| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 11:34:03 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
"NCVT" <ncvt@hlnc.pra> wrote in
news:1135135733.2ca884f40ad9de27af289771ad267e04@roc.usenetexchange.com:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government
is disbanded.
Says the libertarian freeloader whose knowledge of the law and the
Constitution is less than that of a 10 year-old. You fucking kooks
are hilarious.
Yet another brainwashed idiot who actually thinks his government operates
within the limits of the constitution.
You're just another spoiled brat looking for a free lunch, and you're
not even smart enough to know how the government works.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 10:05:09 PM |
|
|
NCVT wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
disbanded.
Says the libertarian freeloader whose knowledge of the law and the Constitution
is less than that of a 10 year-old. You fucking kooks are hilarious.
You speak true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 11:31:32 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through
a pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the
road to astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the
government be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or
not the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
disbanded.
In short, you're just a whiny hypocrite who wants the benefit of
government without having to pay for it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 08:24:07 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a8e8b4$0$58057$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway,
through a pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost
of the road to astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of
eminent domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private
companies have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should
the government be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address
what happens when the only route possible is through a mountain
pass, or over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like
everybody else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide
whether or not the road is worth the price they would have to pay for
the land.
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government
is disbanded.
In short, you're just a whiny hypocrite who wants the benefit of
government without having to pay for it.
How would I benefit from the parts that are disbanded?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 09:20:33 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9n8shc31h53jf94h06@4ax.com:
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through
a pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the
road to astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the
government be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or
not the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
disbanded.
In short, you're just a whiny hypocrite who wants the benefit of
government without having to pay for it.
You got it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Slib" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 03:24:50 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without taxing their
residents' incomes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 03:36:29 PM |
|
|
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without taxing their
residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 04:30:01 PM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without the
ability to tax income.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 04:57:11 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in news:43a9d768$0$69835$892e7fe2
@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without
the
ability to tax income.
It would, dumberos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:17:45 AM |
|
|
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns97339846D41E6SD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43a9d768$0$69835$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without
the ability to tax income.
It would, dumberos.
Prove it.
You will need to take into consideration that this country survived almost
140 years without such a tax, and that the states of Alaska, Florida, Nevada,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming also manage to operate
without an income tax.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 11:56:53 AM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43aaa779$0$2741$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns97339846D41E6SD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43a9d768$0$69835$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without
the ability to tax income.
It would, dumberos.
Prove it.
Don't need to "prove it". It should be common sense to even a village
idiot like yourself, Dumberos. If it isn't, write to your congress
person and ask them.
You will need to take into consideration that this country survived
almost 140 years without such a tax, and that the states of Alaska,
Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and
Wyoming also manage to operate without an income tax.
Those states make up for not having a state income tax by levying other
kinds of taxes on it's citizens. Or do you think that they operate
without any taxation? Idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 05:51:37 PM |
|
|
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734655CD5E3FSD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43aaa779$0$2741$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns97339846D41E6SD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43a9d768$0$69835$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without
the ability to tax income.
It would, dumberos.
Prove it.
Don't need to "prove it". It should be common sense to even a village
idiot like yourself, Dumberos. If it isn't, write to your congress
person and ask them.
In other words, you can't prove it.
You will need to take into consideration that this country survived
almost 140 years without such a tax, and that the states of Alaska,
Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and
Wyoming also manage to operate without an income tax.
Those states make up for not having a state income tax by levying other
kinds of taxes on it's citizens. Or do you think that they operate
without any taxation? Idiot.
Whoever said that income tax was the only type of taxation? Oh wait, you
did by implying that the government would collpase without it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:40:44 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in news:d_Gqf.1670$jJ.1459@fe03.lga:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734655CD5E3FSD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43aaa779$0$2741$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns97339846D41E6SD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43a9d768$0$69835$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate
without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse
without
the ability to tax income.
It would, dumberos.
Prove it.
Don't need to "prove it". It should be common sense to even a village
idiot like yourself, Dumberos. If it isn't, write to your congress
person and ask them.
In other words, you can't prove it.
And apparently, you can't read Dumberos.
You will need to take into consideration that this country survived
almost 140 years without such a tax, and that the states of Alaska,
Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and
Wyoming also manage to operate without an income tax.
Those states make up for not having a state income tax by levying
other
kinds of taxes on it's citizens. Or do you think that they operate
without any taxation? Idiot.
Whoever said that income tax was the only type of taxation? Oh wait,
you
did
No, I didn't Dumberos. Show us where I said that.
by implying that the government would collpase without it.
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem don't you Dumberos?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 10:43:37 AM |
|
|
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734B401DF357SD@70.169.32.36:
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
Prove it, keeping in mind that the federal government operated without an
income tax for nearly 140 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 12:06:44 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in news:Z4Vrf.2292$Z95.1738@fe04.lga:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734B401DF357SD@70.169.32.36:
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
Prove it, keeping in mind that the federal government operated without
an income tax for nearly 140 years.
You want another opinion Dumberos? Write to your favorite neocon wingnut
congressperson and ask them if you don't believe me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 03:47:01 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734B401DF357SD@70.169.32.36:
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
Prove it, keeping in mind that the federal government operated without an
income tax for nearly 140 years.
I guess it matters how you want to run the country. Should they decide
what things to do, i.e. which of the things within their power generate
more value than they cost, and than figure out a way to generate enough
money through taxation to pay for it? Or should they take the money they
get from taxes, and see what are the most value-generating things they
can do for this money? Or something in between?
Under option 1, abolishing the income tax means they have to raise all
other taxes by an equivalent amount. The government wouldn't collapse,
but whether it would help the economy? (I assume not, otherwise they
would have abolished the income tax by now.)
Under option 2, abolishing the income tax means that Federal receipts
fall by over a trillion dollars ($ 1.187 trillion over the 2006 budget
is individual or corporate income tax) On total receipt of over two
trillion ($ 2.178 for FY06), that means that about half the federal
budget would have to go. That is a lot. And you can't tell me that
that's all things that are ultra vires or that cost more than they
create in value. Whether this qualifies as the Federal government
collapsing depends on your definition of collapse. Of course, the states
could take over part of this expenditure. But whether that is a good
idea depends on the economies of scale involved in each subject, as well
as one's preferences with regard to federalism, etc.
Under option 3, the outcome is somewhere in between.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
28 Dec 2005 09:13:49 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b064d5$1$10089$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734B401DF357SD@70.169.32.36:
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
Prove it, keeping in mind that the federal government operated without
an income tax for nearly 140 years.
I guess it matters how you want to run the country. Should they decide
what things to do, i.e. which of the things within their power generate
more value than they cost, and than figure out a way to generate enough
money through taxation to pay for it? Or should they take the money they
get from taxes, and see what are the most value-generating things they
can do for this money? Or something in between?
Under option 1, abolishing the income tax means they have to raise all
other taxes by an equivalent amount. The government wouldn't collapse,
but whether it would help the economy? (I assume not, otherwise they
would have abolished the income tax by now.)
Under option 2, abolishing the income tax means that Federal receipts
fall by over a trillion dollars ($ 1.187 trillion over the 2006 budget
is individual or corporate income tax) On total receipt of over two
trillion ($ 2.178 for FY06), that means that about half the federal
budget would have to go. That is a lot. And you can't tell me that
that's all things that are ultra vires or that cost more than they
create in value. Whether this qualifies as the Federal government
collapsing depends on your definition of collapse. Of course, the states
could take over part of this expenditure. But whether that is a good
idea depends on the economies of scale involved in each subject, as well
as one's preferences with regard to federalism, etc.
Under option 3, the outcome is somewhere in between.
The vast majority of federal spending is unconstitutional anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
29 Dec 2005 06:16:10 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b064d5$1$10089$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734B401DF357SD@70.169.32.36:
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
Prove it, keeping in mind that the federal government operated without
an income tax for nearly 140 years.
I guess it matters how you want to run the country. Should they decide
what things to do, i.e. which of the things within their power generate
more value than they cost, and than figure out a way to generate enough
money through taxation to pay for it? Or should they take the money they
get from taxes, and see what are the most value-generating things they
can do for this money? Or something in between?
Under option 1, abolishing the income tax means they have to raise all
other taxes by an equivalent amount. The government wouldn't collapse,
but whether it would help the economy? (I assume not, otherwise they
would have abolished the income tax by now.)
Under option 2, abolishing the income tax means that Federal receipts
fall by over a trillion dollars ($ 1.187 trillion over the 2006 budget
is individual or corporate income tax) On total receipt of over two
trillion ($ 2.178 for FY06), that means that about half the federal
budget would have to go. That is a lot. And you can't tell me that
that's all things that are ultra vires or that cost more than they
create in value. Whether this qualifies as the Federal government
collapsing depends on your definition of collapse. Of course, the states
could take over part of this expenditure. But whether that is a good
idea depends on the economies of scale involved in each subject, as well
as one's preferences with regard to federalism, etc.
Under option 3, the outcome is somewhere in between.
The vast majority of federal spending is unconstitutional anyway.
Sigh... Tell me about it. They're such naughty boys.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 05:31:16 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b064d5$1$10089$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns9734B401DF357SD@70.169.32.36:
Federal_government, Dumberos, federal_government. And yes, the
federal_government would collapse without the income taxes.
Prove it, keeping in mind that the federal government operated
without an income tax for nearly 140 years.
I guess it matters how you want to run the country. Should they decide
what things to do, i.e. which of the things within their power
generate more value than they cost, and than figure out a way to
generate enough money through taxation to pay for it? Or should they
take the money they get from taxes, and see what are the most
value-generating things they can do for this money? Or something in
between?
Under option 1, abolishing the income tax means they have to raise all
other taxes by an equivalent amount. The government wouldn't collapse,
but whether it would help the economy? (I assume not, otherwise they
would have abolished the income tax by now.)
Under option 2, abolishing the income tax means that Federal receipts
fall by over a trillion dollars ($ 1.187 trillion over the 2006 budget
is individual or corporate income tax) On total receipt of over two
trillion ($ 2.178 for FY06), that means that about half the federal
budget would have to go. That is a lot. And you can't tell me that
that's all things that are ultra vires or that cost more than they
create in value. Whether this qualifies as the Federal government
collapsing depends on your definition of collapse. Of course, the
states could take over part of this expenditure. But whether that is a
good idea depends on the economies of scale involved in each subject,
as well as one's preferences with regard to federalism, etc.
Under option 3, the outcome is somewhere in between.
Martin Holterman
You are wasting your time trying to reason with Dumberos. He/she doesn't
understand simple economics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Hazelwood" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:22:41 AM |
|
|
Most federal tax goes into the hands of the military industrial complex which we
all know is who really runs this country.
Bush is the best ***** they have ever had !
Time for a change. Yes, we need a defense but do we have to spend more
on it than the total of the rest of the world combined ?
What for ? To start illegal and immoral wars like we did in Iraq ?
I'd rather have good health care !
On 22 Dec 2005 13:17:45 GMT, Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote in news:Xns97339846D41E6SD@70.169.32.36:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:43a9d768$0$69835$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without
the ability to tax income.
It would, dumberos.
Prove it.
You will need to take into consideration that this country survived almost
140 years without such a tax, and that the states of Alaska, Florida, Nevada,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming also manage to operate
without an income tax.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 09:34:32 PM |
|
|
Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kahuna@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:tv9lq15i96jho4um9scvgnfjip220blcps@4ax.com...
Most federal tax goes into the hands of the military industrial complex
which we
all know is who really runs this country.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/totalfy06b.gif
Yes, you're an idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 06:47:10 PM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote in
news:qVjqf.114$ZA5.76@fed1read05:
Slib wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
What a load of horseshit. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming manage to operate without
taxing their residents' incomes.
They tax the ***** out of them in other ways. Or are you under the
deluded impression that income is the only kind of tax?
Ray is suggesting that the federal government would collapse without the
ability to tax income.
English is not your mother tongue is it?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:27:39 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
You need to ask yourself, has a felon paid restitution to society by serving
out his jail time, and does he deserve to have his rights restored to him?
If so, then why deny him the right to purchase a weapon?
If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 11:59:13 AM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
Try not to be an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 01:16:22 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
Try not to be an idiot.
You're asking the impossible :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 07:19:11 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:27:39 GMT iin
alt.atheism?
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
Background checks at my favorite gun shop catch at least one guy a
week on the no sell list trying to buy a gun.
You need to ask yourself, has a felon paid restitution to society by serving
out his jail time, and does he deserve to have his rights restored to him?
For a violent crime, ***** no.
If so, then why deny him the right to purchase a weapon?
I know, I know!! Because he committed a fucking felony, was tried,
convicted, and part of the punishment is the cessation of certain
rights, such as bearing arms.
If you don't like, I suggest you not commit felonies.
If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
Getting a second chance. But with restrictions. Parolees are forced
to report their location, cannot freely travel, and live under search
rules that even the most conservative judge would throw out in a
normal case.
This is because they are criminals, and watched carefully after they
are relaesed.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 08:50:42 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:gomeq1lb6vbc98csf1b8rrovgeldpk23af@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:27:39 GMT iin
alt.atheism?
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a64627$0$58107$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
Background checks at my favorite gun shop catch at least one guy a
week on the no sell list trying to buy a gun.
You don't think that gun shops are the only places to buy guns do you?
You need to ask yourself, has a felon paid restitution to society by
serving out his jail time, and does he deserve to have his rights
restored to him?
For a violent crime, ***** no.
If so, then why deny him the right to purchase a weapon?
I know, I know!! Because he committed a fucking felony, was tried,
convicted, and part of the punishment is the cessation of certain
rights, such as bearing arms.
If you don't like, I suggest you not commit felonies.
I don't necessarily have a problem with laws against felons obtaining
firearms. I just don't delude myself into believing they actually prevent
felons from obtaining firearms.
If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
Getting a second chance. But with restrictions. Parolees are forced
to report their location, cannot freely travel, and live under search
rules that even the most conservative judge would throw out in a
normal case.
This is because they are criminals, and watched carefully after they
are relaesed.
If there is a need for such monitoring for these people then they
shouldn't be out of jail. Make them serve their full sentence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 06:50:59 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:50:42 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:gomeq1lb6vbc98csf1b8rrovgeldpk23af@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:27:39 GMT iin
alt.atheism?
Background checks at my favorite gun shop catch at least one guy a
week on the no sell list trying to buy a gun.
You don't think that gun shops are the only places to buy guns do you?
Nope. But they are a good place. And in most cases, buying a gun
from somebody on the street is a bad idea.
I know, I know!! Because he committed a fucking felony, was tried,
convicted, and part of the punishment is the cessation of certain
rights, such as bearing arms.
If you don't like, I suggest you not commit felonies.
I don't necessarily have a problem with laws against felons obtaining
firearms. I just don't delude myself into believing they actually prevent
felons from obtaining firearms.
Laws against murder don't prevent murders. shall we get rid of those
laws?
Laws deter by defining punishment. If I kill someone intentionally in
California, the least I'm going to get is 25 years to life in a very
unpleasant place. The worst I can face is execution.
Likewise, a parolled felon caught with a gun is going back to prison.
This will deter the smarter ones from picking up a gun.
The dumb ones will end up doing life anyway.
If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
Getting a second chance. But with restrictions. Parolees are forced
to report their location, cannot freely travel, and live under search
rules that even the most conservative judge would throw out in a
normal case.
This is because they are criminals, and watched carefully after they
are relaesed.
If there is a need for such monitoring for these people then they
shouldn't be out of jail. Make them serve their full sentence.
Ah, but we reward redemptive work in prison (getting an education,
being a model prisoner, working at prison jobs) with reduced time in
jail. This is to reinforce the concept of being a good citizen.
Now, since the sentence was for a specific period of time, the
prisoner is not simply released -he is given parole, with all the
limitations I've mentioned. I work with a guy on parole for
manslaughter (killed a guy in a bar fight) he *never* wants to go
back, and works his ***** off to stay out.
Occasionally the system works.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 10:55:54 AM |
|
|
(Douglas Berry) wrote in
news:8ntjq1d4va5hoplgi0ef4ma3a7errg7m7k@4ax.com:
Laws against murder don't prevent murders. shall we get rid of
those laws?
No, because the law against murder provides the mechanism to punish
murderers.
Laws deter by defining punishment.
The mere threat may deter some small number of potential criminals,
but when they don't deter, they provide the mechanism for the actual
punishment.
The fact that millions of actual crimes take place in this country
every year should suggest to you that the deterrent effect of laws
isn't very strong.
If I kill someone intentionally in California, the least I'm going
to get is 25 years to life in a very unpleasant place. The worst I
can face is execution.
That's because you weren't deterred from murder by the mere existence
of the law.
Further, laws should specify punishment for actual bad acts. They
should not try to prevent bad acts by criminalizing innocent acts.
Alcohol prohibition and the War on (Some) Drugs should be more than
enough evidence to convince you of that.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:15:17 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:8ntjq1d4va5hoplgi0ef4ma3a7errg7m7k@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:50:42 GMT iin alt.atheism?
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:gomeq1lb6vbc98csf1b8rrovgeldpk23af@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:27:39 GMT iin
alt.atheism?
Background checks at my favorite gun shop catch at least one guy a
week on the no sell list trying to buy a gun.
You don't think that gun shops are the only places to buy guns do you?
Nope. But they are a good place. And in most cases, buying a gun
from somebody on the street is a bad idea.
Why not? Where I live there's no law against it.
I know, I know!! Because he committed a fucking felony, was tried,
convicted, and part of the punishment is the cessation of certain
rights, such as bearing arms.
If you don't like, I suggest you not commit felonies.
I don't necessarily have a problem with laws against felons obtaining
firearms. I just don't delude myself into believing they actually
prevent felons from obtaining firearms.
Laws against murder don't prevent murders. shall we get rid of those
laws?
Muder is an act of violence against another person. Somebody buying a gun
doesn't hurt anybody.
Likewise, a parolled felon caught with a gun is going back to prison.
This will deter the smarter ones from picking up a gun.
Felons shouldn't be on parole.
If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
Getting a second chance. But with restrictions. Parolees are forced
to report their location, cannot freely travel, and live under search
rules that even the most conservative judge would throw out in a
normal case.
This is because they are criminals, and watched carefully after they
are relaesed.
If there is a need for such monitoring for these people then they
shouldn't be out of jail. Make them serve their full sentence.
Ah, but we reward redemptive work in prison (getting an education,
being a model prisoner, working at prison jobs) with reduced time in
jail. This is to reinforce the concept of being a good citizen.
Now, since the sentence was for a specific period of time, the
prisoner is not simply released -he is given parole, with all the
limitations I've mentioned. I work with a guy on parole for
manslaughter (killed a guy in a bar fight) he *never* wants to go
back, and works his ***** off to stay out.
Occasionally the system works.
Nobody should be let out of jail until they've served their time. If they
have to be monitored then they're not ready to get out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
