I remember when this happened and I’m pretty sure it had the opposite effect. After that proposal all my friends in middle school would go to 7 Eleven to buy Double Gulps or XL Slurpees once a week, and order the largest most sugary drink at movies and restaurants just to spite him. And I’m sure we weren’t the only ones
Communism managed to make this egalitarian: take ALL of EVERYBODY'S money! (Though that's only egalitarian if you assume there are no preexisting differences in how much people care about money)
Have you ever seen the political compass? If you have then you would understand liberals would be left leaning conservatives right leaning Libertarianism is a spectrum made up of both left and right wing people the only common factor is the love for liberty, rejection of tyranny, and the adherence to the Non Agression Principle
"Treat everyone the same" No, because everyone is not the same. If everyone was the same, there'd be one religion, one party, one marriage practice, one nation, etc.
Before the law, is the angle they're going for, I think. If most people from your neighbourhood grow up to be criminals it wouldn't follow that it's worth locking all of you up just incase.
Dude, think about this for a second - this video is a satire against those who are making these arguments. The video is basically accusing others of being childish by making a childish song that speaks with their voice and makes their arguments. It's really not that complex, but apparently it still managed to zoom over your head.
"I really don't get this complain of taxing the 1%" Well, most don't earn an income. Most have already has to work hard to get where they are, including being a 99%er and being taxed all that money you have been. If you have problems with loopholes (not business deductions, but actual loopholes) you are in the same company as JFK and Reagan. But to treat everybody equally is to tax everybody a flat percent, no matter their income. You earn $1 or $1 mill, you get taxes 10%. I'd agree with that.
If you listen to Yaron Brook, he makes a pretty strong case for the morality of Capitalism. It isn't amoral, it's THE moral system. All other systems are immoral, according to him. I tend to agree.
income tax is socialist. america did just fine without income tax before 1913. our tax should not be a graduated income tax. the only reason we have an income tax was to tax "free income" that people recieved from the federal reserve. in the begining of this country the only kind of tax there was at the federal level was capitation tax, that is, the tax that was owed by every state was a direct function of the population of those states. we ought to return to capitation tax, and let the states
I'm not shooting the messenger, so much as the folks underwriting delivery of the message. If you think there's no connection between the two, then you're sadly mistaken.
I just said a few examples, I can name more if you wish. Claiming the marital communications privilege, obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse, visiting rights in jails hospitals and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family, ability to sue for wrongful death of a spouse. Tax privilages, burial rights (burial rights were successfully attacked using the Utah law, these women even had a notarized contract and family permission for burial rights)
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. Milton Friedman The occupy movement however promotes big government and cronyism that breaks this truth by Friedman. Only under the policies promoted by OWS people can commodities (trade) be forced regardless if one party benefits or not. It's not the 1% screwing you, it's the authoritarians you call your friends.
"Married" as a classification of citizen to be treated separate itself violates equality before the law. It is plainly not the business to recognize a distinct class of citizen for unique treatment. The legal aspect of marriage is entirely constructed within contract law and free association, and what people choose to call those associations is their business(an object outside of law).
The constitution states that any state can pass whatever law it wants as long as it doesn't violate federal law and where in the constitution does it give the power to the the federal government to establish a law preventing a ban on same-sex marriage?
If you're speaking of only the highest bracket, 7% was the lowest. It varied between that, 67%, and 25% in the 20's. 1988 had 28% rate. 1991 31%. Must take into account loopholes and different definitions of income over the years. Regardless, our corporate tax is the highest in the world. (except for those lucky cronies with special favors)
Asher Hewer No, it teaches them to recognize double standards and that double standards are bad. If you explain that to them first, they’ll get the point.
I was really commenting within the current system. If they want to complain about "high taxes" and the "rich create jobs" then they really have no grounds complain. We should be drowning in jobs if what they say is true. More tax cuts is not going to do it. If we are keeping with the current system, then rate increases is better. If reform is the route, then I support the fair tax.
Also Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Santorum, Ryan, McCain, Bachmann and many others oppose civil unions (ps, I attempted to research to confirm these and to the best of my knowledge they do oppose civil unions)
I meant grown up "children" like the ones who need to stay on mommy and daddy's health insurance until they're 26. Yes, now in Obamaville, you are officially a child up to age 26.
"Married people pay less taxes" A violation of the equalk protection clause in the Constitution. "they can share insurance" Private business can do that. "and visit eachother in the hospital" Private hospital can do that, gov't hospital can't do it "and visit eachother in the hospital" Gray area, but if one person can't be compelled because of a gov't paper giving them special privilege... get it?
And I really did not want personal beliefs to come into rational debate but since you brought it up. I am an atheist, gay, Marine, Iraq War veteran, entrepreneur among other things, but I do not like to define myself by these things and fall into identity politics. Most of all I simply want to be treated as an equal citizen, and I understand that there are different points of view on equality as well as different routes, but more states ban civil unions than offer it.
Actually, I stand corrected. Romney does say that he is against civil unions, so you are right. As a libertarian, I wold have preferred both candidates to say that the government should be in the business of recognizing any marriages or civl unions are anything like that. The government shouldn't care who is living with who and what those people call that arrangement, whether it's called marriage or anything else. Why does the government concern itself with these things?
Equal right under what law? Anyway, I'm not sure you are really answer ing my question. Let's keep it simple. Why is it important to you to have the government recognize wether or not you are married and to whom? Why is that important?
"I don't care about the Constitution" I forget that not everybody isn't based in the USA (though, that's where ReasonTV is). The Constitution is supossed to guard against privilege of one person or group over another (equality under the law - Amendment 14, Section 1). Thus a law covering a married couple should, by law, cover single people as well. As for the right not to testify, you have that and here the Constitution recognizes it (Amendment 5). My cut & Paste was not working properly.
Capitalism is not about money per se,but about value.Money is just the most common mode of storing value so that material goods can be exchanged.That people will give up a higher salary for other benefits is not new and has been known for centuries.If you follow sports you will notice that top athletes will take pay cuts just to join a championship potential team.Ethical behavior follows the laws of supply and demand.If people value it those who perform it will be rewarded.
ps More states have outright banned same sex unions of any kind than those that have voted to allow them. It's the religious right that is expanding government on this issue more than those who advocate marriage equality. And I consider this an equal protection issue, and thus a civil liberties issue and as such is one of the few areas that I am okay with the government protecting. Most libertarians (not all) believe that civil liberty protections is one of the few correct roles of government.
I would prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. At the fundamentals of that argument of taxing the rich more, people are saying the individuals don't have the right to their property and abundance is an excuse to steal. There is no such thing as moral theft. The only legit grievance against the rich who have broken laws to achieve their wealth. The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit. Milton Friedman
Yeah, I guess that's why they have those ultra-secret conferences in remote locations for their super-rich donors... because they don't "hide" their ideas. I guess that's why they're always being interviewed on TV and at academic conferences, forums and such to discuss their ideas...
I've heard that the one percent have around 35% of the wealth yet they pay over half of the overall taxes. So yes, you're right, they're the ones being treated unequally.
Also in the state of Utah where I live, not only can I not get married or acivil union, but due to the religious right pushing one of the most extreme marriage bans in the union, courts cannot grant "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" to anything that is not 1 Man 1 Woman. This means, according many constitutional scholars I have talked to including the LP Utah candidate for AG, that even contracts such as powers of attorney or visitation may be invalidated in Utah.
yo I was about to use this for my project then I was like something's off in this so I watched and listened to It and I was like I knew it that was a close one
Well the best thing to do is hope for is a polycentric legal system. The community/society can live by its own moral code (such as keeping definition of man/woman in which everyone agrees and follows) and not bother with other societies that think otherwise (where the definition is subjective when the bond is consensual by any 2 or more adults). That way they won't have to interfere with each others' activities.
Treat every body equal... unless they are single... they are different. They don't get the same rights as married people.. so... Treat everybody equal... unless they are gay, women, black, hispanic, poor, rich, white, green (technology), muslim, certain animal species... You get the drift.
Well dammit I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I hereby, whole-heartedly apologize to the puppets for calling them cartoon characters and sincerely regret any emotional stress that I may have caused them or their puppet families.
DOMA, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment are two examples of an attempt at that. Also States cannot pass any law, that is a misconception held by many, The States cannot violate the 14th amendment, and also must have the power they are attempting to use in their laws granted to the state by their Constitutions, only if BOTH of these requirements are met can they make a law. Thank you CATO for that last lesson!
BTW, you say that the right treats gays equally, and that gays can get civil unions. But not only does the right fight civil unions every time they come up, but also almost as many places don't have civil unions as those who don't have marriage equality (btw, I know that reads weird and is probably a perfect example of poor grammar). And I would be more than happy with a compromise leaving marriages to private institution and only granting civil unions from the government.
This is why flat-rate taxes work best when based on which bracket each dollar was earned. (Still progressive tax) ie, everyone's first 12k is tax free, everyone's earnings from 12,001-50k, taxed at 10%. then everyone's earnings from 50,001-200k, taxed at 25%. And so on. This way everyone is in the same and multiple tax brackets, just your higher earnings are higher rates. Now its currently just based on gross earnings causing incentives for fraud. Which is bs from the go.
trust me, the second the Koch's global interests were threatened they would definitely be advocating foreign interventionism. they may not do so loudly or publicly, but yeah.
I think if more people fought to end the laws you identified rather than advocating for more government, there might be a lot more people willing to back that. Anyway, we agree that government should be smaller and I think we agree that government ideally should not be involved in marriage. I don't think the laws you mentioned were put into play specifically to penalize gays. Nevertheless, I agree that they should be eliminated. My goal is to get government out of my life, not further into it.
I do prefer small government and getting government out of the picture is my true goal. I do realize that it may make in someways bigger, but I do not see many people on the other side of the issue pushing for govt neutrality on marriage. Because of this the only feasible way that I see to help real people achieve equality is through marriage equality. If the right would declare neutrality and ending state marriage, I would not only be okay with that, but would prefer it.
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. For a flat tax the tax rate stays content as the amount of money increases. There for it is not regressive, its flat. Also why should the government punish the productive members of society so the less productive members don't have to contribute as much (percent wise) to the police the courts and the military that protect there rights?
Could you please provide me examples of "right" hypocrisy as far as blatant hypocrisy, not multiple step scenarios involving "therefore they are hypocritical"??
Well in only conflicts when one argues that the federal government or the courts should enact federal laws or legislate from the bench in order to ban or overturn same sex marriage restrictions. Also, the Declaration of Independence states that freedom comes from God, so you have to reject the ideas of the founders of the country, who wrote the declaration and the constitution, to say that rights do not come from God
We're not talking about every society and culture. We're talking about the USA. The problem is that marriage was always considered to be the domain of the church. It was only when the government started in meddling in church affairs that this whole problem began. Gays can have civil unions, they can live together and adopt. They are NOT being discriminated against. What they want is to take marriage away from the church and redefine it using government and the courts. Not libertarian at all.
Religion evolves as well, and has done so dramatically over time, does that mean that rights change, I don't. I believe this is my last post, we have agreed on some things, and actually have very similar political beliefs. But the fact that you don't believe that I think I have inherent rights makes me think that very little progress can ensue. I am sure many things you believe are antithetical to the FF too, but you don't call on yourself to reject all they said or deny the existence of rights
That's Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City. He recently proposed a ban on all sodas larger than 16oz in order to combat obesity.
Sheldon Cooper Not if New York oligarch Nanny Mike has his way.
I remember when this happened and I’m pretty sure it had the opposite effect. After that proposal all my friends in middle school would go to 7 Eleven to buy Double Gulps or XL Slurpees once a week, and order the largest most sugary drink at movies and restaurants just to spite him. And I’m sure we weren’t the only ones
Went from combating obesity to putting it in Victoria's Secret lol
"Treat people equally, unless their gay"
I laughed too hard😂😂
they're
I feel like everyone that responded to you saying “they’re” is gay lmaoooooooo
they're
"Treat people the same unless they're in the one percent. Take their money!"
Communism managed to make this egalitarian: take ALL of EVERYBODY'S money!
(Though that's only egalitarian if you assume there are no preexisting differences in how much people care about money)
"it doesn't matter what you drink"
"well let's not get ahead of ourselves"
I didn't get that part, who is the person at 1:35?
@@robgronotte1 Former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg
He put a ban on the size of pop that you could drink to try to fight obesity
i was supposed to teach kindergarteners for a project.Guess what video im not using
i KNOW i was so disappointed haha
Was gunna use this for my RE mass but just no 😂
+MyLifeAsAmy al
Same
Fkn statists get oooooo-uuuuut!
Awesome, but would love to see an updated version of this. :D
Poked fun at both sides, loved it
That’s the libertarian party
@@captainmikehagen459 Libertardians are just liberals that don't want to be called liberals.
Have you ever seen the political compass?
If you have then you would understand liberals would be left leaning conservatives right leaning
Libertarianism is a spectrum made up of both left and right wing people the only common factor is the love for liberty, rejection of tyranny, and the adherence to the Non Agression Principle
The right has never been about equality anyway, so I'm not sure the "unless they're gay" part hit very hard.
@@ericrodwell8706 I'm confused how your second sentence relates to your first.
I’m guessing there are quite a few people that didn’t get this.
This literally shows we're not the same but that doesn't mean we should not respect each other.
Let's not get ahead of ourselfves xD
JonatasAdoM
Unless they write ‘ourselfves’🤬
@@michaeljimenez2253 That is the correct spelling for "ourselves" if it is written by an elf.
"Take their money!"
Hilarious 🤣
My teacher showed this to us in 7th grade. Lets say the quiet kid wasnt too happy that week.
Why wasn't the quiet kid happy?
I don't think it's pro equality as much as it is making fun of the hypocrisy of people who claim to want equality.
Is anyone else being recommended legit children's songs after watching this?
"Treat everyone the same"
No, because everyone is not the same.
If everyone was the same, there'd be
one religion,
one party,
one marriage practice,
one nation,
etc.
Before the law, is the angle they're going for, I think.
If most people from your neighbourhood grow up to be criminals it wouldn't follow that it's worth locking all of you up just incase.
you now see the beauty in it all, comrade.
Sea Monsters. Remember Cthulhu is neither gay nor in the 1 percent.
some kids are gonna see this, judging from the autoplay recommendations...
Dude, think about this for a second - this video is a satire against those who are making these arguments. The video is basically accusing others of being childish by making a childish song that speaks with their voice and makes their arguments. It's really not that complex, but apparently it still managed to zoom over your head.
Everyone is equal, unless you're something we don't like.... Oh this one never gets old...
So how's that "advancing the homosexual agenda" working out for everyone?
:^)
First verse aged like milk.
-posting from my state-mandated training course on how alphabet people are better than everyone else
In my experience as a transgender person most people seem to have taken a different course. The course taught by Matt Walsh.
@Sewblon but you're a communist, so your perspective is fundamentally flawed.
"I really don't get this complain of taxing the 1%"
Well, most don't earn an income. Most have already has to work hard to get where they are, including being a 99%er and being taxed all that money you have been. If you have problems with loopholes (not business deductions, but actual loopholes) you are in the same company as JFK and Reagan.
But to treat everybody equally is to tax everybody a flat percent, no matter their income. You earn $1 or $1 mill, you get taxes 10%. I'd agree with that.
Ok thanks heaps!! I live in NZ but really like Reason TV so sometimes the jokes go over my head a little. Cheers.
It's impossible for me to not chuckle at the line "take their money!!"
If you listen to Yaron Brook, he makes a pretty strong case for the morality of Capitalism. It isn't amoral, it's THE moral system. All other systems are immoral, according to him. I tend to agree.
Always love seeing new music by Remy 😂
income tax is socialist. america did just fine without income tax before 1913. our tax should not be a graduated income tax. the only reason we have an income tax was to tax "free income" that people recieved from the federal reserve. in the begining of this country the only kind of tax there was at the federal level was capitation tax, that is, the tax that was owed by every state was a direct function of the population of those states. we ought to return to capitation tax, and let the states
This man was ahead of his time
I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. This vid even lampoons one of my views & I thought it was hilarious. Remy is certainly a talented fellow!
A society that puts equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty. -Milton Friedman
I PUT THIS JN MY HOMEWORK THEN HEARD THE UNLESS THEYRE GAY
I wouldn't be shocked if they started teaching this song in schools!
The first punch line is taught in kindergarten classes in texas, and the second punchline is taught in kindergarten classes in california.
I'm not shooting the messenger, so much as the folks underwriting delivery of the message. If you think there's no connection between the two, then you're sadly mistaken.
Love it, should so more of this stuff.
I just said a few examples, I can name more if you wish. Claiming the marital communications privilege, obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse, visiting rights in jails hospitals and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family, ability to sue for wrongful death of a spouse. Tax privilages, burial rights (burial rights were successfully attacked using the Utah law, these women even had a notarized contract and family permission for burial rights)
It's kind of hilarious that UA-cam thinks this is a legit child video and recommended me stuff like the alphabet song.
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
Milton Friedman
The occupy movement however promotes big government and cronyism that breaks this truth by Friedman. Only under the policies promoted by OWS people can commodities (trade) be forced regardless if one party benefits or not. It's not the 1% screwing you, it's the authoritarians you call your friends.
"Married" as a classification of citizen to be treated separate itself violates equality before the law. It is plainly not the business to recognize a distinct class of citizen for unique treatment. The legal aspect of marriage is entirely constructed within contract law and free association, and what people choose to call those associations is their business(an object outside of law).
The constitution states that any state can pass whatever law it wants as long as it doesn't violate federal law and where in the constitution does it give the power to the the federal government to establish a law preventing a ban on same-sex marriage?
If you're speaking of only the highest bracket, 7% was the lowest. It varied between that, 67%, and 25% in the 20's. 1988 had 28% rate. 1991 31%. Must take into account loopholes and different definitions of income over the years. Regardless, our corporate tax is the highest in the world. (except for those lucky cronies with special favors)
My kid loves this.
Richard Cesar I don't think you should let your kid watch this because it says treat everyone equal unless there gay which is wrong on so many levels
@@asherhewer6544 no its not
Chase Steel really so it’s not wrong to teach kids to hate on people if they love the same gender is that what your saying that’s bullshit
Asher Hewer No, it teaches them to recognize double standards and that double standards are bad. If you explain that to them first, they’ll get the point.
I was really commenting within the current system. If they want to complain about "high taxes" and the "rich create jobs" then they really have no grounds complain. We should be drowning in jobs if what they say is true. More tax cuts is not going to do it. If we are keeping with the current system, then rate increases is better. If reform is the route, then I support the fair tax.
More of these, please....
Also Romney, Gingrich, Palin, Santorum, Ryan, McCain, Bachmann and many others oppose civil unions (ps, I attempted to research to confirm these and to the best of my knowledge they do oppose civil unions)
Great video - this is what we need more of: funny vids that drive home a point. We live in an ADD society and humor is the best weapon against it.
I meant grown up "children" like the ones who need to stay on mommy and daddy's health insurance until they're 26. Yes, now in Obamaville, you are officially a child up to age 26.
"Married people pay less taxes"
A violation of the equalk protection clause in the Constitution.
"they can share insurance"
Private business can do that.
"and visit eachother in the hospital"
Private hospital can do that, gov't hospital can't do it
"and visit eachother in the hospital"
Gray area, but if one person can't be compelled because of a gov't paper giving them special privilege... get it?
And I really did not want personal beliefs to come into rational debate but since you brought it up. I am an atheist, gay, Marine, Iraq War veteran, entrepreneur among other things, but I do not like to define myself by these things and fall into identity politics. Most of all I simply want to be treated as an equal citizen, and I understand that there are different points of view on equality as well as different routes, but more states ban civil unions than offer it.
Actually, I stand corrected. Romney does say that he is against civil unions, so you are right. As a libertarian, I wold have preferred both candidates to say that the government should be in the business of recognizing any marriages or civl unions are anything like that. The government shouldn't care who is living with who and what those people call that arrangement, whether it's called marriage or anything else. Why does the government concern itself with these things?
Equal right under what law? Anyway, I'm not sure you are really answer ing my question. Let's keep it simple. Why is it important to you to have the government recognize wether or not you are married and to whom? Why is that important?
In the first section of the song Reason TV is promoting government control of marriage.
"I don't care about the Constitution"
I forget that not everybody isn't based in the USA (though, that's where ReasonTV is). The Constitution is supossed to guard against privilege of one person or group over another (equality under the law - Amendment 14, Section 1). Thus a law covering a married couple should, by law, cover single people as well.
As for the right not to testify, you have that and here the Constitution recognizes it (Amendment 5).
My cut & Paste was not working properly.
Capitalism is not about money per se,but about value.Money is just the most common mode of storing value so that material goods can be exchanged.That people will give up a higher salary for other benefits is not new and has been known for centuries.If you follow sports you will notice that top athletes will take pay cuts just to join a championship potential team.Ethical behavior follows the laws of supply and demand.If people value it those who perform it will be rewarded.
OMG what did I just watch???????????
Ik
How? At 10% it is still less than most rich pay today and more than the poor pay now! I would find that very hard to argue for.
That's the guy who made the video: Remy.
Which of us is more evil. The man who condemns one or the man who has condemned a thousand.
ps More states have outright banned same sex unions of any kind than those that have voted to allow them. It's the religious right that is expanding government on this issue more than those who advocate marriage equality. And I consider this an equal protection issue, and thus a civil liberties issue and as such is one of the few areas that I am okay with the government protecting. Most libertarians (not all) believe that civil liberty protections is one of the few correct roles of government.
I would prefer the fair tax over the flat tax. At the fundamentals of that argument of taxing the rich more, people are saying the individuals don't have the right to their property and abundance is an excuse to steal. There is no such thing as moral theft. The only legit grievance against the rich who have broken laws to achieve their wealth.
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
Milton Friedman
Yeah, I guess that's why they have those ultra-secret conferences in remote locations for their super-rich donors... because they don't "hide" their ideas. I guess that's why they're always being interviewed on TV and at academic conferences, forums and such to discuss their ideas...
I've heard that the one percent have around 35% of the wealth yet they pay over half of the overall taxes. So yes, you're right, they're the ones being treated unequally.
Also in the state of Utah where I live, not only can I not get married or acivil union, but due to the religious right pushing one of the most extreme marriage bans in the union, courts cannot grant "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" to anything that is not 1 Man 1 Woman. This means, according many constitutional scholars I have talked to including the LP Utah candidate for AG, that even contracts such as powers of attorney or visitation may be invalidated in Utah.
yo I was about to use this for my project then I was like something's off in this so I watched and listened to It and I was like I knew it that was a close one
Well the best thing to do is hope for is a polycentric legal system. The community/society can live by its own moral code (such as keeping definition of man/woman in which everyone agrees and follows) and not bother with other societies that think otherwise (where the definition is subjective when the bond is consensual by any 2 or more adults). That way they won't have to interfere with each others' activities.
I learnt so much!
Treat every body equal... unless they are single... they are different. They don't get the same rights as married people.. so...
Treat everybody equal... unless they are gay, women, black, hispanic, poor, rich, white, green (technology), muslim, certain animal species...
You get the drift.
Well dammit I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. I hereby, whole-heartedly apologize to the puppets for calling them cartoon characters and sincerely regret any emotional stress that I may have caused them or their puppet families.
Sir, I would like to point out that this is not a cartoon. These are puppets. I think you owe someone an apology.
DOMA, the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment are two examples of an attempt at that. Also States cannot pass any law, that is a misconception held by many, The States cannot violate the 14th amendment, and also must have the power they are attempting to use in their laws granted to the state by their Constitutions, only if BOTH of these requirements are met can they make a law. Thank you CATO for that last lesson!
BTW, you say that the right treats gays equally, and that gays can get civil unions. But not only does the right fight civil unions every time they come up, but also almost as many places don't have civil unions as those who don't have marriage equality (btw, I know that reads weird and is probably a perfect example of poor grammar). And I would be more than happy with a compromise leaving marriages to private institution and only granting civil unions from the government.
This is why flat-rate taxes work best when based on which bracket each dollar was earned. (Still progressive tax) ie, everyone's first 12k is tax free, everyone's earnings from 12,001-50k, taxed at 10%. then everyone's earnings from 50,001-200k, taxed at 25%. And so on. This way everyone is in the same and multiple tax brackets, just your higher earnings are higher rates. Now its currently just based on gross earnings causing incentives for fraud. Which is bs from the go.
trust me, the second the Koch's global interests were threatened they would definitely be advocating foreign interventionism. they may not do so loudly or publicly, but yeah.
I think if more people fought to end the laws you identified rather than advocating for more government, there might be a lot more people willing to back that. Anyway, we agree that government should be smaller and I think we agree that government ideally should not be involved in marriage. I don't think the laws you mentioned were put into play specifically to penalize gays. Nevertheless, I agree that they should be eliminated. My goal is to get government out of my life, not further into it.
Yes. Also, adoption and stepchildren are hereby forever banned.
I do prefer small government and getting government out of the picture is my true goal. I do realize that it may make in someways bigger, but I do not see many people on the other side of the issue pushing for govt neutrality on marriage. Because of this the only feasible way that I see to help real people achieve equality is through marriage equality. If the right would declare neutrality and ending state marriage, I would not only be okay with that, but would prefer it.
We played this at school half my school was dieng when they said unless their gay
I'm not sure that anything you've said so far disagrees with what I've said. Try reading my posts again.
You mean like 50 years ago when interracial couples wanted the definition of marriage changed for them?
The moral of this little demonstration is very fuzzy. I'm not sure what to think about it.
So nice to watch puppet show
Unless they're gay! HAHA:]
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. For a flat tax the tax rate stays content as the amount of money increases. There for it is not regressive, its flat. Also why should the government punish the productive members of society so the less productive members don't have to contribute as much (percent wise) to the police the courts and the military that protect there rights?
Could you please provide me examples of "right" hypocrisy as far as blatant hypocrisy, not multiple step scenarios involving "therefore they are hypocritical"??
They probably do given that Romney does and he' supposed to be less conservative than they, so I have learned something today.
Yes, being ironic is the point. I hope that wasn't too hard to grasp.
awesome
Sorry, i meant the one before that. Kinda older looking gentlemen. When he says "let's not get ahead of ourselves".
Living in your childhood bedroom IS the best you can do! LMAO!
That gay marriage line aged like fine milk.
The original income tax was 1%. I think your facts are wrong.
Well in only conflicts when one argues that the federal government or the courts should enact federal laws or legislate from the bench in order to ban or overturn same sex marriage restrictions. Also, the Declaration of Independence states that freedom comes from God, so you have to reject the ideas of the founders of the country, who wrote the declaration and the constitution, to say that rights do not come from God
This is why I am for Marriage equality and not "special rights"
I didn't know RamzPaul worked at Reason TV.
Those industries were bailed out by the government.
Who's that last guy? After the drink bit. don't get it.
The answer to that is for government to stop issuing marriage licenses all together and leave marriage to the churches.
and your point is?
That was some of the weirdest shit I've seen Remy and Reason put out...
and let the states decide how to collect that tax. and the states with a healthy tax code will prosper, and those without will not.
We're not talking about every society and culture. We're talking about the USA. The problem is that marriage was always considered to be the domain of the church. It was only when the government started in meddling in church affairs that this whole problem began. Gays can have civil unions, they can live together and adopt. They are NOT being discriminated against. What they want is to take marriage away from the church and redefine it using government and the courts. Not libertarian at all.
Religion evolves as well, and has done so dramatically over time, does that mean that rights change, I don't. I believe this is my last post, we have agreed on some things, and actually have very similar political beliefs. But the fact that you don't believe that I think I have inherent rights makes me think that very little progress can ensue. I am sure many things you believe are antithetical to the FF too, but you don't call on yourself to reject all they said or deny the existence of rights