The seven biggest economic lies

NoDrama said:

The large Corporations are able to rape and pillage because of governmental lobbying influence and corrupt government employees. While Big Time CEOs of multi billion dollar companies may be getting large bonuses and TBTF banks are gorging in tax payer funded slop troughs, it still isn't close to the occasional $2.3 TRILLION in missing funds from just one sector of government alone. You could have 23,000 different companies give their CEO's $100 million dollar bonuses for that kind of waste and fraud.

Click to expand...

So absent any regulation or goverment intervention large companies would never pollute, would never abuse their employees or customers and would treat everyone fairly and respectfully - um... no, as we see over and over again in history. If you make comparisons as you do, you do not address the statement I make that corporations are not as is so often portrayed, pillars of efficiency and precision.

Mr Neutron said:

Why do you insist on re-inventing the wheel? How did the government exist before income tax?

Click to expand...

Look it up, tariffs.

Mr Neutron said:

Taking away from person A to give to person B is THEFT. I don't care what kind spin you put on it, it is WRONG. Furthermore, our founding fathers, CLEARLY were against this.

Why do you insist on re-inventing the wheel? How did the government exist before income tax?
"NEW HI-TECH MOUSE TRAP: A mouse snatches the cheese bait, thereby tripping a motion sensor. The motion sensor triggers a satellite, tracking the mouse and warms up the particle beam weapon. When the mouse stops to enjoy his dinner, ZAP, he's goes up in a puff of smoke."
That's what your redistribution and stabilization sounds like to me. When it would be much simpler and much more efficient to let the free market reign and let people be responsible for themselves.
The first and foremost responsibility of the federal government is to protect the rights of the individual.
It is not a coincidence that the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax were passed at nearly the same time. They are linked. Both of which are not only unConstitutional but both are immoral.
I'm getting tired of reminding you that a progressive income tax, centralized credit by way of a state/central bank and a so-called free, public education are 3 of the planks in the communist manifesto. Is America a communist nation? Are you a communist? Why do you promote communist ideas?

Click to expand...

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform, nowhere do I see taxes will be uniform.

What part of this in the Constitution do you need explained.... lol @ communism.

Or are you one of those people who only like certain parts like "shall not be infringed" on arms.

ah, the less you have the more you pay!

what a great system we have currently lol.

the pyramid is held up by alot of people from whom the means of existence are being slowly taken away from them.
doing that, weakens the entire pyramid and if it continues long enough, the top will come crashing down,

NoDrama said:

Over time the money goes to the smartest players, period. The smartest players generally tend to be able to make more money than the idiots. Ever see how long those stupid people who win the lottery turn out?

Click to expand...

Nepotism, greed and being a psychopath play a huge role also. There are some very stupid wealthy people ( ex. George W. Bush ) Please give me an example of where his smart business savvy shined.

Psychopathy : a mental disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness.

Read up on some psych studies, CEO's and many people on wall street have a much higher percentage of functional psychopaths than the general public.

Willyßagseed;6462514 said:

Nepotism, greed and being a psychopath play a huge role also. There are some very stupid wealthy people ( ex. George W. Bush ) Please give me an example of where his smart business savvy shined.

Psychopathy : a mental disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deceptiveness.

Read up on some psych studies, CEO's and many people on wall street have a much higher percentage of functional psychopaths than the general public.

Click to expand...

Yeah, its called a "killer Instinct". GW Bush isn't wealthy because of what he did, he is wealthy because of his family and their influence. I doubt anyone would call Bush a brainiac, but a maniac? sure, I can see that.

Willyßagseed;6462398 said:

Look it up, tariffs.

Click to expand...

The question wasn't asked because I didn't know, it more rhetorical in nature but thank you for agreeing with me that the federal government does not need to steal the private property of it's citizens to operate.

Willyßagseed;6462452 said:

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform, nowhere do I see taxes will be uniform.

What part of this in the Constitution do you need explained.... lol @ communism.

Or are you one of those people who only like certain parts like "shall not be infringed" on arms.

Click to expand...

You need to do some more study of the Constitution, your interpretation is totally wrong. Look it up. General welfare...lol

What do I need to look up?

Peoples opinions of what it does and does not mean?

Go read all the different opinions on the General Welfare Clause, they have gone back and forth since the start of the USA and Madison's opinon is NOT the view held in case law or by the Supreme Court. Hamilton's view FTW.

Despite any opinion of general welfare it does not change what General Welfare means, it means General Welfare (aka Public Interest), not what you or James Madison think it should mean.
(One for Uncle Buck, defining a word with the word itself.)

Yes their are people who attempt to argue about the "spirit" of how General Welfare should be interpreted, these are usually the same people who refuse the same argument about the "spirit" of The Second Amendment and militias/right to bear arms.

I myself see 2 things.... "shall not be infringed" and "provide for the General Welfare". Both of those statements are not arguable on what they mean.

I swear to FSM, some "Constitutionalists" are like Religious people and the bible..... They only pay attention to the parts of their document that serves their own self interest, damn the rest of it.

Willyßagseed;6462452 said:

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I see duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform, nowhere do I see taxes will be uniform.

What part of this in the Constitution do you need explained.... lol @ communism.

Or are you one of those people who only like certain parts like "shall not be infringed" on arms.

Click to expand...

And there you have it, ladies and gents. I propose scraping the entire IRS tax code ... all 77,000 pages of it, to be replaced by a simple excise tax, also known as a sales tax. Everyone pays, with used items being exempt.

I agree the tax code needs to be fixed but, a National sales tax affects the poor much more than the wealthy. The poor have to spend all or most of their earnings just to survive.

As usual tho the Congress is lazy and delegates tax collection to the IRS, just like they got lazy and have the FED take care of our $$.

Willyßagseed;6466083 said:

What do I need to look up?

Peoples opinions of what it does and does not mean?

Go read all the different opinions on the General Welfare Clause, they have gone back and forth since the start of the USA and Madison's opinon is NOT the view held in case law or by the Supreme Court. Hamilton's view FTW.

Despite any opinion of general welfare it does not change what General Welfare means, it means General Welfare (aka Public Interest), not what you or James Madison think it should mean.
(One for Uncle Buck, defining a word with the word itself.)

Yes their are people who attempt to argue about the "spirit" of how General Welfare should be interpreted, these are usually the same people who refuse the same argument about the "spirit" of The Second Amendment and militias/right to bear arms.

I myself see 2 things.... "shall not be infringed" and "provide for the General Welfare". Both of those statements are not arguable on what they mean.

I swear to FSM, some "Constitutionalists" are like Religious people and the bible..... They only pay attention to the parts of their document that serves their own self interest, damn the rest of it.

Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 9:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Just because the majority hold a certain opinion does not make it right.
To me, General Welfare means that the federal government should not make laws that interfere with such. The exact opposite of what they have been and are doing.
What is about the 2nd Amendment that you want to change?
I have no idea what FTW, FSM or "(One for Uncle Buck, defining a word with the word itself.)" mean.
You think you know what the intent of the framers was by quoting one man. Besides Madison, try Jefferson and Adams.
Revisionists are just like religious zealots... they only pay attention to the parts of their documents that serves their own interest and bastardize the rest through construction to make it more palatable to their anti freedom views.

I want to change nothing about the second amendment, anti gun people like to try to say it was meant for militias as the intent of the framers. It is an arguable case but, it is not how it was written.
Just like General Welfare, an arguable case but not how it was written. You cannot have it both ways.

*This:Despite any opinion of general welfare it does not change what General Welfare means, it means General Welfare (aka Public Interest), not what you or James Madison think it should mean.

*What I meant is I do not give a shit who meant what about the Constitution, there are way to many arguments on both sides........I care how it was written. None of that Lawyer double speak, technical bullshit to twist a meaning for your own use.

"Shall not be infringed" and "provide for the general welfare" mean just what they say, PERIOD.

I swear to FSM ( Flying Spaghetti Monster) ........ Like some people say I swear to god.

Uncle Buck likes to point out poor English, and defining a word by using the word itself is poor English.(was getting on myself about it before UB did)





**Article 1, Section 9:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Clarified with:

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


**If we like "opinions" you do know what this was for yes (Article 1 Section 9)? Not to keep income tax out but so the Southern states did not get unfairly taxed on per slave owned. And if you want to use just how it was written, and you should, then the 16th amendment defines it better.

If you are one of those people who like to pick and choose ... 13,14 and 16 are bad....... lol... too bad. They are in the Constitution, what about the people who dislike parts you like? Do they get to ignore those parts???? All or nothing, just like what I say to picky religious folk and their book.


First thing you ask somebody(Christian) calling you a sinner is if they or their spouse have ever been married and divorced (rate is high in the USA so you have a good chance one has) if so, they are living in sin and need to STFU until they fix their own situation. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Willyßagseed;6470383 said:

**If we like "opinions" you do know what this was for yes? Not to keep income tax out but so the Southern states did not get unfairly taxed on per slave owned. And if you want to use just how it was written, and you should, then the 16th amendment defines it better.

Click to expand...

Impossible, the 16th amendment came about in 1913, slaves were made illegal 70 years prior. The 16th Amendment has NOTHING to do with slaves.

Article 1 Section 9 is what I was referring to. It was put in so the south was not dis-proportionally taxed on slaves. But no matter, that is not how it was written, like I said I prefer to ignore opinions and use just the text.

16th is to clarify income taxes due to how 1/9 was written.

No Drama, I inserted in above post to clarify. The way I typed it out I see how I posted could cause confusion. I do that a lot, that is why almost every post I make is edited. I post, then I read my post and say WTF to myself and try to fix it.

Willyßagseed;6466083 said:

What do I need to look up?

Peoples opinions of what it does and does not mean?

Go read all the different opinions on the General Welfare Clause, they have gone back and forth since the start of the USA and Madison's opinon is NOT the view held in case law or by the Supreme Court. Hamilton's view FTW.

Despite any opinion of general welfare it does not change what General Welfare means, it means General Welfare (aka Public Interest), not what you or James Madison think it should mean.

Click to expand...

How could that be when James Madison is the one who wrote the Constitution? Originalism, or in the world of law the Doctrine of Original Intent, is the legal interpretation of the intent of the people who drafted the document. While I agree that there has to be a fair balance between originalism and non-originalism in order to have a completely fair and practical Supreme Court, you cannot completely abandon the intent of the framers.

University of Missoury - Kansas City Law School said:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Eight Reasons to be an Originalist[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]

1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Click to expand...

Then let us give guns only to those in the militia...... lol ( I myself believe in shall not be infringed)

When you use fair balance and original intent it can vary way too much.. there are opinions of the framers that differ enough for arguments and we end up nowhere. Again, if they intended something other than what is written they should have been more specific.

Willyßagseed;6471300 said:

Then let us give guns only to those in the militia...... lol

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that went over my head..... lol

Many, many people see the intent of right to bear arms as due to a militia, no militia = no right to bear arms. I disagree but see their point.

Willyßagseed;6471343 said:

Many, many people see the intent of right to bear arms as due to a militia, no militia = no right to bear arms. I disagree but see their point.

Click to expand...

Never heard that interpretation before...

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers​

Click to expand...