http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/422013187855
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Dick Martin <ofpgmr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lets be clear: in today's world, no one gets what they get on their own.
The community, where ever it is, provides the ability for the person
to succeed or fail. John Wayne's characters are not real life people.
He was a movie actor, who in real life dodged the draft.
Now, I will agree that some do better than others; some by luck, some by
place of birth, some by their own hard work. But no one does it on
their own.
Part of the issue is that many of those born on third base honestly
believe they hit a triple and are somehow more worthy than some poor sap
who squeaked onto first base through speed and grit.
However, in all cases, at least in America, no one believes "From each
according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That is
just a straw man put out by those who believe they hit a triple.
Most Americans believe we are a community and we take care of each other
for the good of the community. Is there anyone left in America who
believes a blind child should be institutionalized because teaching that
child is too big an expense? We take care of each other.
No, we don't confiscate wealth. We create wealth. Those who make great
wealth in this country make even greater wealth because of the taxes
they pay. Taxes are not a penalty for them, but a cost for even greater
opportunities. And, yes, I know the Koch brothers believe otherwise.
On 2/12/2012 4:41 PM, aec wrote:
On 2/12/12 4:00 PM, CRPence wrote:
On 12-Feb-2012 12:39 , Albert York wrote:
I'm not saying our Constitution isn't wonderful and the Founding
Fathers didn't put a lot of thought into it. I am NOT trashing the
Constitution. I'm just saying that there may be other ones that
would serve as a better model.
Of course, they would have to have the same rights and protections as
ours. However, they would better reflect the current times and be
more explicit where there has been confusion in ours. I know that
YOU are not confused about what the Constitution means but why should
we have to go back to writings and quotations to figure out what the
Founding Fathers meant?
I am detecting quite a bit of chauvinism in these posts. Like we did
it and it's perfect and how can you say otherwise?
And to suggest that "[o]f course, they would have to have the
same..." is not just as daft and\or chauvinistic? ;-)
---
Albert is the one who missed the point about the South African
constitution. These days, adding more "rights" like the right to have
the fruits of someone else's labor --which is what material equality
really means when they put it in there. Housing, healthcare, education,
and the vague "access" to information, these are not true "rights"
because to "recognize" them requires robbing somebody to do it.
But there is a more ominous trend in all these other new constitutions.
The NWO PTB's have made it a fad it looks like to do new constitutions.
Venezuela's is literally killing people. Their constitution requires the
press to "tell the truth". I think they even have a "MInistry of Truth"
to enforce it.
Me I was furious against truly chauvinistic attitudes of some Americans.
While I was a missionary, I met one guy who taught English in Santo
Domingo who was like that.
It's also an error to /assume/ your constitution is /not/ the best or
/couldn't/ be simply because you think it's chauvinistic to think it's
the best.
That said, I think as apparently the most non-interventionist
participant in this list, I can count myself as the least chauvinistic.
Overthrowing other bad governments is not one of my positions. The law
of unintended consequences bites you back. Has bit us back. A lot.
Here's a link to a Canadian-chauvinistic constitutional perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=1&ref=adamliptak
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=1&ref=adamliptak>
Here's the loophole through which dictators will drive freight trains
through, in the Canadian Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms:
*1. * The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable
limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free
and democratic society.
There are a couple of things I might change in ours (especially a repeal
of the Income Tax) but to rewrite it in a convention is too dangerous to
life and limb.
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
