Petition to repeal the Bill of Rights

[xiggi]

Education isn't about money - maybe officials need to look around for what is actually working [even if it's in another country], and figure out how to make it work for us.
Unemployment is about money, but the government keeps subsidizing it by giving money [mostly tax breaks] to businesses who keep wages so low [and workers on part time] that people need to get food stamps to eat. WalMart is the #1 offender, but there are plenty of others. We don't like subsidizing the "lazy" [that includes elderly, children & disabled people} but we're fine with subsidizing greed? What kind of screwed up priorities are those?!
Environmental concerns? Here ya go:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-chemical-tierii-idUSBRE9670K720130708

The recent explosion in West, Tx [a really business friendly state!] that wreaked death & destruction on the whole town could [and probably will] be repeated many more times, because very few are ensuring that businesses live up to their responsibilities. They can literally get away with murder.

So we can give tax breaks to companies who employ people and put money back in the system or subsidize those who work at avoiding work, have babies that can't afford and fail to try and make a better life for themselves. No I am not including the truly needy. Maybe if we quit spending so much on those that don't deserve it we could help those that need it even more.

Again the environment has been getting cleaner for decades

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[cheri1122]

So we can give tax breaks to companies who employ people and put money back in the system

and you think I believe in fairy tales? Did you miss all the articles about what companies actually did with the huge tax breaks from the Bush era? They didn't hire people, or put it "back in the system", either - they gave juicy bonuses to the top people, and hoarded the rest. [Offshore, of course, to avoid paying taxes on it.] That has been pretty well documented, if you've been paying attention.

or subsidize those who work at avoiding work, have babies that can't afford and fail to try and make a better life for themselves. No I am not including the truly needy. Maybe if we quit spending so much on those that don't deserve it we could help those that need it even more.

Sure are a lot of moral judgements in there, like "having babies they can't afford" [oh, the irony: they should have walked themselves to the local Planned Parenthood, eh?] "fail to try and make a better life for themselves" about people you just make assumptions about. You have no idea of whether they could afford the babies they have, when they were babies, or why they had them if they couldn't [and trust me, it wasn't for the "benefits" from the government, becaus the government is both broke and stingy, esp the past decade]
I agree that we should quit spending so much on those who don't deserve it, but I think they're the ones at the top of the financial heap, [who can buy legislation and tax advice to maximize their profits] not the ones who work 24 hours a week [because that's all they can get, and another job isn't possible because the schedule changes every week] and need food stamps to feed the kids they had years ago, before their full time job was outsourced to somewhere where wages are $2.00 a day.

Again the environment has been getting cleaner for decades

But how long will that continue, when the CRs want to remove those pesky regulations that hamper business from making the most profit? And the ones that protect workers and neighborhoods from being killed or injured, too.
Ask the residents of West, Texas, how they feel about that.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[xiggi]

So we can give tax breaks to companies who employ people and put money back in the system

and you think I believe in fairy tales? Did you miss all the articles about what companies actually did with the huge tax breaks from the Bush era? They didn't hire people, or put it "back in the system", either - they gave juicy bonuses to the top people, and hoarded the rest. [Offshore, of course, to avoid paying taxes on it.] That has been pretty well documented, if you've been paying attention.

or subsidize those who work at avoiding work, have babies that can't afford and fail to try and make a better life for themselves. No I am not including the truly needy. Maybe if we quit spending so much on those that don't deserve it we could help those that need it even more.

Sure are a lot of moral judgements in there, like "having babies they can't afford" [oh, the irony: they should have walked themselves to the local Planned Parenthood, eh?] "fail to try and make a better life for themselves" about people you just make assumptions about. You have no idea of whether they could afford the babies they have, when they were babies, or why they had them if they couldn't [and trust me, it wasn't for the "benefits" from the government, becaus the government is both broke and stingy, esp the past decade]
I agree that we should quit spending so much on those who don't deserve it, but I think they're the ones at the top of the financial heap, [who can buy legislation and tax advice to maximize their profits] not the ones who work 24 hours a week [because that's all they can get, and another job isn't possible because the schedule changes every week] and need food stamps to feed the kids they had years ago, before their full time job was outsourced to somewhere where wages are $2.00 a day.

Again the environment has been getting cleaner for decades

But how long will that continue, when the CRs want to remove those pesky regulations that hamper business from making the most profit? And the ones that protect workers and neighborhoods from being killed or injured, too.
Ask the residents of West, Texas, how they feel about that.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

So I have an idea let's create a health care bill so expensive even more people go on part time. We aren't talking about someone who has one kid because of an accident. The blame lies just as much on all the baby daddies out there as well.

No they want over burdening restrictions created from unproven and false studies out of the way. Keep ignoring the fact the environment is getting cleaner. Doing better in life is a choice in many cases and I am but one example I regret not attending college to this day.

Your really good at avoiding facts. This country cannot be run by doing things because it makes someone's heart feel better. The money simply is not there every new law enacted because of it sends us further and further into debt.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[paullud]

They didn't hire people, or put it "back in the system", either - they gave juicy bonuses to the top people, and hoarded the rest. [Offshore, of course, to avoid paying taxes on it.] That has been pretty well documented, if you've been paying attention.

I believe you are confused or got your news from liars. The money companies have off shore was earned in another country and tax breaks here had nothing to do with it so they have no duty or obligation to bring it back. They are leaving it there because of the abusive tax system we have but there is no legal or moral issue, it is just smart. The big bonuses paid to CEO's are a way to keep the top guys at your company and an incentive to keep them bringing in business.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[cheri1122]

Sure, P, the tax cuts worked so well at reducing unemployment, we've been in a recession worse than any since the big one: Depression.
And for mostly the same reasons: business is buying legislation that benefits them.
And those mega million dollar bonuses make US companies the most productive anywhere, which is why they're hiring people at decent wages right?
Pay no attention to all the high profile bankruptcies & bailouts - they can explain, no doubt, why the leaders still deserved the bazillion dollar paydays.

 

[xiggi]

Sure, P, the tax cuts worked so well at reducing unemployment, we've been in a recession worse than any since the big one: Depression.
And for mostly the same reasons: business is buying legislation that benefits them.
And those mega million dollar bonuses make US companies the most productive anywhere, which is why they're hiring people at decent wages right?
Pay no attention to all the high profile bankruptcies & bailouts - they can explain, no doubt, why the leaders still deserved the bazillion dollar paydays.

We have been in this recesion ecause we have an inept leader who knows nothing about business.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[paullud]

Sure, P, the tax cuts worked so well at reducing unemployment, we've been in a recession worse than any since the big one: Depression.
And for mostly the same reasons: business is buying legislation that benefits them.
And those mega million dollar bonuses make US companies the most productive anywhere, which is why they're hiring people at decent wages right?
Pay no attention to all the high profile bankruptcies & bailouts - they can explain, no doubt, why the leaders still deserved the bazillion dollar paydays.

I am not saying that as an American taxpayer I support the idea of huge CEO bonuses or even regular employee bonuses paid by companies we bailed out but the CEO brought in huge amounts of cheap capital, they did their job.

The reason for the continued poor unemployment numbers has nothing to do with tax cuts, it is the tax increases that are causing problems. A company paying more money than they need to in order to get a job done is wasting money in most cases. We deal with it everyday when some buffoon comes in to the industry not knowing what they are doing. They figure that when they were running for company ABC they got paid $1.50/mile so they start bidding loads at that rate and of course brokers now expect everyone to be that dumb. As aggravating as it is I can't blame the broker just as I can't blame the CEO, the fault lies with the driver or employee willing to work cheaply.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[cheri1122]

So I have an idea let's create a health care bill so expensive even more people go on part time.

That's a really bad idea, dude. How about we figure out what other countries are doing to control the cost of healthcare, [which is the bottom line issue], and see how we could adapt it to work for us? Because what we've been doing isn't working well at all, for the average person.

We aren't talking about someone who has one kid because of an accident. The blame lies just as much on all the baby daddies out there as well.

Why do you assume the people should be blamed for not being able to find a job that keeps them above poverty level, when there's so much evidence that it's not their fault?

No they want over burdening restrictions created from unproven and false studies out of the way.

That is true in trucking, but business in general wants a whole lot of regulation removed, and the thing about regulation is that someone found it necessary to create it. Do you trust business to "do the right thing"? I don't, because history shows that most will do whatever they can to increase profit, even if it endangers the health and safety of people.

Keep ignoring the fact the environment is getting cleaner.

Keep insisting that because it is, [thanks to regulation], we should relax and trust corporate interests to watch out for us.

Doing better in life is a choice in many cases and I am but one example I regret not attending college to this day.

Do you think it would have made a difference? And why not go now? Student loan rates are about to double, [because the generous government is broke, lol] but if you want to do it, you could. I went to nursing school when I was almost 40, and CDL school at almost 50, what's your excuse?

Your really good at avoiding facts. This country cannot be run by doing things because it makes someone's heart feel better. The money simply is not there every new law enacted because of it sends us further and further into debt.

It has nothing to do with how anyone's heart feels, ok? It has to do with the essential premise of the Founding Fathers: that all men are created equal, and no one should be allowed to take advantage of anyone else because they have a lot more wealth. Corporations are doing precisely that, by buying legislation from corrupt officials who will then benefit by going to work [if you call it that] for those same corporations when they leave the public trough.
This is not the country we should be, or even the one we were a few decades ago, when people who wanted to work had no problem finding a job that paid enough to live a decent [if modest] life. Every pursuit of happiness begins with a job, and that's where we are failing.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[cheri1122]

P: the people who run [or work] cheap do it because they can't afford to hold out for the big picture - they need to eat today.
And there's just waaaay too many of those people in the US today.

 

[xiggi]

P: the people who run [or work] cheap do it because they can't afford to hold out for the big picture - they need to eat today.
And there's just waaaay too many of those people in the US today.

Or perhaps they don't see the big picture

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[cheri1122]

We have been in this recesion ecause we have an inept leader who knows nothing about business.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

It's time to quit bashing Bush already.

 

[cheri1122]

Or perhaps they don't see the big picture

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

Either way, principles don't pay the bills, but cheap freight will, if they can just get enough of it. People generally want to work, earn their own way, pay their own bills - that's the fundamental nature of most people that the CRs pretend doesn't exist.

 

[paullud]

P: the people who run [or work] cheap do it because they can't afford to hold out for the big picture - they need to eat today.
And there's just waaaay too many of those people in the US today.

Agreed, there are way to many idiots getting involved in the industry that have no business mind or knowledge, they are here for the freedom.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[davekc]

Both democrats and republicans are to blame for what you see today. Personal legislation is what drives most of it. Cheri is correct in that some large corporations abuse the system. No question about it. The reality is it is a very small percentage overall but get the most media attention when they go under or are found corrupt.
They represent roughly 5 percent of the economy so their impact has little to do with unemployment. Most employers are small businesses. A global market is what drives wages whether it is the assembly line guy or a corporate leader. Wages aren't just set by big business in the US. If one thinks that, they are looking through a very narrow prism.

As for environmental regulations, they usually end up hurting the poor. Not a place I would give democrats a pass. Look at the "war on coal". You are going to eliminate pretty decent jobs for starters, but the real impact will be felt right through peoples utility bills. Guess who is first in line to feel the impact? Yep those electric bills will likely double from where they are currently at.

 

[Turtle]

It has nothing to do with how anyone's heart feels, ok? It has to do with the essential premise of the Founding Fathers: that all men are created equal, and no one should be allowed to take advantage of anyone else because they have a lot more wealth.

Wow. Agendized politically correct revisionist history at its finest.

While it's true that all men are created equal, that doesn't mean that all mean are entitled to be kept equal for their entire lives. You're either confusing liberal Utopian Socialism with conservative Founding Fatherism, or you are trying to convince people they are one in the same.

Context is important...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Being created equal means you have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It does not mean you have the right to attain happiness... or wealth.

Also, the Founding Fathers never once said no one should be allowed to take advantage of anyone else because they have a lot more wealth. Most of the Founding Fathers got to where they were because they did exactly that. A great many of them attained their wealth thanks to slavery and taking advantage of the poor, and the Constitution of 1787 aimed to keep it that way by counting slaves a 3/5 of a person for the purposes of district representation. Of all the men widely regarded as being a Founding Father, twice as many owned slaves as those who did not.

Thomas Jefferson, in his Inaugural Address stated, "a wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” Samuel Adams wrote, "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary and despotic."

I can cite many more of you like, but these are typical of the sentiment of the Founding Fathers and they in no way imply that "all men area created equal" is supposed to mean Utopian Socialism should rule and that wealth shouldn't be wielded against those who don't possess it.

 

[LDB]

Things would likely improve if every law applied equally to every individual, including the 546.

 

[Maverick]

Things would likely improve if every law applied equally to every individual, including the 546.

And that's the big one. The two tiered system is set up and running, though not quite complete. American workers have been slaves for years and don't even know it. You are a slave to labor, taxes, fractional reserve banking, laws which only apply to the unwashed masses etc......

The banks and cooperation's are your slave masters, and it matters little which party you speak of because they are underneath the above two entities. It all clears up once you apply this fact....but remains cloudy if one actually believes the 546 run anything. They are benefactors of the system they helped create, and we ain't seen nuthin yet.

 

[cheri1122]

Wow. Agendized politically correct revisionist history at its finest.

While it's true that all men are created equal, that doesn't mean that all mean are entitled to be kept equal for their entire lives. You're either confusing liberal Utopian Socialism with conservative Founding Fatherism, or you are trying to convince people they are one in the same.

I would never advocate for socialism [although it is inherent in many of our laws and procedures] and Utopia is not even practical as a dream, much less reality.

Context is important...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Being created equal means you have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It does not mean you have the right to attain happiness... or wealth.

Of course not, especially if you believe they are interchangeable.

Also, the Founding Fathers never once said no one should be allowed to take advantage of anyone else because they have a lot more wealth. Most of the Founding Fathers got to where they were because they did exactly that. A great many of them attained their wealth thanks to slavery and taking advantage of the poor, and the Constitution of 1787 aimed to keep it that way by counting slaves a 3/5 of a person for the purposes of district representation. Of all the men widely regarded as being a Founding Father, twice as many owned slaves as those who did not.

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was their ability to put their own interests aside while they decided what form of government would be best for all the people, not just the wealthy & privileged. A bit of "do as I say, not as I do" but the protections built into our government were designed to protect even the poorest and weakest among us. The matter of slaveholding is one they disagreed on, among themselves, and even within themselves, so the 3/5 was a compromise. I suspect they knew, even if they wouldn't admit it, that slavery was going to have to end at some point, but they had enough to deal with without trying to tackle that too. even if they were willing, which they probably weren't - as you say, it benefited many of them a great deal, and there's only so far even the most selfless person will go.

Thomas Jefferson, in his Inaugural Address stated, "a wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” Samuel Adams wrote, "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary and despotic."

TJ said it very clearly: "restrain men from injuring one another" which is precisely what corrupt corporations and politicians do when they lie and mislead the people for their own benefit.
And the line about not taking from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned? Seems that's exactly what business aims to do, as far as they can get away with it, at least.
Nobody with an IQ higher than room temp believes in utopia, but redistribution of wealth is to some degree part of nearly all our commercial transactions - like insurance, and the entire tax code [flawed as it is].
If the FFs thought it's ok to use wealth against those who don't possess it, out legislative and judicial systems would not have been designed to protect those who lack wealth. Fortunately, they understood that possession of wealth is not an indication of sterling character - in fact, it's often quite the opposite.


I can cite many more of you like, but these are typical of the sentiment of the Founding Fathers and they in no way imply that "all men area created equal" is supposed to mean Utopian Socialism should rule and that wealth shouldn't be wielded against those who don't possess it.

Agree with the Utopian socialism, but strongly disagree on the wielding of wealth against those who don't possess it. That's pretty much the foundation of "no taxation without representation": might does not make right.

 

[cheri1122]

Both democrats and republicans are to blame for what you see today. Personal legislation is what drives most of it. Cheri is correct in that some large corporations abuse the system. No question about it. The reality is it is a very small percentage overall but get the most media attention when they go under or are found corrupt.

A very small percentage? Ever hear of ALEC? And that's just the tip of the iceberg, because corporate funding of legislators [AKA lobbying] is rampant, and that's hardly what I consider a "very small percentage".

They represent roughly 5 percent of the economy so their impact has little to do with unemployment.

The #1 employer in the US is the DoD. Same as in the corporate world the few at the top make billions, while the servicemembers earn enough to qualify for food stamps. if they have a family.

Most employers are small businesses.

#2 employer is WalMart. #3 is McDonald's.

A global market is what drives wages whether it is the assembly line guy or a corporate leader. Wages aren't just set by big business in the US. If one thinks that, they are looking through a very narrow prism.

A global market is extremely complex - so much so that even experts don't really understand it. And the thing about that is that in complexity, much can be hidden. [That's why corporations create so many divisions & offshoots & layers, right?] No one can argue against what they don't understand.

As for environmental regulations, they usually end up hurting the poor. Not a place I would give democrats a pass. Look at the "war on coal". You are going to eliminate pretty decent jobs for starters, but the real impact will be felt right through peoples utility bills. Guess who is first in line to feel the impact? Yep those electric bills will likely double from where they are currently at.

Pretty "decent" jobs? You did not just say that! Coal miners have one of the dirtiest, most dangerous jobs there are, both in terms of imminent hazards [like the miners who died because the corporation cut corners on safety equipment - you know, the family that practically owns W Va?] but also in long term health hazards. And you don't have to work in a coal mine to suffer for it - whole towns have higher rates of respiratory disease, and don't even get started on acid rain, which has other countries mad at us for poisoning their air and water.
Coal mining is the past, and it's bad for people and the environment - we have to do better. If the price of clean air and safe working conditions is higher utility bills, people will deal with it - it beats being poisoned by toxic air or dying in a cave in.
Which is why my Dad left WV to start a family: the coal mines are death, whether fast or slow, same end result.

 

[xiggi]

Coal mining is the past, and it's bad for people and the environment - we have to do better. If the price of clean air and safe working conditions is higher utility bills, people will deal with it - it beats being poisoned by toxic air or dying in a cave in.
.

That is one of the most ridicolus things you have said. Just pretty much quote the playbook don't you. The more of your posts I read the more I understand how much you detest the wealthy and want to point the finger in their direction for almost any problem.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.