CNBC's "secret" meeting

[Burtakus]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Obama is a duly elected president. The taxes and stimulus bills were lawfully passed through duly elected congress. The analogy to boston tea party is grossly inappropriate.

The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation.

I would propose that we are at or near that point today.

Today the people that actually pay taxes are the minority out of the population eligible to vote. What this means is that those that fund the union do not have enough voting power to elect the politicians who will spend the money in accordance with their desires.

What you have is a situation where those that have no skin in the game or stake in the system get to make the decisions for those that do. To me this equates to taxation without representation because I as a tax payer am not represented in congress.

Until the majority of voting population are net tax payers we will never have reduced deficits, reduced taxes, or reduced government.

 

[Ghostdog]

Nothing like a healthy rise of socialism during an economic downturn. I going on record as saying Charlie Brown will say Good Grief

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Burtakus:

The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation.

I would propose that we are at or near that point today.

Today the people that actually pay taxes are the minority out of the population eligible to vote. What this means is that those that fund the union do not have enough voting power to elect the politicians who will spend the money in accordance with their desires.

What you have is a situation where those that have no skin in the game or stake in the system get to make the decisions for those that do. To me this equates to taxation without representation because I as a tax payer am not represented in congress.

Until the majority of voting population are net tax payers we will never have reduced deficits, reduced taxes, or reduced government.

You are absolutely GD right!

 

[jficquette]

Quote from Burtakus:

The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation.

I would propose that we are at or near that point today.

Today the people that actually pay taxes are the minority out of the population eligible to vote. What this means is that those that fund the union do not have enough voting power to elect the politicians who will spend the money in accordance with their desires.

What you have is a situation where those that have no skin in the game or stake in the system get to make the decisions for those that do. To me this equates to taxation without representation because I as a tax payer am not represented in congress.

Until the majority of voting population are net tax payers we will never have reduced deficits, reduced taxes, or reduced government.

Thats why I think the tax code is unconstitutional now because it puts too much on too small of a minority.

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from Burtakus:

The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation.

I would propose that we are at or near that point today.

Today the people that actually pay taxes are the minority out of the population eligible to vote. What this means is that those that fund the union do not have enough voting power to elect the politicians who will spend the money in accordance with their desires.

What you have is a situation where those that have no skin in the game or stake in the system get to make the decisions for those that do. To me this equates to taxation without representation because I as a tax payer am not represented in congress.

Until the majority of voting population are net tax payers we will never have reduced deficits, reduced taxes, or reduced government.

Excellent post!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Burtakus:

The Boston tea party was about taxation without representation.

I would propose that we are at or near that point today.

Today the people that actually pay taxes are the minority out of the population eligible to vote. What this means is that those that fund the union do not have enough voting power to elect the politicians who will spend the money in accordance with their desires.

What you have is a situation where those that have no skin in the game or stake in the system get to make the decisions for those that do. To me this equates to taxation without representation because I as a tax payer am not represented in congress.

Until the majority of voting population are net tax payers we will never have reduced deficits, reduced taxes, or reduced government.

One of the best posts ever.

Of course, the Founding Fathers were not idiots. They were well-educated and fully understood the threat of the voting majority helping themselves to the income and wealth of the minority. They included numerous protections in the Constitution, but they have been swept away by compliant judges, venal congressmen and presidents and foolish voters.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

One of the best posts ever.

Of course, the Founding Fathers were not idiots. They were well-educated and fully understood the threat of the voting majority helping themselves to the income and wealth of the minority. They included numerous protections in the Constitution, but they have been swept away by compliant judges, venal congressmen and presidents and foolish voters.

No matter how bright, the founding fathers were 18-19th century men, that is their limitation. They did not foresee a lot of things such as creation of political parties but the most important thing they could not foresee was the development of US into an empire, consolidation of federal power to guide this development and the profound expansion of the presidency that went hand in hand with the aforementioned processes.

 

[brocklanders]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

No matter how bright, the founding fathers were 18-19th century men, that is their limitation. They did not foresee a lot of things such as creation of political parties but the most important thing they could not foresee was the development of US into an empire, consolidation of federal power to guide this development and the profound expansion of the presidency that went hand in hand with the aforementioned processes.

The Founding Fathers most certainly envisioned political parties and also knew the dangers of an unchecked powerful federal government. Washington despised political parties so to say they could not "foresee" them is flat out wrong. What you see as their "limitation" is what actually made them so brilliant. This empire that you point out so proudly is also bankrupting our country by the way.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from brocklanders:

The Founding Fathers most certainly envisioned political parties and also knew the dangers of an unchecked powerful federal government. Washington despised political parties so to say they could not "foresee" them is flat out wrong. What you see as their "limitation" is what actually made them so brilliant. This empire that you point out so proudly is also bankrupting our country by the way.

Oh really? Madison envisioned "ambition versus ambition" but could not foresee his feud with hamilton. I could give a trillion examples of flaws of the founding fathers but it is pointless to do so here.

 

[brocklanders]

I can think of 11 trillion reasons why you are wrong.