contract with others, without interference of third
>> parties.
>>
>> * no one owes you anything except to leave you alone
>> * you owe no one anything except to leave him alone
>> * no one may interfere in contracts you voluntarily enter
>> * you keep what you earn
>> * amendments 1-9 of the Bill of Rights apply
>>
>> That's all it takes.
>
>
> OK, who's going to show Wilson Woods the door? get him out of our
> country!
But isnt he a Canadian anyway?
Wilson Woods
My program *is* the basic principles on which the USA was based. The
"liberal" looters have turned the country away from those principles.
I'm trying to restore those principles to their rightful place.
K
The status quo is bad and should not be maintained.
Michael Coburn
Wilson Woods is dead set on the idea that the first settlers of the
nation and their descendants have rights and the rest of us have whatever
rights they want to allow to us. The fact that the Declaration of
Independence says all created equal regarding life and liberty has no
meaning to people like Wilson Woods. This sickness rises to the point
where these people are irrational about it. They stake out a position
such as profitability in health insurance being necessary to achieve
efficiency, and then defend that religious position while all the rest to
the civilized nations say they are wrong, and while the Social Security
administration and the Medicare administration prove they are full of
crap. This is all part of rightardedness. The belief in the
righteousness of superiority based on position and tenure and the
irrationality necessary to support the belief.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Wilson Woods
The Founders correctly saw that rights are held against the state and
the government. They correctly saw that you cannot have a "right" to a
good or service, because that would necessarily imply that someone else
must be compelled to provide it to you. You stupidly and wrongly
believe there is a "right" to health care. You stupidly and wrongly
believe that new, positive rights to things can come into existence
simply by declaration. That's false.
> The fact that the Declaration of
> Independence says all created equal regarding life and liberty has no
> meaning to people like Wilson Woods.
It has plenty of meaning to constitutionalists like me. I can clearly
see that the Declaration in no way creates any rights.
> This sickness
There is no sickness, apart from your mental illness that leads you to
think - wrongly - that people can have a "right" to goods and services.
There can be no such right.
> They stake out a position
> such as profitability in health insurance being necessary to achieve
> efficiency,
Straw man. That's a form of lying, mikie.
> awhile all the rest to
> the civilized nations say they are wrong,
"all the rest to"???
Your argument is an argumentum ad populum - a fallacy.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>Wilson Woods is dead set on the idea that the first settlers of the
>nation and their descendants have rights and the rest of us have whatever
>rights they want to allow to us. The fact that the Declaration of
>Independence says all created equal regarding life and liberty has no
>meaning to people like Wilson Woods. This sickness rises to the point
>where these people are irrational about it. They stake out a position
>such as profitability in health insurance being necessary to achieve
>efficiency, and then defend that religious position while all the rest to
>the civilized nations say they are wrong, and while the Social Security
>administration and the Medicare administration prove they are full of
>crap. This is all part of rightardedness. The belief in the
>righteousness of superiority based on position and tenure and the
>irrationality necessary to support the belief.
Keeping it simple, just don't trust folks using names like "Wilson
Woods" - or "Woods Farthingwilsonhiggins" for that matter.
And guys who wear bow ties or string ties.
No sense going much past that.
--Vic
Michael Coburn
Giving handouts to the rich is a much better way to maintain the status
quo.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9g9pd5pig6463sej1...@4ax.com...
Or who sip Chablis while wearing corduroy smoking jackets replete with
leather elbow patches.
Robert of St Louis
Patriot Games
<free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yadha Yadha Yadha
Liars are exposed:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:42:29 -0700 (PDT), Robert of St Louis
<free....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Taliban is better financed than al-Qaida
>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B9NA4O1&show_article=1
>>So they are sort of like Halliburtin. They are making money by war
>>profiteering. Very practical I would say.
Thanks for PROVING that all Socialist DemocRATs are LIARS:
"extorts money from farmers and heroin traffickers involved in
Afghanistan's booming drug trade."
That is not "war profiteering."
You LIED.
"He said the Taliban also demands protection payments from legitimate
Afghan businesses."
That is not "war profiteering."
You LIED.
Tom Sr.
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 01:11:59 -0700 (PDT), IncontinentMcCain
> <incontinentmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To register a complaint with Google regarding the FRAUDULENT use of a
> Free Service provided by Google follow these simple instructions:
> 1) Find the post:
> Original:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/0c8b5c0d5...
Why are you still telling this PROVEN LIE -- especially when I have
repeatedly proven to you it IS a LIE, Games.
All you are doing is wasting Google's time -- since what you are
telling readers here to report is abuse is not in the slightest.
On the other hand, I wonder if your ISP might find harassment of other
posters to be an abuse of their Terms of Service. We all know you
haven't read Google's ToS; did you bother to read those of your own
ISP? Hm?
I also (as I am sure as many others have well) have, of course, that
hypocritical you have NEVER once posted the use of multiple and
changing usernames/addresses by any ultraconservative, far-far-right-
wing k00ks who constantly do so. Why is that, Junior?
Oh, right! That is because you are PROVEN HYPOCRITICAL LIAR, Bob
Milby Jr. of Clearwater, Florida:
---------------
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/msg/180e544680a48ec3?hl=en
On Oct 22, 11:28 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 11:22 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@Amerika.Com> wrote:
> > This user is FRAUDULENTLY using your Service...
> --
> YOU ARE THE PROVEN FRAUD, yet once again, Bob Milby Jr.
> --
> ----------http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/36a3a8ad51c24475?hl=e...
> --
> > From: yourWorst <graverobber...@yahoo.com> [etc.]
> --
> On Aug 5, 8:48 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswiftsen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 5:00 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
> > > Fraud reported toGoogle:
> > --
> > You're the PROVEN FRAUD. (Yes, you, Patriot Games!)
> > You're the PROVEN LIAR. (Yes, you, Bob Milby Jr.!)
> > As I have informed you repeatedly, LIAR, this is *not* "Fraud" and
> > itis *not* an abuse of Google's Terms of Service.
> > Here is the link once again. I know you have NOT yet read these ToS,
> > Games.
> > :
> >http://groups.google.com/intl/en/googlegroups/terms_of_service3.html
> > :
> > You continue to prove how extremely stupid you are, Bob Milby Jr.,
> > thinking that somehow people will "believe" your repeatedly PROVEN
> > LIE.
> > Especially when you *know* I will come and kick you fucking dumb ass
> > with proof what a LIAR you are -- AGAIN.
> > You *never* learn, Games!
> > -Tom Sr.
> -
> Are you so stupid you cannot learn even the most basic of facts
> repeatedly taught you, Junior?
> -
> Or do you just really enjoy being A PUBLICLY PROVEN LIAR?
---------------
You jusst keep telling the same stupid LIES over and over again, LIES
that have been repeatedly *disproven*. Do you think everyone is as
dumb-as-shit as you are, Bobby? Or just your ultraconservative
fanatical k00k friends you think will *believe* your repeated bullshit
*claims*???
-Tom Sr.
freeisbest
-snip-
>
> They stake out a position such as profitability
> in health insurance being necessary to achieve efficiency,
Right. But you have to ask the next question: "Efficiency in
WHAT?"
The answer is, efficient collection of profits, of course. But how
many of us think to ask?
Michael Coburn
Your claims concerning lies of others carry as much weight as a Palin
claim to experience in "foreign affairs".
Patriot Games
wrote:
>Your claims concerning lies of others carry as much weight as a Palin
>claim to experience in "foreign affairs".
Liars are Exposed:
On 22 Aug 2009 23:31:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:05:05 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2009 17:46:25 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:48:29 -0400, Dionysus wrote:
>>>> FROM IBD
>>>> HEAD: Democrats, bloodied
>>>> "Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care 'reform'
>>>> on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day.
>>>> This isn't healthy for the republic.
>>>The "unreasonable and hysterical" label is appropriately applied to the
>>>Republicans, They know if a "public option" (a choice)
>> A "choice" paid for by the top 20% of taxpayers and given for fee to the
>> bottom 40% of citizens INCLUDING criminal beaners.
>The public option is nothing more and nothing less than a non profit,
>_NON_SUBSIDIZED_, insurance company that is totally supported by
>insurance premiums like any other insurance company that just happens to
>be staffed with government employees as opposed to bonus sucking high
>salaried private company CEO's.
If the "public option" was "totally supported by insurance premiums"
then WHY do we have to budget $630 billion?
"Transforming and Modernizing America�s Health Care System - To build
on these steps, the Budget sets aside a reserve fund of more than $630
billion over 10 years that will be dedicated towards financing reforms
to our health care system."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key_healthcare/
"The President recognizes that while a very large amount of money and
a major commitment, $630 billion is not sufficient to fully fund
comprehensive reform."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key_healthcare/
If the "public option" was "totally supported by insurance premiums"
and "NON_SUBSIDIZED" then WHY did Presnit Buckwheat call you a LIAR?
"I can't cover another 46 million people for free. I can't do that.
We're going to have to find money from somewhere." 8/14/09 - The
Buckwheat.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-08-05-06-00-32
If the "public option" was "totally supported by insurance premiums"
and "NON_SUBSIDIZED" then WHY did Presnit Buckwheat call you a LIAR?
"Financing Health Care Reform. The reserve fund is financed by a
combination of rebalancing the tax code so that the wealthiest pay
more..." http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fy2010_key_healthcare/
Patriot Games
wrote:
Liars are Exposed:
On 3 Sep 2009 18:57:08 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>The
>_HONEST_ polls seem to show support for the president and the Democrats
Oops! Caught LYING, again...
Summary:
BuckwheatCare
8 Against
1 Tie
2 For
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 13-17, 2009.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling health
care?"
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 50%
"Overall, given what you know about them, would you say you support or
oppose the proposed changes to the health care system being developed
by Congress and the Obama administration?"
Support: 45%
Oppose: 50%
NBC News Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D)
and Bill McInturff (R). Aug. 15-17, 2009.
"Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is
doing in handling the issue of health care reform?"
Approve: 41%
Disapprove: 47%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 11-12, 2009.
"Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being
considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?"
Favor: 34%
Oppose: 49%
Gallup Poll. Aug. 6-9, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling
health care policy?"
Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 49%
Marist College Marist Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2009. N=938 adults nationwide.
"Do you approve or disapprove of how President Barack Obama is
handling health care?"
Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 45%
Quinnipiac University Poll. July 27-Aug. 3, 2009.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling
health care?"
Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 52%
National Public Radio Poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies (R)
and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D). July 22-26, 2009.
"As you may have heard, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress
are preparing a plan to change the health care system. From what you
have heard about this plan, do you favor or oppose Obama and the
Democrats' health care proposal?"
Favor: 42%
Oppose: 47%
Pew Research Center poll. July 22-26, 2009.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling
health care policy?"
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 43%
Time Poll conducted by Abt SRBI. July 27-28, 2009.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in
each of these areas? Handling health care policy."
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 46%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. July 31-Aug. 3, 2009.
"From everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose
Barack Obama's plan to reform health care?"
Favor: 50%
Oppose: 45%
CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 24-28, 2009.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling
health care?"
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 38%
Patriot Games
wrote:
Liars are Exposed:
On 14 Oct 2009 05:23:48 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:14:19 -0700, Shuurai wrote:
>> And how exactly are the "idle rich"
>> a drain?
>Many of the idle rich are receiving income that is not actually theirs by
>right of ever earning anything at all.
- Millionaires became millionaires by budgeting and controlling
expenses, and they maintain their affluent status the same way; for
example, 60 percent have never spent more than $32,000 for a car.
- Much of the money they save goes to investing; the average
millionaire household invests up to 20 percent of its income annually.
- Contrary to popular belief, most millionaires are not bankers,
attorneys or corporate managers; most typically are locally-based
professionals such as welding contractors, auctioneers, pest
controllers and paving contractors.
-Eighty percent of millionaires are first-generation millionaires.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=4300
Among the top 5 percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8 percent
of their wealth came from inheritances.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9858
- The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid
40 percent of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least
40 years.
- The top 10 percent in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid
71 percent.
- The top 50 percent in income paid 97.1 percent.
- Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9
percent of all income taxes.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16810
YOU said: "Many of the idle rich are receiving income that is not
actually theirs by right of ever earning anything at all."
YOU LIED.
Truth: "Among the top 5 percent of households ranked by wealth, only 8
percent of their wealth came from inheritances."
8% is not and will NEVER be considered "many" by ANY standard known to
man.
YOU LIED.
Thanks for the opportunity to DESTROY YOUR CREDIBILITY once again and
thus DEPRIVE YOU OF AN AUDIENCE once again.
I look forward to posting your LIES often and forever.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Liars are exposed:
On 9 Oct 2009 04:57:38 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:26:04 -0500, Neolibertarian wrote:
>> In article <f6WdnXwYpd667FPX...@giganews.com>,
>> But the real problem is that Social Security goes into the red in
>> 2011...
>How long did it take to make this one up?
Who lied? YOU LIED...
Job losses, early retirements hurt Social Security
Sun Sep 27, 2009
WASHINGTON � Big job losses and a spike in early retirement claims
from laid-off seniors will force Social Security to pay out more in
benefits than it collects in taxes the next two years, the first time
that's happened since the 1980s.
The deficits � $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011 � won't
affect payments to retirees because Social Security has accumulated
surpluses from previous years totaling $2.5 trillion. But they will
add to the overall federal deficit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_go_ot/us_social_security_early_retirements
Patriot Games
wrote:
Liars are exposed:
On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
Oops! Caught LYING, again:
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
For Tax Year 2006
(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Patriot Games
wrote:
Liars are exposed:
On 8 Nov 2009 21:15:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Yet wages have stayed flat or diminished since the mid 70's.
Wrong. YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT LYING, again:
National average wage indexing series
1980 12,513.46
1981 13,773.10
1982 14,531.34
1983 15,239.24
1984 16,135.07
1985 16,822.51
1986 17,321.82
1987 18,426.51
1988 19,334.04
1989 20,099.55
1990 21,027.98
1991 21,811.60
1992 22,935.42
1993 23,132.67
1994 23,753.53
1995 24,705.66
1996 25,913.90
1997 27,426.00
1998 28,861.44
1999 30,469.84
2000 32,154.82
2001 32,921.92
2002 33,252.09
2003 34,064.95
2004 35,648.55
2005 36,952.94
2006 38,651.41
2007 40,405.48
2008 41,334.97
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html
Since the 70s the National Average Wage has increased 230%
YOU LIED.
Get used to the coming Reality. YOU aren't considered an American by
the Americans who made and make this country successful, YOU are
considered to be the ENEMY.
Communists in America need to be DRAGGED FROM THEIR HOMES into the
street, sprayed with gasoline, and lit up.
Would YOU prefer Regular or Unleaded?
From: The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net>
From: Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
Location: Port Orchard, Wa.
Title: The Trucker
Industry: Non-Profit
Website or Blog: GreaterVoice.org
About me: Retired now, I drove an 18 wheeler in 48 states and Canada
for 5 years, Prior to that I ran my own technology services company
providing heterogeneous systems administration and contract software
development (30 years). I have a few things to say before I croak.
greatervoice.org
IP: 209.41.200.68
Columbus, OK
Host: apollo.jtlnet.com
WHOIS Results for greatervoice.org
Domain ID:D83478242-LROR
Domain Name:GREATERVOICE.ORG
Created On:08-Feb-2002 21:32:06 UTC
Last Updated On:13-Nov-2008 01:48:02 UTC
Expiration Date:08-Feb-2014 21:32:06 UTC
Registrant ID:SD2361
Registrant Name:Michael Coburn
Registrant Street1:7614 E. Montana
Registrant City:Port Orchard
Registrant State/Province:Washington
Registrant Postal Code:98366
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.3608714992
Registrant Email:mik...@gte.net
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Port+Orchard&state=WA&address=7614+E.+Montana
clams_casino
>On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>Liars are exposed:
>
>On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>>
>>
>
>Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>
>The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>
>
and they were paid essentially 50% of the income. What's your point?
>The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>
>
and essentially all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
property, sales & excise taxes.
So what's your point?
>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
>
>For Tax Year 2006
>(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
>Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
>Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
>Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
>Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
>Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
>Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
>http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>
>
>
>
>
Can you even read? Or are you just math challenged? That table only
show the Federal incomes taxes paid by each level.
Hint - Considering federal taxes are only about 1/4 of the total taxes
paid, this table has relatively little to do with total taxes paid.
Suggestion - Get you facts straight before embarrassing yourself any more.
Michael Coburn
> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Liars are exposed:
>
> On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch, the idle
>>rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>
> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>
> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000. The
> richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000. The bottom
> 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
<<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated >>>>>>>>>
The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not in
dispute. The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we are not
collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities of government.
It is rightraded to focus on that which is not at issue in order to hide
from the reality. If the rich need to be paying 80% of the income taxes
in order to have a decent society than so be it.
The problem with our tax system is that it is not progressive ENOUGH and
improperly designed to encourage true capital development. In 1936 the
marginal rate on entrepreneurial income of what is now $250K was 15%
while the rate on 3 million was 64%. In 1941 the marginal rates were
increased and the 3 million was taxed at 71% while the $250K was taxed at
39%. The tax rate on normal working people who earned what would now be
$50k was 13%. Meanwhile, the capital gains tax rate was simply half the
ordinary rate. So the tax on "capital gains" of 3 million was 36%.
That tax code produced a very healthy economy.
Patriot Games
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>>On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>Liars are exposed:
>>On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>>Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>and they were paid essentially 50% of the income.
Cite?
>What's your point?
Its not my fault you're stupid.
6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the income,
according to you).
That's Socialism.
>>The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>and essentially all the payroll tax
Of course not. Where's your CITE?
>with a significantly higher share of
>property, sales & excise taxes.
Where's your CITE?
>>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
>>For Tax Year 2006
>>(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
>>Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
>>Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
>>Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
>>Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
>>Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
>>Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
>>http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>Can you even read? Or are you just math challenged? That table only
>show the Federal incomes taxes paid by each level.
>Hint - Considering federal taxes are only about 1/4 of the total taxes
>paid
Cite?
Patriot Games
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:16:04 -0500, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Liars are exposed:
>> On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch, the idle
>>>rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>> Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>> The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000. The
>> richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000. The bottom
>> 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
><<<<<<<<<< truthful but boring numbers deleted and stipulated >>>>>>>>>
>The fact hat the rich pay more income taxes then the rest is not in
>dispute.
You said "the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the
idle poor."
YOU LIED.
>The lie is that this somehow offsets the fact that we are not
>collecting sufficient tax revenue to fund the activities of government.
Wrong. The "activities of government" are too many and too expensive
to be covered by our already too high taxes.
>If the rich need to be paying 80% of the income taxes
>in order to have a decent society than so be it.
The "rich" do not need to pay ANY taxes to have a decent society
because we can have a decent society by dragging Communists LIKE YOU
into the street, spraying them with gasoline and lighting them up!
Rod Speed
Nothing to do with the tax code, everything to do with the fact that
Japan and Germany etc were still recovering from the war etc, stupid.
clams_casino
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:37:06 -0500, clams_casino
><PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Patriot Games wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Nov 2009 20:08:53 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>Liars are exposed:
>>>On 13 Oct 2009 00:01:41 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>About 80% work and the rest mooch. And of the 20% that mooch,
>>>>the idle rich are only slightly less of a drain than are the idle poor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Oops! Caught LYING, again:
>>>The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
>>>The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
>>>
>>>
>>and they were paid essentially 50% of the income.
>>
>>
>
>Cite?
>
>
>
>>What's your point?
>>
>>
>
>Its not my fault you're stupid.
>
>6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the income,
>according to you).
>
>That's Socialism.
>
>
No, That's shear ignorance ON YOUR PART. The top 10% (>108k/yr) of the
population pay about 50% of all Federal income taxes, based on having
some 60% of all income.
What part of Federal income tax is only about 1/4 of the total taxes do
you not understand? Do you not understand that the government collects
more in payroll taxes (social security/ Medicare / Medicaid) vs. Federal
income taxes and that not only the rich pay sales, excise, payroll,
property, etc taxes?
The Federal government collects approximately $1.1T is in Federal income
taxes and another $1.8T in FICA taxes. Keep in mind that a significant
portion of tax payers pay more in FICA taxes than Federal income. Any
guess as to whether that might be the top 10% or in the bottom 50%?
>
>
>>>The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>and essentially all the payroll tax
>>
>>
>
>Of course not. Where's your CITE?
>
>
>
>>with a significantly higher share of
>>property, sales & excise taxes.
>>
>>
>
>Where's your CITE?
>
>
>
>>>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071217112125AAvUc6r
>>>For Tax Year 2006
>>>(AGI, Adjusted Gross Income)
>>>Top 1% AGI - 39.89% of all taxes.
>>>Top 5% AGI - 60.14% of all taxes.
>>>Top 10% AGI - 70.79% of all taxes.
>>>Top 25% AGI - 86.27% of all taxes.
>>>Top 50% AGI - 97.01% of all taxes.
>>>Bottom 50% AGI - 2.99% of all taxes.
>>>http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
>>>
>>>
>>Can you even read? Or are you just math challenged? That table only
>>show the Federal incomes taxes paid by each level.
>>Hint - Considering federal taxes are only about 1/4 of the total taxes
>>paid
>>
>>
>
>Cite?
>
>
>
>
Since you are obviously too challenged to do a simple search (as opposed
to listening to Rush, Beck, etc), I'll try to keep this very simple:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22287.html
"While the media spotlight shines on federal income taxes each April,
many Americans may be surprised to learn that federal income taxes make
up only 26 percent of the nation's total tax bill. The remaining 74
percent�nearly three-fourths of the U.S. economy's total tax burden�is
comprised of the other federal, state and local taxes paid by American
households every year."
Michael Coburn
I give you the nice graph of actual wages as adjusted by the CPI found at
http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/12/historical-real-hourly-
wages.html
The data source for the graph is the Fed cited right there on the page.
Patriot Games
Its not my fault you'e stupid.
Try to PAY ATTENTION:
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
The richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
39%+60%=99%
What part of "39%+60%=99%" don't you understand?
Its not my fault you'e stupid.
Try to PAY ATTENTION:
The richest 1% paid 39% of the income taxes, up from 37% in 2000.
he richest 5% paid 60% of the income taxes, up from 56% in 2000.
1%+5%=6%
What part of "1%+5%=6%" don't you understand?
YOU SAID "they were paid essentially 50% of the income."
Therefore "6% of the population paid 99% of the taxes (on 50% of the
income, according to you)."
>What part of Federal income tax is only about 1/4 of the total taxes do
>you not understand?
See below.
>percent�nearly three-fourths of the U.S. economy's total tax burden�is
>comprised of the other federal, state and local taxes paid by American
>households every year."
YOU SAID: [The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes...] "and essentially
all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
property, sales & excise taxes."
Your CITE SHOWS: The highest income group paid 23-cents per tax dollar
to Federal Payroll taxes and the lowest income group paid 21-cents per
tax dollar to Federal Payroll taxes.
YOU LIED.
YOU SAID: [The bottom 50% paid 3% of income taxes...] "and essentially
all the payroll tax with a significantly higher share of
property, sales & excise taxes."
Your CITE SHOWS: The Total State and Local Taxes Averaged is $9,400
per taxpayer, with the LOWEST FOUR income groups paying $28,666
COMBINED and the SINGLE highest income groupo paying $24,421.
YOU LIED.
Michael Coburn
The answer never changes, lying pig. The revenue is needed to subsidize
health insurance premiums for lower income people. That has _NOTHING_ to
do with the Public Option. Yet you continue to lie.
Michael Coburn
You lied.