AOC Thinks Concentrated Wealth Is Incompatible With Democracy. So Did Our Founders.

Althea said:
I don't believe he realizes that you two are in agreement.

Funny how the Right doesn't mention that her 70% rate (that which existed when Reagan took office) only affects income OVER $10 million.

Many who earn that much are not paying marginal rates anyway, rather, the new lower cap gains rate.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the 1% understands this but are going to use propaganda such as "AOC wants to take away 70% of your paycheck!"
 
Sirthinksalot said:
The fact that many of them were extremely wealthy says it Stoner.
Click to expand...

You can have a society with wealthy people but not concentrated wealth. I think few people understand just how bad concentrated wealth is in America. We could tax the fuck out of the 1%, spread wealth throughout the population, and the 1% would still be rich.
 
StoneByStone said:
Yeah, but our founders were probably secret Communists.


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/ocasio-cortez-aocs-billionaires-taxes-hannity-american-democracy.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=fb&utm_medium=s1&fbclid=IwAR1SAIBRd5jerTg6pK-w94LXSYeN7joyU_DMEUX4RGxFdpIMm3pdgioZUbg
Click to expand...

That's why our founders constructed a "REPUBLIC" instead of socialist democracy. As demonstrated in Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1 of our constitution. Government at all levels is guaranteed to be a REPUBLIC as defined with no ambiguity whatsoever in the companion document that was used to explain to the voting STATES why certain clauses were drafted into the standard of law called the US Constitution....the "federalist papers". Read federalist no. 10, it explains in detail why a republican type of government was preferred over historically failed democracies of world history. Our founders adopted the better parts of both a pure republic and a pure democracy. A government run by the people and for the people through republican "representation"....thus eliminating the mob rule of a pure democracy that was incompatible with the rights of private property and personal liberty to earn wealth.


"The United States (the combined states creating a federal government by signatory agreement) shall guarantee to ALL STATES IN THIS UNION A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." -- Article 4 Section 4, Clause 1.


Of course the liberal socialist (as historically OPINED) will argue this clause is ambiguous (not clearly defined). But that argument will not hold water as Federalist No. 10, the companion documents that every state representative read before ratifying the US CONSTITUTION via super majority 3/4 vote.....read and comprehended the reason and necessity of Article 4, Section 4, Clause one of the US Constitution.


Read what the signers of the US Constitution read and comprehended before validating the US Constitution as the standard for the rule of law in the United States of America.


Madison gave this as a reason that the US GOVERNMENT could not be established as a social democracy and must have republican representation. "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.....have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- Federalist No. 10, James Madison.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution



Now.....tell us again which party finds fault with the rights of personal property and wants to rule by mob edict? The party that is closest related to Social Communism and continually spews vile contempt against those who have found personal success in the free market capitalistic economy of the United States? The party that demands wealth redistribution in the attempt to "FUNDAMENTAALLY CHANGE the US from a representative republic into a social democracy in the image of all the failed democracies of Europe? What party demonstrates VIOLENT CONTEMPT via left wing demonstrations that openly destroy personal and public property....what party wants the US to self implode and rebuild it as a European Model of Socialism? Its the left that marches lock step in line with orders from the elite idiots at the top of the food chain (who live in luxury but preach to the impoverished about wealth redistribution.....AS LONG AS ITS NOT THEIR PERSONAL WEALTH that is being redistributed...…….but the wealth of the working stiff middle class, that they have openly defined as DEPLORABLE.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
That's why our founders constructed a "REPUBLIC" instead of socialist democracy. As demonstrated in Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1 of our constitution. Government at all levels is guaranteed to be a REPUBLIC as defined with no ambiguity whatsoever in the companion document that was used to explain to the voting STATES why certain clauses were drafted into the standard of law called the US Constitution....the "federalist papers". Read federalist no. 10, it explains in detail why a republican type of government was preferred over historically failed democracies of world history. Our founders adopted the better parts of both a pure republic and a pure democracy. A government run by the people and for the people through republican "representation"....thus eliminating the mob rule of a pure democracy that was incompatible with the rights of private property and personal liberty to earn wealth.


"The United States (the combined states creating a federal government by signatory agreement) shall guarantee to ALL STATES IN THIS UNION A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT." -- Article 4 Section 4, Clause 1.


Of course the liberal socialist (as historically OPINED) will argue this clause is ambiguous (not clearly defined). But that argument will not hold water as Federalist No. 10, the companion documents that every state representative read before ratifying the US CONSTITUTION via super majority 3/4 vote.....read and comprehended the reason and necessity of Article 4, Section 4, Clause one of the US Constitution.


Read what the signers of the US Constitution read and comprehended before validating the US Constitution as the standard for the rule of law in the United States of America.


Madison gave this as a reason that the US GOVERNMENT could not be established as a social democracy and must have republican representation. "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.....have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- Federalist No. 10, James Madison.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution



Now.....tell us again which party finds fault with the rights of personal property and wants to rule by mob edict? The party that is closest related to Social Communism and continually spews vile contempt against those who have found personal success in the free market capitalistic economy of the United States? The party that demands wealth redistribution in the attempt to "FUNDAMENTAALLY CHANGE the US from a representative republic into a social democracy in the image of all the failed democracies of Europe?
Click to expand...

a republican is a type of democracy idiot
 
Althea said:
I don't believe he realizes that you two are in agreement.

Funny how the Right doesn't mention that her 70% rate (that which existed when Reagan took office) only affects income OVER $10 million.

Many who earn that much are not paying marginal rates anyway, rather, the new lower cap gains rate.
Click to expand...

Key point, WHEN Reagan took office. So Reagan wasn't responsible for said marginal tax rates

You see this is how leftists always pull their bait and switch on an uninformed public. They start with these wild claims about only taxing 70% above $10 million knowing that your average Joe Blow will say "well that ain't me, so why should I care?"

Then when the actual proposal comes out Joe Blow just took it in the ass. The federal income was a scam from the get go. When it was first proposed, it was done so with the same dishonest methods. When the Takers were trying to ratify the 16th Amendment, they promised that it would only be 1% and it would ONLY apply to "the rich". Where have we heard that before?

So in an effort to discern your honesty on this issue, I have a few questions that I am sure you will obfuscate and be afraid to answer, but I will ask them anyway. Because I know that in answering them, AOCs scam will be illuminated. Not answering the questions will have the same effect.

OK here we go


1) How many people in this country actually have incomes of over $10 million/year that would be taxed at ordinary income?
2) How much revenue would you expect the federal government to raise from taxing incomes over $10 million a year at 70%
3) You state that many who earn this rate pay at a lower capital gains rate which indicates that you know that the new scheme is unlikely to achieve desired results. If that is the case, then why pursue it?
4) If said tax increase will not achieve revenue goals, where will AOC confiscate the money to achieve her philanthropic goals of using OPM to provide everyone's wants and needs?


Wouldn't it be easier to just pass a law saying that all people who make over $10 million a year should tattoo that on their forehead making them known to all citizens and then make it legal to rob them? Then the American people can just go take what they want (redistribute income) and we can leave the federal government out of it?
 
evince said:
you russo bot holes are not designed to question rationally with facts your current assumptions

programing matters
Click to expand...


You really are the most tiresome, boring cunt I have ever encountered on the inter webs. Has your crack addiction made you this OCD or were you born that way? Or did the OCD lead you to become a crack addict?
 
the founders wrote the post office right into the constitution ass brain


the founders were fine with socialistic programs


AND created a NEW form of democracy


the world in fact had to change the definition of Democracy because of the hybrid of government the founders created


these russo bot holes were programed to hate dictionaries folks


oh and encyclopedias


and math


and science


and history
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party



The Boston Tea Party was a political and mercantile protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16, 1773.[1] The target was the Tea Act of May 10, 1773, which allowed the British East India company to sell tea from China in American colonies without paying taxes apart from those imposed by the Townshend Acts. American Patriots strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. Demonstrators, some disguised as Native Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company.
They boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into the Boston Harbor. The British government responded harshly and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and since then other political protests such as the Tea Party movement have referred to themselves as historical successors to the Boston protest of 1773.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "no taxation without representation", that is, to be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. In addition, the well-connected East India Company had been granted competitive advantages over colonial tea importers, who resented the move and feared additional infringement on their business. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain.[2]
The Boston Tea Party was a significant event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Intolerable Acts, or Coercive Acts, which, among other provisions, ended local self-government in Massachusetts and closed Boston's commerce. Colonists up and down the Thirteen Colonies in turn responded to the Intolerable Acts with additional acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. The crisis escalated, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775.
Click to expand...

history they hate
 
evince said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company#Forming_a_complete_monopoly




Trade monopoly[edit]


Rear view of the East India Company's Factory at Cossimbazar
The prosperity that the officers of the company enjoyed allowed them to return to Britain and establish sprawling estates and businesses, and to obtain political power. The company developed a lobby in the English parliament. Under pressure from ambitious tradesmen and former associates of the company (pejoratively termed Interlopers by the company), who wanted to establish private trading firms in India, a deregulating act was passed in 1694.[43]
This allowed any English firm to trade with India, unless specifically prohibited by act of parliament, thereby annulling the charter that had been in force for almost 100 years. By an act that was passed in 1698, a new "parallel" East India Company (officially titled the English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a state-backed indemnity of £2 million. The powerful stockholders of the old company quickly subscribed a sum of £315,000 in the new concern, and dominated the new body. The two companies wrestled with each other for some time, both in England and in India, for a dominant share of the trade.[43]
It quickly became evident that, in practice, the original company faced scarcely any measurable competition. The companies merged in 1708, by a tripartite indenture involving both companies and the state, with the charter and agreement for the new United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies being awarded by the Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin.[44] Under this arrangement, the merged company lent to the Treasury a sum of £3,200,000, in return for exclusive privileges for the next three years, after which the situation was to be reviewed. The amalgamated company became the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies.[43]


Company painting depicting an official of the East India Company, c. 1760
In the following decades there was a constant battle between the company lobby and the Parliament. The company sought a permanent establishment, while the Parliament would not willingly allow it greater autonomy and so relinquish the opportunity to exploit the company's profits. In 1712, another act renewed the status of the company, though the debts were repaid. By 1720, 15% of British imports were from India, almost all passing through the company, which reasserted the influence of the company lobby. The licence was prolonged until 1766 by yet another act in 1730.
At this time, Britain and France became bitter rivals. Frequent skirmishes between them took place for control of colonial possessions. In 1742, fearing the monetary consequences of a war, the British government agreed to extend the deadline for the licensed exclusive trade by the company in India until 1783, in return for a further loan of £1 million. Between 1756 and 1763, the Seven Years' War diverted the state's attention towards consolidation and defence of its territorial possessions in Europe and its colonies in North America.[45]
The war took place on Indian soil, between the company troops and the French forces. In 1757, the Law Officers of the Crown delivered the Pratt–Yorke opinion distinguishing overseas territories acquired by right of conquest from those acquired by private treaty. The opinion asserted that, while the Crown of Great Britain enjoyed sovereignty over both, only the property of the former was vested in the Crown.[45]
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Britain surged ahead of its European rivals. Demand for Indian commodities was boosted by the need to sustain the troops and the economy during the war, and by the increased availability of raw materials and efficient methods of production. As home to the revolution, Britain experienced higher standards of living. Its spiralling cycle of prosperity, demand and production had a profound influence on overseas trade. The company became the single largest player in the British global market. In 1801 Henry Dundas reported to the House of Commons that
... on the 1st March, 1801, the debts of the East India Company amounted to 5,393,989l. their effects to 15,404,736l. and that their sales had increased since February 1793, from 4,988,300l. to 7,602,041l.[46]
Click to expand...

history they hate
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Definition of democracy
1
a
: government by the people
especially : rule of the majority
b
: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


actual word definitions from dictionaries they hate
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic




re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik


\
Definition of republic
1
a
(1)
: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b
(1)
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2)
: a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
c
: a usually specified republican government of a political unit
the French Fourth Republic
2
: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
the republic of letters
3
: a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia


more words from dictionaries they hate
 
Ralph said:
That's why our founders constructed a "REPUBLIC" instead of socialist democracy.
Click to expand...

Semantics. The point is that the Founders knew what a threat concentrated wealth is to society. They may not have used the term "Liberal Socialist," but they were Liberal Socialists. They also didn't use the term "Ethnic Nationalist," but if you know anything about the Founders, you know they were Ethnic Nationalists.


Now.....tell us again which party finds fault with the rights of personal property and wants to rule by mob edict? The party that is closest related to Social Communism and continually spews vile contempt against those who have found personal success in the free market capitalistic economy of the United States? The party that demands wealth redistribution in the attempt to "FUNDAMENTAALLY CHANGE the US from a representative republic into a social democracy in the image of all the failed democracies of Europe?
Click to expand...

First of all, neither party wants to take away personal property.
Secondly, neither party shows contempt against people who were lucky enough to become successful. However, some Democrats want to redistribute wealth because that would improve society for everyone, including the rich.
No, wealth redistribution would not FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE America from a representative republic.
Which failed democracies are you talking about?
 
evince said:
a republican is a type of democracy idiot
Click to expand...

Exactly: Why then do you wish to remove republican values from this nation? Something that is guaranteed via Constitutional Mandate? FYI: Republican representation is not MAJORITY rule as you have opined. Why did you declare Hillary the winner because she had the most votes? You did not accept the rule of law as defined via Republican rule......the Electoral College majority.

You self contradict your own argument. As explained.....the US was founded upon the better principles of both republicanism and democracy.....leaving out the part concerning a majority that would attempt to take away the rights of property and earned wealth from those you have defined as evil because they have exercised the rights provided via constitutional mandate guaranteeing the right of personal property and earned wealth protection.


Air Head: A flighty scatterbrained simpleton. ;)
 
voting citizens and representatives


Hmmmmm just what the word Democracy said is a type of democracy
 
Ralph said:
Exactly: Why then do you wish to remove republican values from this nation. Something that is guaranteed via Constitutional Mandate? FYI: Republican representation is not MAJORITY rule as you have opined. Why did you declare Hillary the winner because she had the most votes? You did not accept the rule of law as defined via Republican rule......the Electoral College majority.

You self contradict your own argument. As explained.....the US was founded upon the better principles of both republicanism and democracy.....leaving out the part concerning a majority that would attempt to take away the rights of property and earned wealth from those you have defined as evil because they have exercised the rights provided via constitutional mandate.


Air Head: A flighty scatterbrained simpleton. ;)
Click to expand...

because you shits try to leave the people voting part out asshole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top