jsnake:..................yet.
kuzi16: jsnake:..................yet. yet but they are working on it.
Vulchor: kuzi16: jsnake:..................yet. yet but they are working on it.Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed.
jsnake:This is on Interstate 70 right by my house. I think it is great. Freedom of speech hasn't been taken away.....................yet.
phobicsquirrel: Vulchor: kuzi16: jsnake:..................yet. yet but they are working on it.Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed. really? I was just talking about this with my friend last night. The last thing I heard was that some senators were lobby to keep it going. I haven't heard on any legislation being passed on it though. I find it really, really ironic that saying "free speech" hasn't been taken away but yet over the last 8 years thanks to the patriot act so many rights were violated and broken. Also there isn't any taxes being put forth other than possible making the top 1% pay more (which should go back to the 90%) and some businesses. I wish, I WISH that all this crap was being spewed during the bush administration. MY GOD maybe Iraq would have never happened, or the patriot act or any other legislation that was passed that F'd this country up more so than it already had been. For the record I don't really care what party is in control so long as they do what is best for the country and abide by the constitution and bill of rights. Sadly though it is a crap shoot with both parties, though more and more with the Republicans.
kuzi16: phobicsquirrel: Vulchor: kuzi16: jsnake:..................yet. yet but they are working on it.Not really, much of the Patriot Act has been repealed. really? I was just talking about this with my friend last night. The last thing I heard was that some senators were lobby to keep it going. I haven't heard on any legislation being passed on it though. I find it really, really ironic that saying "free speech" hasn't been taken away but yet over the last 8 years thanks to the patriot act so many rights were violated and broken. Also there isn't any taxes being put forth other than possible making the top 1% pay more (which should go back to the 90%) and some businesses. I wish, I WISH that all this crap was being spewed during the bush administration. MY GOD maybe Iraq would have never happened, or the patriot act or any other legislation that was passed that F'd this country up more so than it already had been. For the record I don't really care what party is in control so long as they do what is best for the country and abide by the constitution and bill of rights. Sadly though it is a crap shoot with both parties, though more and more with the Republicans. its interesting that you reference the constitution in this thread and how you want it followed but you also want government run health care. government run heath care is not a right spelled out in the constitution or the bill of rights. according to the 9th and 10th amendment this would mean that it is specifically up to the people to get health care.* but i digress.... you still have the right to say what you want... it just may be monitored by the government... and that is a privacy issue. there is a fairly good argument that this causes a stifling of speech. if the government wants to tap wires they need a warrant (that is if they give a rats ass about the 4th amendment) this stifling is in fact a violation of rights. the other way free speech is being attacked is The Fairness Doctrine. how does the fairness doctrine violate the freedom of speech when it gives equal time to all sides? heres how i look at it: The government uses the word "fairness" to mean "equal"---as in "equal treatment." However, since the Fairness Doctrine controls who shall have access to a station owner's property it violates the station owner's property rights. In forcing the owner to broadcast a view with which he disagrees it nullifies the station owner's views, violating his freedom of speech. If i dont like that station, i dont listen to it. i have been known to listen to a conservative or two on the radio, but some of them i cant stand. however, they do have a right to say what they are saying. they also have a right to make money off of it. as long as nobody's rights are being violated by their actions (inciting riots, violence, etc...) there should be no regulating actions. nobody is forcing you to listen. they dont have a right to be heard, just to speak. if you dont like them, turn them off. ... or dont. its up to you. to your statement: "Also there isn't any taxes being put forth other than possible making the top 1% pay more (which should go back to the 90%) and some businesses." 90% taxes would just make it impossible for almost all companies to remain open, causing the largest companies, who have the most employees, to go out of business, thus putting all those employees out of work. i would like to reference California "brain drain" and "capital flight." Corporate tax rates are high enough to provoke an exodus of business capital. According to the tax foundation, 48 states have a better corporate tax climate than california this flight would happen more and more to the US the higher corporate tax rates go. as pointed out before in other threads (many times), manufacturing in the US has already left the US because US corporate tax rates are some of the highest in the world if its a 90% income tax on individuals then i would again like to reference California. In 1991, as (California)State Sen. Tom McClintock recently recalled, "An 18 percent increase in the sales tax and a 15 percent increase in upper brackets of the income tax were supposed to produce a net of $7 billion of new revenues. But they didn't. ... We didn't take in $7 billion more we took in $1 billion less. We lost another $1 billion the next year." Indeed, real per capita personal income fell 5.6 percent during the three years following the 1991 tax increase, even though the national economy was recovering. Californians now arguing for another tax increase notably Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante are conveniently forgetting what happened after that was tried in 1991. in short raising taxes destroys wealth, and the only cure for poverty is wealth.however, you seem to want to do this for control, not economic reasons. to that i ask, if nobody's rights are being violated, how is hurting the rich helping me? *Wiki was used only because there are so many ways to prove the text of the bill of rights. this can be easily trusted.
laker1963:Kuzi. I may have read this wrong but I think he was refferring to the people when he said 90% not that he would like to see a 90% tax rate on the top 1% earners in the country. I believe he was advocating that the additional money collected from these taxes should be divided up between the 90% and some businesses through a lowered tax rate on them. At least that is what I got when I read it. I do NOT think he was advocating a 90% tax rate on anybody.
laker1963: Oh and as a side note PROFITS and avoiding taxes are also NOT protected under the constitution. Yet some people seem to want to envoke more rights for businesses and profits then for people. The constitution and the bill of rights were written for the people not for the business sector.
kuzi16: laker1963:Kuzi. I may have read this wrong but I think he was refferring to the people when he said 90% not that he would like to see a 90% tax rate on the top 1% earners in the country. I believe he was advocating that the additional money collected from these taxes should be divided up between the 90% and some businesses through a lowered tax rate on them. At least that is what I got when I read it. I do NOT think he was advocating a 90% tax rate on anybody. though i am against raising taxes on anyone ever, this would make a hell of a lot more sense. laker1963: Oh and as a side note PROFITS and avoiding taxes are also NOT protected under the constitution. Yet some people seem to want to envoke more rights for businesses and profits then for people. The constitution and the bill of rights were written for the people not for the business sector.arent businesses made up of people?
laker1963:NO they aren't and you know that. If they are made up of people in the manner to which you allude, then shouldn't they divide up the profits, instead of just collecting a paycheck?
laker1963:The business pays taxes on profits, and because they are given access to the resources which are the property of the people of a given community, state, or country to make those profits.
kuzi16: laker1963:NO they aren't and you know that. If they are made up of people in the manner to which you allude, then shouldn't they divide up the profits, instead of just collecting a paycheck? most do divide up the profit. its based on a system of how much you contributed to the company and/or how much of it you own and this profit is sent out via paycheck and/or stock dividends. the rest of the profit is reinvested into the company. laker1963:Not true. When you get hired you are told what you can expect to be paid. Not what percentage of the profits you can expect to take home. How does the "boss" who may be very good at his job contribute more then the workers who actually produce what it is a business makes money on? Does he and others up the line get way more proportionally then the people who actually make it all work? laker1963:The business pays taxes on profits, and because they are given access to the resources which are the property of the people of a given community, state, or country to make those profits. those businesses were not "given access to resources" those companies had to buy those resourced from the community. the business had to buy the land to lay the bricks they bought to build the building and pay the construction workers. they had to buy the raw materials from the community. if its a natural resource they had to buy the land and the means to extract the resource. I said they were given ACCESS to these resources not that they didn't have to pay for them. If those resources were made available to, other groups of people they too could turn a profit. I never said they were GIVEN I said they were given ACCESS to which means they were placed in a position where the resources they were given access to would make them a profit. They should pay for that priviledge via taxes as these resources represent the peoples resources not the governments resources. The cost of extracting the resources or paying workers or for materials has NOTHING to do with wether they should pay taxes on their business. There are always costs involved. Why should those costs be bourne by the people and not the businesses? so you are saying they should be taxed additionally simply because they exist? or are you saying they should be taxed because of the burden placed on the community? what about the money the pump into a community? NO not because they exist. Because they are given access to resources or infrastucture which allow them to make a profit. It is the profit that is being taxed. This leads to a whole other discussion regarding the fairness of tax law and wether companies pay a fair share of taxes once all the write-offs and defferals and special despensations are calculated. and just to play devils advocate... if i am a massage therapist, and i open a business for myself and only make house calls, then am I not the business? or am i not a person?
laker1963:Not true. When you get hired you are told what you can expect to be paid. Not what percentage of the profits you can expect to take home. How does the "boss" who may be very good at his job contribute more then the workers who actually produce what it is a business makes money on? Does he and others up the line get way more proportionally then the people who actually make it all work?
kuzi16:my point was to ask questions and learn your point of view. no other intent.
kuzi16: and just to play devils advocate... if i am a massage therapist, and i open a business for myself and only make house calls, then am I not the business? or am i not a person?
clearlysuspect: kuzi16: and just to play devils advocate... if i am a massage therapist, and i open a business for myself and only make house calls, then am I not the business? or am i not a person? I'd agree that in a small business such as this the business and the person are the same. The sole person bares the profits and the responsibility. I also feel that there is certainly a major difference in a small business such as this and a corporation. In a small "company" the owner is liable for the actions of the company and in the event that the company fails to meet it's obligation, they personal property of the business owner can be ceased. In a corporation, the directors are not financially liable for the actions of the company. In most cases, they can drive the company out of shear greed, drain the businesses assets to line their own pockets, and once they totally destroyed business' financial integrity they file bankruptcy and lay the burden of their irresponsibility on the taxpayer. This is not to say that these are the actions or intentions of every corporation!
