Clinton is now your secretaryFollow

Well, now you know how normal people feel about Bush/Cheney.

Your founding fathers had some decent ideas, but they also had some spectacularly impractical ones. Stop putting them on a pedestal, you stupid ****.



Progressive taxation is such a NEW, ORIGINAL concept, isn't it, you ********

Jesus H Christ, kill yourself and any children you've spawned. The human race doesn't deserve you.

Just messing. But seriously, stop saying stupid things.

It's a fact that the Founding Fathers didn't expect that the United States would remain in the form they crafted it in nor did they expect it to keep its Constitution for 200+ years.

If Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al would actually be horrified that freely democratically elected representatives of the people might levy progressive taxes or work to guarantee levels of health care for all citizens after having been elected partially on those platforms then I say fuck 'em for being hypocrites. But I don't think they'd be all that upset.

Disclaimer: I'm not Conservative or liberal. Truth be told, I'm not even very political. I'm just saddened that some of the policies our "leaders" are trying to peddle would be flunked in a 3rd grade class as unconstitutional/ against the Bill of Rights are accepted, hell even endorsed by adults. wth?

While your constitutional law observations are just fucking FASCINATING, the idea that we should cling to the magical ideals set forth by slave owning rich white men who left England because it just wasn't uptight enough is something most of us went beyond in oh, coincidentally, grade 3. So, no, I'm not going to yearn for the days of burning witches, slaughtering indigenous people en masse because someone found a shiny rock on their land, and ******** in buckets. You can, of course, choose to do this, and I'll wave merrily as you smile at me with your wooden teeth while riding your horse drawn cartridge to the haymarket.

Never said I was against universal health care, especially for children. I have a problem with the "mandated and enforced via a fine" aspect. If someone truly can not afford it, what do you do then? You actually levy a fine on them? How will that help? I know the S-word is a hot button but when I use it (incorrectly to be sure) I'm talking about policies that don't actually solve the problem being forced on individuals.

I'm not some 100% Capitalism, ***** the poor nut-job. Government by it's very nature is socialist. I strongly believe there must be a base line of prosperity/ quality of life for every citizen. If the Government wants to ensure all children are covered I'm all for it. Use my tax dollars as you see fit, but don't infringe on my freedoms with "mandatory" and "fines". That's absurd.

As for "spreading the wealth". I have never been and from the looks of things will never be wealthy enough to be negatively affected by it. My opposition to it is a moral one. I've been more or less poor my entire life. I'd love some free money. Here's the rub. That money must come from somewhere. If they stick it to the rich and take their money and then give it to me, that's theft. I want no part of it.

If "redistribution of wealth" seems fair to the Government, then why can't I eliminate the middle man and just go rob Bill Gates? In all seriousness though, my original post was supposed to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but there are kernels of truth that I do strongly believe in there.

It's not like a completely new system is being imposed, you know. Taxation is already in place. It currently overwhelmingly favors the wealthy in real terms. What Obama actually advocates is spreading the tax burden more equitably, so the poor widow doesn't have to pay one of her two mites while the sultan pays what is to him nearly nothing.

No one in government-issued shoes is going to show up at your house and hand you cash they took from Larry Ellison's pocket, although that would be hilarious and I'd be all for it, personally. However, if ol' Larry feels the pinch of taxes to the same degree that I do, I'll be pretty happy about that.

Progressive tax policy and EIC are probably some of the most notable examples of "redistribution of wealth," instituted by Republican presidents. McCain was caught on tape some time ago defending progressive tax policies (not merely defending it, but giving the reasons for doing so in depth).

Look, the government has an obligation to promote the commonwealth of the nation. Unbridled capitalism is inherently not "fair"-- it's more often opportunism. Exploitation of the poor, ignorant, non-connected and disenfranchised breeds wealth, turning profits of dollars on the penny. Now, you could say that redistribution of wealth is unfair in the same way that breaking a game's rules is unfair.

So do you think of the economy as a game, or as a means to providing livelihood to our citizens? Or other. Heaven forbid I muscle you into a false dichotomy.