-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
School shooter in Connecticut
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
an opinion upheld by SCOTUS.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
That in no way means that it was the correct decision. . .but it does mean that it was taken in 2008, when the SCOTUS was heavily leaning toward extreme Right decisions.
Don't count on seeing this kind of mistake repeated in the next few years!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
If the US constitution does give people the right to own guns it should be changed so that it doesn't
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Which of your other rights are you willing to give up due to the criminal actions that someone other than yourself committed?
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Rights do not come from Government. The Constitution of the United States doesn't bestow any rights to the citizenry, it merely establishes that said rights are self evident, endowed by our creator, and the purpose of government is to secure those rights.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You're kidding, right?
So. . .you think that our creator was so negligent in providing for our defense that it forgot to give us what we needed. . . and now it is our creator's wish that we all have a 8 to 30 inches mechanica (and deadly) extension to our GOD GIVEN BODY, so that we can defend ourselves and kill anyone who even LOOKS suspicious to our paranoid society?
Oh well. . .that is a new one to me!
So. . .our creator must be very proud to his "mechanical evolution to the human body" that permitted the killing of 20 of his most vulnerable children!
Sorry! That kind of though process sounds very weird and sick to me!
steveox
Well-Known Member
Double Standard by hollywood Yeah they act in murder scenes,,Rape scenes and even terror scenes but wont tell producers they wont do it. Just like Micheal Moore says how he hates America with captitolism he turns right around and profits off his movies just like how companies profit off their products. Just like evoinmentalist Al Gore who preaches clean air,clean water and the evoinment of the planet. He goes on his private jet which poluties the air and harms the evoinment. He even wastes more electricity than any american i know. When Liberals pratice what they preach like taking bicycles to work living on candles at their homes than ill take them seroiusly.
S M H....
and this is the crux of the problem with lefties. let me connect the dots for your, if something is yours (rights, property etc) taking it is wrong. In simpler terms, thou shalt not steal.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Correct, "thou shalt not steal," and we were all born (created) with ONLY our body.
I believe the WEALTH accumulated by the top .5% has been mostly obtained through STEALING the labor of the poor, STEALING land from the poor, from slavery, even today, from slave labor in other countries.
Taxing is NOT stealing. It is working TOGETHER as a country to assure that our country progresses with the rest of the world, that our country continues to repair and to build new infrastructure (much of that infrastructure is overwhelmingly more beneficial to the WEALTHY than to the poor, i.e., airports, beach protection, highways, large projects such as the Hoover Dam).
taxing (using the power of the state to take money) from an earner to give to someone else has nothing to do with what you describe. Gen may take issue with what constitutions say is acceptable but representative democracy is what it is and I've yet to see a constitution that is OK with what people like to call transfer of wealth.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Wrong. You seem to be perfectly fine with the "transfer of wealth" that has been going on for many years. . .from the POOR and MIDDLE CLASS toward the WEALTHY!
The WEALTHY benefited the MOST from the Bush tax cuts. . .(greater amount of tax breaks went to the wealthy than to the middle class) yet, you seem to be thinking that it is "fair" that the deficit that was accumulated in part because of that tax cut to the WEALTHY should be paid by cuts to programs serving the poor and the lower middle class.
THAT, my dear, is TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM THE POOR TO THE WEALTHY!
please demonstrate how any money that was taken from anyone was given to anyone else by a tax cut.
and don't forget that the lowest tax bracket saw a 50% reduction (15% to 10%) 50% is noteworthy IMO.
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
This charts should speak for themselves. But if you need it in WORDS, it's simple. a 5% reduction on a $25,000 income is $1,250. A 5% reduction on $1 million is $50,000.
I am providing all four charts. . .but the two bottom ones are the most salient to this discussion.
Chart Book: The Bush Tax Cuts
December 10, 2012
RELATED AREAS OF RESEARCH
To provide context for the debate about addressing expiring tax provisions and reducing long-term deficits, we’ve collected some of our charts related to the Bush tax cuts, which show that the tax cuts (1) are costly, (2) have worsened inequality, and (3) should be allowed to expire on schedule for incomes over $250,000.
1. The Bush Tax Cuts Are Costly
Policymakers enacted the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and extended them in 2010; they are set to expire at the end of 2012. As the first chart shows, the tax cuts have been a key driver of the federal deficit and will account for $4.5 trillion in deficits over the 2009-2019 period if extended.
Continuing the Bush tax cuts would add trillions more to deficits. As the second chart shows, the high-income tax cuts — those on incomes above $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly ($200,000 for singles) — are a big reason why. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would reduce deficits by $950 billion (including the interest savings) over the next ten years.
These figures do not even include the estate tax cut, which benefits only the wealthiest 0.3 percent of estates and costs an additional $141 billion over ten years (including interest costs), according to the Office of Management and Budget.
2. The Bush Tax Cuts Have Worsened Inequality
As the third chart shows, the Bush tax cuts provide much larger benefits for high-income people than middle-income people.
The high-end tilt of the Bush tax cuts has contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades, a trend shown in the fourth chart:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3873
Similar threads
