Obamas 3 years of Classwarfare has Paid Off

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


What the heck are you talking about, our republic and constitution allowed 20 year charters for corporations. Corporations were meant to have endings, they were started to fill needs, and ended.

I Do not think our constitution said let corporations bought for pennies on the dollar during hard financial times by bankers, become so powerful that they rob the entire working class of their savings, pensions, and their property. Pretty sure the founding fathers thought of that when they created the 5th amendment.

The rich would be protected, if they weren't stealing. What the rich are doing today would have landed them in prison in 1980. So yeah, I am all for the republic, it is you that are not.

reply to post by no time

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


What the heck are you talking about, our republic and constitution allowed 20 year charters for corporations. Corporations were meant to have endings, they were started to fill needs, and ended.

Mind pointing out where the Constitution allows for 20 year corporate charters? Also, where is it written that "Corporations were meant to have endings, they were started to fill needs, and ended" ??

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by no time

 

reply to post by mishigas
Yeah but you have to find $14,000 worth of these "loophole" items for it even to be worth going through the trouble of doing it. These are not loopholes, these are NEEDS, that shouldn't be taxed.

Of course. How silly of me to think that the rules should apply to all men equally.

Silly, no, just wrong. What does applying equally have to do with what I said? Who on $30,000 or less a year is going to have enough deductions to cover the $14,000? Not many.

Rich people buy stuff through there business accounts and write it off on their business's and take it home and use it. At least the poor man's deductions are for something that is needed to feed, house, and clothe their family. What exactly is equal about a rich business man getting to write off a 10,000 massage chair?

LINKY

Origin ally posted by mishigas
reply to post by no time

 

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


What the heck are you talking about, our republic and constitution allowed 20 year charters for corporations. Corporations were meant to have endings, they were started to fill needs, and ended.

Mind pointing out where the Constitution allows for 20 year corporate charters? Also, where is it written that "Corporations were meant to have endings, they were started to fill needs, and ended" ??

Mind learning history?

states were in charge of this, you know the whole republic thing.




Future of Charter Reform


History of Corporate Charters

The 10th amendment of the constitution gives the states the right to tend to their state's economies, and to regulate thereof; where does it say that government protection of the rich shall be the law?

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

In fact, it was only 25 years previous to the federal reserve act, that corporate charters became record of a corporation as a person because of one court case. And the case wasn't what did it, it was the misleading transcription of the court case, that led future lawyers to use it as precedent of corporate person hood. BAD PARALEGAL

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

These quotes and others make it clear that those who promote "redistribution of wealth" as a task for the government run against the very basic principles underlying the United States of America. This is no detail.

that wisdom right there will be lost on many quite a shame sorry for the long quotation but it was too important not to

reply to post by neo96


those are quotes, which you don't even understand, and taken out of context to prove your worthless point that all rich people should keep their wealth even if they stole it from the middle class.

Otherwise you wouldn't have posted them. None of them prove your point, because they are talking about people actually working hard to earn their wealth.

reply to post by no time


Does government fit in this anywhere iyo? What about Public Unions?
Do you think GE should pay their fair share?

The Constitution is about limitations. It's about what's mine is mine and you are not entitled to it unless I approve first.

Are we so ignorant and lazy that we can't figure out how to solve these perceived injustices but we will stand strong and proud on disinfo and repeated lies?

factcheck.org...

Originally posted by neo96

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

The financial industry and legal industry has made it so that common people cannot exercise their industry, thus gain no fruits, thus point invalid. The revolution from England was fought for less than what is happening to American's today. He was making this point with the assumption of a sound currency. Which today doesn't exist.

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

There is no wise and frugal government, and they are definitely taking from the mouth of the labor through a 96% inflation tax. Your dollar is worth 4 pennies, and yet wages have not grown to match the inflation, which means it is a tax. Pretty sure Thomas wasn't talking about creating a fiat currency monetary system and then using his words to defend the problems it creates.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” — Thomas Jefferson

There is a difference between wanting to work and being able to work.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

This actually disproves your whole thread if true. Think about it.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

It didn't, but it did give that right to the states. .......

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

All we want the government to do is create sound money and fair trade. Neither of those things has anything to do with charity.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Another quote that disproves your whole thread, you act as this situation hasn't been created by the rich doing exactly what it says above.....

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

Can't drive them out of poverty with free trade, and lobbyists in power over congress.

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

It also strictly forbids persons from taking that right away from other people. which is exactly what some corporations are doing, and because they are people (according to the law now), they should be in prison.

These quotes and others make it clear that those who promote "redistribution of wealth" as a task for the government run against the very basic principles underlying the United States of America. This is no detail.

No one on here is saying redistribute the wealth, we are saying get rid of all the laws that were bought to create the artificial wealth for skill less people with no real benefit to humanity other than a paycheck.

that wisdom right there will be lost on many quite a shame sorry for the long quotation but it was too important not to

The wisdom was lost on you.

Originally posted by no time
reply to post by neo96

 

those are quotes, which you don't even understand, and taken out of context to prove your worthless point that all rich people should keep their wealth even if they stole it from the middle class.

Otherwise you wouldn't have posted them. None of them prove your point, because they are talking about people actually working hard to earn their wealth.

If you think they are stealing from the middle class then don't work for them and don't buy their products. Inform the proper officials.

Maybe moving to another country where there is no corruption in business and everyone lives in perfect harmony and the rich are punished to a lifetime of working for their families and your's too, is the only way to deal with such aholes.

That'll teach them money-whores not to oppress humanity!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by neo96

 

Ever notice that it's only "class warfare" when the talk is about making the rich pay taxes?

It's never "class warfare" when those same people are demanding that schools and shelters be shut down, transit services cut, increasing sales taxes, or eminent domain being used against lower-end neighborhoods.

Who is talking about using eminent domain against lower neighborhoods, or anybody for that matter? I'm certainly not for emminent domain. That is a wicked tool used by govt to steal private property.
Schools shut down? Did you mean when people like Ron Paul talk about getting rid of the Dept of Ed? I'm all for changing the Ed system so that people can give their kids a private education without paying taxes for everyone else too. I put my son in private schools so he wouldnt be indoctrinated with the values clarification and the Progressive nonsense, but still had to pay taxes on the local schoo ls. Not fun or fair. Is it fair to make senior citizens pay taxes for schools when their kids are all grown up? The Dept of Ed needs a makeover big time.

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I want to know where neo96 is being paid to do this stuff...I could use some extra income on the side

Oh Neooooooo, someone wants your extra income
Oh wait....

Originally posted by no time

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Another quote that disproves your whole thread, you act as this situation hasn't been created by the rich doing exactly what it says above.....

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

It also strictly forbids persons from taking that right away from other people. which is exactly what some corporations are doing, and because they are people (according to the law now), they should be in prison.

These quotes and others make it clear that those who promote "redistribution of wealth" as a task for the government run against the very basic principles underlying the United States of America. This is no detail.

No one on here is saying redistribute the wealth, we are saying get rid of all the laws that were bought to create the artificial wealth for skill less people with no real benefit to humanity other than a paycheck.

You beat me to it.

They only call it "wealth redistribution" when the people fight back,

Originally posted by illuminatislave
I want to know where neo96 is being paid to do this stuff...I could use some extra income on the side

Oh gee, someone is always getting paid for posting if its an opinion someone else doesn't like.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by no time

 

Does government fit in this anywhere iyo? What about Public Unions?
Do you think GE should pay their fair share?

The Constitution is about limitations. It's about what's mine is mine and you are not entitled to it unless I approve first.

Are we so ignorant and lazy that we can't figure out how to solve these perceived injustices but we will stand strong and proud on disinfo and repeated lies?

factcheck.org...

edit on 3-10-2011 by sweetliberty because: forgot to add link

The truth is I do not support tax increases of any kind. I am a die hard conservative. But Neo reminds me of the new breed of NEO fascist rhetoric. And I think his arguments are lame. and people give him stars like he is the leader of some protect the rich they are honorable clan.

The perceived injustices are not perceived. Wages are expected to remain flat for the next 5 years. My fathers wage in 1980 was 85000 per year. We lived in a mansion. In order to have that quality of life today he would need to make 220,000 per year today because of inflation. He makes $55,000 today doing the same job. Highly educated profession, 90% of his design engineering jobs were outsourced to other countries, leaving the few jobs here very competitive. Neo supports this kind of profiteering, I find it revolting. A truly unregulated market would have kicked most of these corrupt corporations to the curb and yet because the public bailed them out, we are somehow supposed to support the fact that they are not creating jobs in america. I Don't think so.

If you think 96% inflation tax is perceived injustice, that means you are ok with your labor being worth less than your father's labor in order to make rich people more money. None of these things would exist in a truly free market, with sound currency. We wouldn't be worried about class warfare, because there would be no class difference that efffected the NEEDS of the people. The rich are affecting the NEEDS of the people not the wants, who gives a crap about wants, NEEDS are freaking needs. If you are employed, your NEEDS should be met. To let the value of labor drop so low due to corporate profit-taking, legal loopholes, free trade, and fiat currency is rediculous, and I question the intelligence of anyone that supports it.

Originally posted by sweetliberty

Originally posted by no time
reply to post by neo96

 

those are quotes, which you don't even understand, and taken out of context to prove your worthless point that all rich people should keep their wealth even if they stole it from the middle class.

Otherwise you wouldn't have posted them. None of them prove your point, because they are talking about people actually working hard to earn their wealth.

If you think they are stealing from the middle class then don't work for them and don't buy their products. Inform the proper officials.

Maybe moving to another country where there is no corruption in business and everyone lives in perfect harmony and the rich are punished to a lifetime of working for their families and your's too, is the only way to deal with such aholes.

That'll teach them money-whores not to oppress humanity!

edit on 3-10-2011 by sweetliberty because: to clarify

I do not have an issue with money, I am not rich, but could be if I exploited like many of the rich. I don't like being forced into a tight market and paying my employees less because of competition with countries paying their people pennies. I see people suffering everyday. I can't do enough to help them, they are WORKING. Why should their skilled labor be worth less, while a fund manager is driving a porsche. It makes no sense, and a truly American free market would prevent it.

Relax guys,

Obama has it all worked out for you already.




Image Credit

reply to post by no time

Rich people buy stuff through there business accounts and write it off on their business's and take it home and use it. At least the poor man's deductions are for something that is needed to feed, house, and clothe their family. What exactly is equal about a rich business man getting to write off a 10,000 massage chair?

The problem here is that you must establish an Equality Bureaucracy to determine what is fair and what is not. Next step, you will determine that it is right to set wages and prices. Smacks of communism, imo.

reply to post by sweetliberty


from my cold dead hands.

only way

reply to post by no time

Mind pointing out where the Constitution allows for 20 year corporate charters? Also, where is it written that "Corporations were meant to have endings, they were started to fill needs, and ended" ??

Mind learning history?

states were in charge of this, you know the whole republic thing.

I don't want to read an entire history book. I want you to show me where the US Constitution declares that corporations shall live for 20 years. I want you to show me where the US Constitution outlines which "needs" were valid for corps to fill, and where corps would be formally "ended".

Show me that. And a fallback onto "states rights" is not acceptable.