Where is the US economy headed?

………………~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
………………..~~~~~~~~(O|O) ~~~~
…………………~~~~~ ( \~o~/ ) ~~~~
………………..LEFTIST LIBERAL NONSENSE

You forget the "pursuit of happiness" in the US Constitution so the poorer citizens can thru government tax the filthy rich.

ican keeps saying that taxation is theft, but he doesn't understand that his lies are more dangerous to his own self worth and credibility.

When have I ever said that?

As for the rape and robbery, more and more people are becoming aware that real wages for 80% of the population have remained stable since 1979. However, wages for the top quintile increased while the wages for the top 1% soared. It's a simple restatement of statistics from the Census Bureau.

It is not a lie if one believes that wealth belongs to whom ever has it. I certainly do not. I believe that wealth belongs to the collective, that individuals are allowed to hold it, and that the collective is has the right to remove it if the individual is not upholding his responsibility to the collective to use it well or if the collective has a better use for it. Paying our public debts is a better use.

I haven't been reading ican's prattle because it is prattle. I did, however, just read his post on taxes, which was different and not filled with weird typefaces and symbols.

It is obvious that he lacks a basic understanding of economics and government. He probably is aware that people can arrange things so that they demonstrate zero earnings but those are people from the upper wage levels. {The husband of a friend made his income appear as zero then sued her (a practical nurse earning $13,000/annum) for $90,000 in child support. }But ican will never admit that sort of thievery goes on among the people he admires and whose model he wishes he could follow.

I would love to pursue happiness. Perhaps, I can put together a class action suit with everyone else who is unable to.

Target Ican first.

LOL..



You said taxation was theft. You must be a complete idiot if you think you didn't say it. I made your words BIG and RED so you can see them.

They were given the power to decide what the Constitution means. The courts have the power to decide any case questioning meaning of the constitution. No one else is given that power nor can anyone else ignore that decision.

What?

Whose compensation was raised?

One of my major experiences was leading a company that had about 2,200 employees organized by the steelworkers union. (In fact it had previously been a UNMW union local, but was subsequently bought out by the Steelworkers when Ron Becker ran the union. Unions do acquisitions too.). I inherited over 900 greivances waiting for arbitration - some over six years old. The union had established a large number of what they called "binding past precedences" on work rules; one giving them the right to control job assignments, and dole them out by seniority whenever a change occurred, but without any downward adjustments in pay. The result was that whenever anyone left the company, about 50 people would change jobs as they "bumped" one another in succession; and we had some very expensive floor sweepers. Another gave the workers an hour to don protective clothing (coveralls) before entering the work area and another hour to take them off when finished. The net effect was to turn the normal incentives upside down. Pay and raises had nothing to do with productivity and performance, and they felt entitled to company supplied coffee & cokes while they sat around in a cafeteria during their two 60 minute "dressing" breaks each day. (They also got 18 paid holidays/year, and had one paid shop steward for every 70 employees.)

The company was in serious financial trouble, but the union expressed no concern over that. To save the situation, we did a major layoff of union & non-union employees; instituted profit sharing for all non-union workers and started negotiations with the Building Trades Union, based on an obscure technicality that our changing mission (under a government contract) made the work fit more closely with the latter union's charter. Frightened by our determination and the prospect of a competing union taking over, they negotiated a complete wipeout of all "past precedent" and other obnoxious rules and reduced the number of paid "shop stewards" by a factor of ten -- all for all workers under the new job categories, which we agreed to include in their scope in return. After the CBA was signed we then reclassified all workers in the new categories and had a fresh start.

In my experience the union was chronically unable to see past its immediate interests and the greed & ambition of its officers. I had an excellent object lesson in how unions have destroyed the economic competitiveness of the now departed manufacturing and textile industries in this country.

REDISTRIBUTED TAXATION IS CURRENTLY THEFT.
Redistributive taxation is taxation which the government unlawfully takes from those who earn it and gives to those who do not earn it. Therefore, redistributed taxation is theft.

Not paying your taxes is theft.

The Supreme Court was granted the power by the Constitution to decide what the Constitution means as adopted and amended. It was not given the power to change its meaning.

I'm sure ican can point out where congress has "changed its meaning." I would like to see a chronological study done of both parties who have "changed its meaning," and what laws were broken.

True, but the court has taken this power, it has gone over the line into work that is supposed to be done in the Legislative branch. However, given that the Legislature is broken it is not clear to me that the people are prepared to object. I certainly do.

Redistributed is nothing more than an adjective you put in front of "taxation". The Constitution doesn't say "only some taxes" or "all taxes but "redistributed" ones.

The Constitution says this..

You can whine and try to change meanings all you want Ican. That statement is pretty clear. There is no restriction on it being a tax Ican likes. It can collect all the taxes it wants to with the only restriction being how the tax has to be apportioned.

It's obvious you don't give a damn about your country or your constitution ican.

Gee... That's funny coming from you ican..

So then tell us where the Constitution states any kind of taxation is theft.

Interpretation is a large area. To you it may mean 'changing the meaning' but interpreting clarifies the meaning. The DNA is an example of interpreting differences in populations around the world. The gene expressions account for the "racial" concepts. But race is superficial grouping of people. DNA shows there is no such thing as 'race'. I call this interpretation but your tunnel vision says it is "changing of meaning" of 'race'. The Supreme Court takes the large concept and interpret matters which maybe too large for your brain to conceive.