The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on June 15, 2011, 04:55:50 PM
-
RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun-15-11 01:46 PM
Original message
We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.
Our original constitution helped us move away from government of the 'divine' (monarchical) to government by/for/of the general populace. It has been an amazing run and we have evolved as a nation. Our constitution is now the template for a free, democratic society, and justifiably so. In order to continue our evolution, a new agreement must be created.
We have learned, painfully, that aristocracy is not always comprised of those of 'noble and divine' birth. It is now possible to become an aristocrat - with a corresponding permanent underclass - through the accumulation of wealth. Furthermore, the nature of our economy is such that not only does it 'take money to make money', but 'the more you have the more you make'. This second point is being demonstrated today by an ever increasing spiral of wealth that is sucking up the remaining economy.
A new constitution must establish, somehow, checks and balances on the accumulation of power - whether by wealth, control of utilities, private armies, or any other means. We must forbid the very existence of power concentration, establish a means to break it up, and find ways to keep it distributed appropriately. I do not mean extreme socialism, communism, or anything else and I do not want everyone in gray smocks riding gray buses. Our new constitution must land us somewhere between the absurd of USA 2011 and the absurd of '1984'. I hope our future luminaries have the courage - and education - to sort this out and save our nation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1301203
Nothing wrong with the Constitution we have now, the problem lies with the segment of the population that thinks they are owed something just because their mothers decided not to abort them.
Blue Meany (819 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun-15-11 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Personally, I think there should be an upper limit on individual
wealth. Even if the rich didn't control public policy--and I think they would find a way around any legal restrictions as long as they had the money to do so--they still have too much control over the economy and run it without regard to the impact on the population.
Sure let's have the govt decide just how much one person can have. :banghead:
-
That worked so well in NK, USSR, Cuba..and a few others.
-
limit on wealth = limit on economic activity
As soon as the wealth limit is hit activity will cease.
Just like gov't spending on health care is also a limit. As soon as that is hit the doctors stop seeing patients because no body works for free.
It also drives up prices because people want as big a slice of the limited pie before it runs out and they want more than the other pie-nibblers. No rational person works hard to be No. 9,354.
The best way to control "excessive" wealth is to allow consumers to decide how much they are willing to pay for a certain thing. If they do not value it or the price is too high they will not purchase it. It is then incumbent upon the producer to increase the value or reduce the price. What the producer loses in higher cost or lower price they can make up for by reaching a larger share of the market as they strive, by natural inclination, to be No. 1.
And it can all happens without government intervention.
It's called a free-market.
-
What the DUmmie really means to say is:
Damn you democrat politicians, you aren't stealing enough from the worker/producers and forwarding it fast enough to us the tit sucking democrat voter.
-
That worked so well in NK, USSR, Cuba..and a few others.
It's not hard to do when the people have nothing.
Our new constitution must land us somewhere between the absurd of USA 2011 and the absurd of '1984'.
:mental:
-
Blue Meany (819 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun-15-11 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Personally, I think there should be an upper limit on individual
wealth. Even if the rich didn't control public policy--and I think they would find a way around any legal restrictions as long as they had the money to do so--they still have too much control over the economy and run it without regard to the impact on the population.
So you would have capped Pelosi's $20 million salary, right?
-
So you would have capped Pelosi's $20 million salary, right?
I think a good law would be that senators, congressman and the president can earn no other income than government salary for the time they are in office.
-
Our new constitution must land us somewhere between the absurd of USA 2011 and the absurd of '1984'.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the only thing I would expect to find between the absurd and the absurd is more absurd.
-
It's not hard to do when the people have nothing.
:mental:
They got that way from what the ass-hat is advocating.
What ever they had was redistributed.
If you owned anything, it was too much.
-
The stupid is strong in that DUche.
-
private armies
I sure wish the DUmbass would expand on this one.
-
limit on wealth = limit on economic activity
As soon as the wealth limit is hit activity will cease.
Just like gov't spending on health care is also a limit. As soon as that is hit the doctors stop seeing patients because no body works for free.
It also drives up prices because people want as big a slice of the limited pie before it runs out and they want more than the other pie-nibblers. No rational person works hard to be No. 9,354.
The best way to control "excessive" wealth is to allow consumers to decide how much they are willing to pay for a certain thing. If they do not value it or the price is too high they will not purchase it. It is then incumbent upon the producer to increase the value or reduce the price. What the producer loses in higher cost or lower price they can make up for by reaching a larger share of the market as they strive, by natural inclination, to be No. 1.
And it can all happens without government intervention.
It's called a free-market.
What you just posted is common sense. Too bad it isn't more common.
-
I sure wish the DUmbass would expand on this one.
I think the private army he's talking about is how Blackwater operatives helped us kill muzzies.
Democrats hate anything that helps put holes in muzzie carcasses.
-
RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-15-11 01:46 PM
Original message
We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.
Our original constitution helped us move away from government of the 'divine' (monarchical) to government by/for/of the general populace. It has been an amazing run and we have evolved as a nation. Our constitution is now the template for a free, democratic society, and justifiably so. In order to continue our evolution, a new agreement must be created.
Wow?! Really??? We need a new Constitution? A template for a free, democratic society?
This just goes to show you how "primitive" the DUmmies really are.
-
RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jun-15-11 01:46 PM
Original message
We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.
What you advocate is what the Bolsheviks did. Destroy the wealthy, and anyone associated with them, and anyone even remotely suspected of being 'counterrevolutionary.' The result? Millions shot, worked to death in labor camps and starved.
-
RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-15-11 01:46 PM
Original message
We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.
I can see the logic behind this idea, though it should never be done.
If it were to be done, you'd have to recognize that the vast majority of Americans are relatively happy and "wealthy" by DUmmy standards.
So by far the most efficient way to address wealth concentration would be to eliminate the unproductive impoverished minority.
That would eliminate the perceived injustice of some people being wealthy and productive while others envy their success.
Bottom line would be no DUmmies, no poverty, no envy. Sweet.
-
I can see the logic behind this idea, though it should never be done.
If it were to be done, you'd have to recognize that the vast majority of Americans are relatively happy and "wealthy" by DUmmy standards.
So by far the most efficient way to address wealth concentration would be to eliminate the unproductive impoverished minority.
That would eliminate the perceived injustice of some people being wealthy and productive while others envy their success.
Bottom line would be no DUmmies, no poverty, no envy. Sweet.
They would still envy anyone with even a dollar more than they have.
-
They would still envy anyone with even a dollar more than they have.
GoBucks was proposing the removal of the DUmmies, so they would no longer be around to be envious, I think.
-
GoBucks was proposing the removal of the DUmmies, so they would no longer be around to be envious, I think.
Oh no, I would not propose they be removed. That would be unkind. It grew from a DUmmy idea.
I was just speculating on how one would go about doing what the DUmbass proposed, i.e., a new constitution to eliminate the envy DUmmies feel because normal people have more wealth than they do.
Since there are far more normal people than DUmmies, it would make sense to take the most efficient approach.
-
RadiationTherapy
A new constitution must establish, somehow, checks and balances on the accumulation of power - whether by wealth, control of utilities, private armies, or any other means. We must forbid the very existence of power concentration, establish a means to break it up, and find ways to keep it distributed appropriately. I do not mean extreme socialism, communism, ...
So the solution of attaining "checks and balances on the accumulation of power" is to establish a new constitution which gives gov't enough power to forbid the accumulation of power by others. And this newlyfound constitutional gov't won't ever ventue into extreme socialism or communism or any other type of absolute rule, but it will hold just enough power to keep other potential power grabbers at bay.
OK. :mental:
.
-
I'm not real clear on the difference between communism and extreme communism.
-
I'm not real clear on the difference between communism and extreme communism.
One kills millions and the other, more extreme, kills millions plus one.
-
The irradiated primitive needs to be subject to extreme irradiation.
How much again, Sparky?
-
So the solution of attaining "checks and balances on the accumulation of power" is to establish a new constitution which gives gov't enough power to forbid the accumulation of power by others. And this newlyfound constitutional gov't won't ever ventue into extreme socialism or communism or any other type of absolute rule, but it will hold just enough power to keep other potential power grabbers at bay.
OK. :mental:
.
There's one thing I've noticed about all DUmmies that pop up with that crap.
They all see themselves as being part of the regulatory body.
Not one of the minions, mind you, but, part of the power structure.
One of the elite dispensing alms to the supplicants.
-
The irradiated primitive needs to be subject to extreme irradiation.
How much again, Sparky?
Why ask him when you've got nadin?
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1301203
Nothing wrong with the Constitution we have now, the problem lies with the segment of the population that thinks they are owed something just because their mothers decided not to abort them.
Sure let's have the govt decide just how much one person can have. :banghead:
I think I speak for all of us that this ain't the first time they called for this.
-
Sure let's have the govt decide just how much one person can have.
That is the foundation upon which the democrat party was built.
-
RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jun-15-11 01:46 PM
Original message
We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.
I agree, DUmbass, we do.
We need a Constitution that states, in no uncertain terms, that "general welfare" does not mean what you leeches think it means and we need address how you're trying to "concentrate" my wealth into your worthless hands.
-
I agree, DUmbass, we do.
We need a Constitution that states, in no uncertain terms, that "general welfare" does not mean what you leeches think it means and we need address how you're trying to "concentrate" my wealth into your worthless hands.
I'd like to add that this new constitution needs to unequivocably state that self-defense with a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, both against individuals and the government. If one can vote, one can open or concealed carry.
-
I agree, DUmbass, we do.
We need a Constitution that states, in no uncertain terms, that "general welfare" does not mean what you leeches think it means and we need address how you're trying to "concentrate" my wealth into your worthless hands.
Uh huh.
The primitives think that "general welfare" meant the same thing in 1787, that the term means today.
If that'd been the case, primitives would've been riding the gravy train since, oh, 1807 or something.
-
\
Uh huh.
The primitives think that "general welfare" meant the same thing in 1787, that the term means today.
If that'd been the case, primitives would've been riding the gravy train since, oh, 1807 or something.
It does only say "to promote the general welfare", but it says to provide for the common defense. By that, I always assumed it meant that the government was to stay out of the way of people pursuing their own happiness.
-
It does only say "to promote the general welfare", but it says to provide for the common defense. By that, I always assumed it meant that the government was to stay out of the way of people pursuing their own happiness.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I'm interpreting the term "general welfare" to mean something like giving the people the fullest freedom possible to attain both personal and collective fulfillment. On their own.