Scrap the constitution - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Norrin Radd · #76 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

No I will not. I am going to stay and fight to help improve this country. To help save it for my children and grandchildren from the failures of the republicans, capitalism and excessive religion. And Just FYI I am as big a redneck as anyone else around here. I am armed and know how to use them quite well. I am just as dedicated to my beliefs and have just as much right to be here as you do. This is my country too and I want to see it protected from the abuses and evils of the right wing nutjobs and capitalist scumbags who are raping and pilalging our future.

Wow. So, all of the problems, or most of our problems, are caused by capitalism, Republicans and Religion?

Wow. Ya know, I am starting to agree with you. I think we should scrap the constitution, as every American has a right to food, housing, medical care, big screen tvs, new cars and maybe even a jet ski. I say our first step is to take everything you own and give it to those less fortunate.

Yep, sounds like a great idea. I'm in.

AkDiesel · #77 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Not always true. It makes zero sense to purposely pay employees badly in a market with limited qualified workers. This generally means companies won't pay their highly trained workers poorly. However there is no reason not to pay ditch diggers the absolute bottom, because you can always find another poor slob to be a ditch digger. Also, if you're the only game around, you can also screw even your highly trained workers because where else are they going to go?

You're a "cut taxes for everyone, especially the rich" type of person arguing that demand-side (aka bottom-up) economics runs the show. Very strange.

Conservatives think that by making the rich richer, the money will trickle down into the hands of the working class and working poor. They think the economy is fundamentally run by the wealthy, because they are the ones who create jobs. Essentially, they believe in Top-down economics.

Unfortunately what we saw under 8 years of bush and also under Reagan was the large disparity between the working poor and the rich turn into a HUGE disparity. Money wasn't trickling down, money was trickling UP.

That might be your idea, but the conventional conservative/republican economic idea is that the rich are the ones creating jobs, so cutting taxes for the rich ends up creating jobs, thus making the working poor better off. In other words, the way to get money into poor peoples pockets is to cut taxes for the rich.

Much like the years under Carter and Clinton.. Your Point?

AkDiesel · #78 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Wow. So, all of the problems, or most of our problems, are caused by capitalism, Republicans and Religion?

Wow. Ya know, I am starting to agree with you. I think we should scrap the constitution, as every American has a right to food, housing, medical care, big screen tvs, new cars and maybe even a jet ski. I say our first step is to take everything you own and give it to those less fortunate.

Yep, sounds like a great idea. I'm in.

Yes it sounds real good, where does the line start to get the big screen tv, new car, jet ski,could I have a snowmoblie? in its place?

What about a better house? with a lower payment or no payment?

Norrin Radd · #79 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

Yes it sounds real good, where does the line start to get the big screen tv, new car, jet ski,could I have a snowmoblie? in its place?

What about a better house? with a lower payment or no payment?

In an effort to tax some people more than others we have created an entire industry of scumbags who do nothing all day but find loopholes and fudge numbers. If everyone paid the same, we would have saved billions of dollars, 19 billion one year alone, going to lawyers and accountants. But have it your way..........

Swoop187 · #80 (**permalink**) 09-30-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

Yes it sounds real good, where does the line start to get the big screen tv, new car, jet ski,could I have a snowmoblie? in its place?

What about a better house? with a lower payment or no payment?

That line started in 1994.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far - BusinessWeek

In essence Bill Clinton forced lenders to lend to anyone and everyone (especially minorities) giving them no questions asked loans, no proof of income or even citizenship was required.

John Drake · #81 (**permalink**) 09-30-2009

Yeh, yeh, yeh, ok we've all taken eco 101 here, unfortunately, you guys missed half the class, or maybe slept through it, or were probably out begging some rich guy to pay you less, or canceling some poor guy's financial aid, I dunno.

If you give money to business owners they spend it (THEORETICALLY) on their businesses. They buy more supplies and/or hire more people to make more stuff. These suppliers in turn, buy more stuff and hire more people and so on and on. This is called the Multiplier.

Now where you guys apparently fell asleep, or maybe you just didn't believe the instructor because he was a wild-eyed bomb throwing DEMOCRAT who hadn't even SUPPORTED THE VIETNAM WAR, is when it was pointed out that there's another factor like this. You see, if you give money to employees, THEY SPEND THE MONEY TOO

Yes, hard as it may be to believe, NON RICH PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY JUST LIKE RICH PEOPLE, they usually spend it on decadent fripperies, like food, clothing and shelter but they still spend it, and it enters the economy and cycles back over and over, JUST LIKE RICH PEOPLE'S MONEY, imagine that. This is called the Accelerator.

Now I realise, like all you guys, that non rich people are all lowly and worthless dregs, they have no purpose or use in "society" except to be a burden on all the rich, and the sooner we cancel all their health care and make sure all medicine and services are priced far out of their reach so they all die off the better. There is just one problem with that, however, and it's the one we're facing now. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO BUY ALL THE STUFF YOU IDIOT JERKWAD CROOKS (or really daddsy's company) FUCKING MAKES.

Rich people WON"T spend money we give them on making more stuff and/or hiring more people IF NOBODY IS BUYING ANYTHING, and that is PRECISELY what is happening now. They buy GOLD, or Ammo, so they'll be ready when society collapses and we go back to feudalism, which is what most of them, and you, want anyway.

You better make sure you know how to USE those guns though, cause we outnumber you by one long shot, and, thanks to your precious 2nd Amendment, lots of us have guns too.

Disillusioned_1 · #82 (**permalink**) 09-30-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

Much like the years under Carter and Clinton.. Your Point?

My point is the republican 'trickle down' philosophy doesn't work in practice.

I'm not sure what happened under Carter, the economy was so screwed up by that point (super high interest rates, inflation, etc) its hard to say what was going on.

Under Clinton, the standard of living of the poor and middle class increased much more than it did under Reagan and Bush. It still wasn't perfect, but then again Clinton was just republican-lite on favoring corporate interests.

At some point the house of cards of wealth disparity will crash down. The more topheavy it becomes the harder it will crash. None of this pertains to the constitution, our economic system is a different thing altogether.

danielpalos · #83 (**permalink**) 09-30-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

Um yeah there is quite a bit wrong with the constitution. For one thign it doesnt address many of the issues that face modern america. Like what exactly the government is supposed to be able to do to promote the general welfare. About how the constitution doesnt do enough to protect basic human rights. It doesnt do enough to cleanly seperate the church from the state and the state from the church. Two thigns that should never ever be mixed together. Alos The constitution was a compromised changing of the Articles of Confederation. Which truely did give staes rights and powers but was thrown out when the Constitution created a plutocratic republic. Remember at the time of the constitutions signing only white land owning males where allowed to vote or hold political office. So if you want to strictly interpret the constitution all you women are no longer allowed to vote nor anyone renting an apartment or non-whites.

The constitution was a good document for its time but it needs to be revised and updated. Or at the least it needs ot stop being interpreted as an unchanging strict document and as the more fluid and flexible document it is supposed to be.

I am glad our Founding Fathers did such a good job at the Convention, with our Constitution. It was object oriented before its time. Everything we need is incorporated in our supreme law of the land. In my opinion, we don't really need most of the amendments after the Bill of Rights.

A UN modeled after our own US Constitution up to the Bill of Rights, could help form a more perfect Union of States for their mutual welfare. The US, still having recourse to exorbitantly expensive superpower, could help establish precedent for States' rights that could trickle down to the several States of the Union.

reality · #84 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Yeh, yeh, yeh, ok we've all taken eco 101 here, unfortunately, you guys missed half the class, or maybe slept through it, or were probably out begging some rich guy to pay you less, or canceling some poor guy's financial aid, I dunno.

If you give money to business owners they spend it (THEORETICALLY) on their businesses. They buy more supplies and/or hire more people to make more stuff. These suppliers in turn, buy more stuff and hire more people and so on and on. This is called the Multiplier.

Now where you guys apparently fell asleep, or maybe you just didn't believe the instructor because he was a wild-eyed bomb throwing DEMOCRAT who hadn't even SUPPORTED THE VIETNAM WAR, is when it was pointed out that there's another factor like this. You see, if you give money to employees, THEY SPEND THE MONEY TOO

Yes, hard as it may be to believe, NON RICH PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY JUST LIKE RICH PEOPLE, they usually spend it on decadent fripperies, like food, clothing and shelter but they still spend it, and it enters the economy and cycles back over and over, JUST LIKE RICH PEOPLE'S MONEY, imagine that. This is called the Accelerator.

Now I realise, like all you guys, that non rich people are all lowly and worthless dregs, they have no purpose or use in "society" except to be a burden on all the rich, and the sooner we cancel all their health care and make sure all medicine and services are priced far out of their reach so they all die off the better. There is just one problem with that, however, and it's the one we're facing now. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO BUY ALL THE STUFF YOU IDIOT JERKWAD CROOKS (or really daddsy's company) FUCKING MAKES.

Rich people WON"T spend money we give them on making more stuff and/or hiring more people IF NOBODY IS BUYING ANYTHING, and that is PRECISELY what is happening now. They buy GOLD, or Ammo, so they'll be ready when society collapses and we go back to feudalism, which is what most of them, and you, want anyway.

You better make sure you know how to USE those guns though, cause we outnumber you by one long shot, and, thanks to your precious 2nd Amendment, lots of us have guns too.

Take your crazy pills and chill dude.

ps. its a good thing you don't believe in guns

Steve · #85 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by reality

ps. its a good thing you don't believe in guns

danielpalos · #86 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

Let's see what Jefferson and Madison had to say.....

Jefferson and Madison had already created the republican party and doctrine when they resorted to that propaganda and rhetoric. I am glad they were non partisan when they did such a good job at the convention, with our Constitution.

Quote:

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

The Federalist 41

danielpalos · #87 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

The US Constitution is probably the epitome of all documents ever written on how to run a government. It has been studied and parts of it incorporated into nearly every Constitution on Earth, including those of China and the former Soviet Union. With amendments it remains vibrant, vital and very applicable in the modern world, with all indications being that will continue as long as humanity exists.

The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Man is among the most admirable mission statements for an International body yet composed, but it is NOT, and was NEVER intended to be a framework for governing. This is largely because the UN is a forum for nations to discuss and work among each other and mainly to prevent war. It is NOT and was NEVER intended to be or become a world government

Since we are signatory to the UN treaty the Rights of Man are in fact part of the US Federal Statutes, they have already been, in other words, incorporated into our Consitution.

I can agree with you on the analogy that the current UN is equivalent to the US under the Articles of Confederation. A more perfect Union of States could be founded on the same principles as the US Constitution up to the Bill of Rights.

Not ensuring a republican form of government in any region experiencing excessive anarchy can also be considered a form of "tragedy of the commons" that perpetuates generational forms of poverty.

CDavidNeely · #88 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to purposely pay employees badly.

The why pray tell are so many companies packing up their factories and moving them to countries where they can pay the employees horribly. As many here will tell you the purpose of a company or a corporation is to make money and they will take advantage of whatever system allows them to garner the most profit.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

CDavidNeely · #89 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Girl

It is the problem with lefties and commies, they think that because they are cowards who wouldn't defend themselves yet alone anything else, that we must all think that way.

As a professed Liberal and a Socialist you are more than welcome to find out how much of a coward I am by attacking me to find out. Its stupid generalizations like this, from both sides, that make any true conversation difficult as hell.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

EricOKC · #90 (**permalink**) 10-01-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

The why pray tell are so many companies packing up their factories and moving them to countries where they can pay the employees horribly. As many here will tell you the purpose of a company or a corporation is to make money and they will take advantage of whatever system allows them to garner the most profit.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

They arent paying them horribly - precisely the opposite.

The lower costs of living in those areas allow them to pay workers less money while still providing them a good wage for the service.

Since it is less in absolute terms, the company makes more money. Ultimately a win-win.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode