Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

What's the cut-off, ER?

How much money do you have to have, how much profit can you turn, how many people can you employ before the Constitution should not apply to you anymore?
 

Um, Tug, are you so used to seein' what you want to see that you can't see that I'm on Congress's ass here?

But I think I understand your question.

The questin is not: How much money can people have? The question is: When the hell are We the People going to quit pretending that corporations are people, with all the accompanying rights of people?

--ER
 

ER,

I'm having trouble following your logic, so help me out. You argue that corporations are not people, so they should only be moderately successful (or something - like I said, I don't follow you). Where does this cut-off begin - an individual in business for himself, a partnership, LLC, incorporated entity? If I understand you (and I don't think I do), you would have no problem with an individual making billions of dollars, but once it is a publice traded (or privately held?) company, then their profits should be curbed through government intervention? Please explain yourself.
 

Actually I thought I saw ER passing out some sympathy to Big Oil here. There are those of us out here that do own .00575 (that's just over a half of one percent) of an oil well's mineral rights. We actually number in the millions. I have a check from 1984 for 4 cents for the quarterly payment. Then the well was shut in for eight years and no one got the benifit of its oil. Prices went up, the well was opened. Recently the quarterly payment was over $100.
ER, someday Mama ER will split up her shares and you can be an oil Baron too.
The first question by Congress for the oil Companies should be what has been you annual average net profit for the last ten years? Then if they want cut off their "exceessive profits" to appease the gas gusselers on the East and West coast, so be it. Most of the gasoline wasted in America is burned in cars going <1 mph along either I-5 on the West coast or I-95 on the East.
 

Doc (may I call you Doc?),

Yeah, ER did seem to dish out some sympathy for big oil in the original post. His comment to Tug is what I was responding to. That and his stance against Wal-Mart.

My Mama is also in the oil peerage. She was born on a farm in Southern Indiana (we Southerners can only inbreed so long - we have to bring in fresh blood every now and then). When Grandpa sold the farm, he kept the rights to a small well. Mama gets the checks now. I've no idea how much she receives (I don't think its very much) or what her percentage of the take is, but I know she gets a monthly (quarterly?) check. She and Daddy went vacationing up in that part of the country this past summer. Dad took a picture of the Oil Baroness and her derrick. The novelty was pretty cool.
 

OK. This is the front end of a long day, and the hurrider I go the behinder I get, BUT:

Jusdt because I say we have a right to hold Wal-Mart accountable for what it does to surrounding businesses, especially in small and medium towns, and just because I say we have a right to hold Wal-Mart accountable for how it treats its employees, does not mean I am "against" Wal-Mart.

Dos. Just because it is exceedinly hard to determine a fair benchmark for how much wealth is "too much --no, that's what the right SAYS we're saying over here ...

Just because it's exceedinlgy difficult to determine fair benchmarks for levels of taxation, based on income, does NOT mean it shouldn't be done! Sheesh. It's a form of reverse triage or something. Difficult. Not impossible.

A different Congres would've slapped a windfall profits tax on the biggest oil companies by now. And this one, filled with hypocritical weasel "conservatives," still might.

Gotta go I'm late ... I'm late ... Back later today maybe ...

--ER
 

ER said:
Just because it's exceedinlgy difficult to determine fair benchmarks for levels of taxation, based on income, does NOT mean it shouldn't be done!

Back to the Constitution - Article One, Section VIII: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

In what dictionary does 'uniform' mean different, depending on a certain level (in this case, level of income)? Even the 16th amendment, which authorizes an income tax (when are we gonna repeal this, anyway?) does not override this Constitutional statement.

If we aren't going to use our Constitution, why have it?
 

1. I wonder is "taxes" was left out of the repetition -- after "but" -- on purpose.

2. I guess it depends on what your definition of "uniform" is. Uniform in dollars? Uniform in percentage? Uniform in fairness? Uniform in impact? Uniform in burden?

3. I just don't buy any so-called originalist basis for interpreting the Constitution. It's just silly.

Unless you want the First Amendment to apply solely to the hand-presses that printers were using to make sheets that were then bound -- binders weren't protected -- back in the day to make pamphlets.

Pshaw and piffle.

--ER
 

Well, if the wording said specificly that it applied to printing presses, then yes. Since it doesn't, and it says 'all' speech, then I think we should extend it to all speech.

I don't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution (or Bible) to follow/believe/etc. Until it is repealed in the process laid forth within its very articles, we should strictly follow the Constitution. That is not 'silly'.
 

A Digression:
Paraphrased Definitions of Windfall:
1.The fruit or tree limbs knocked down by the wind and harvested with little effort by the fruit pickers or wood gathers.

2. A falling wind off of a mountainous coast that gives a sailing ship extra leeway.

Taxing a windfall is sort of like punishing you because God's been good to you.
 

Rem, "speech" is one thing. "Press" is another. Those are two separate rights bundled into the First Amendment (along with religion and other stuff). And the "press" was a printing press as I descrfibed when the dang Constitution was ratified! Not an electric one. And for damn sure not the Internet.

Doc: Yes.

NOW, I'm hittin' the road.

--ER
 

You are right. I had forgotten that 'press' was differentiated from 'speech'. Still, Congress is to make no law abridging the freedom of the press. I would need a dictionary from the times to know if your definition is what was meant. Two of the definitions (the only two pertinent ones) offered by Merrian-Webster are as follows:
6 a : PRINTING PRESS b : the act or the process of printing c : a printing or publishing establishment
7 a : the gathering and publishing or broadcasting of news : JOURNALISM b : newspapers, periodicals, and often radio and television news broadcasting c : news reporters, publishers, and broadcasters d : comment or notice in newspapers and periodicals (is getting a good press)


Def 7 is the definition that I assume was meant by the framers. But like I said, I have no access to a dictionary from the time period. Therefore, I take the First Amendment to cover all forms of published content.
 

I have done some Google-ing since my last post. All indications are that "the press" was indicative of the published word - whether a printing press was used, it was hand written, or whatever. In other words, Def 7 (from above post) seems to be what was meant.

I also found a reproduction of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary published in 1855 for something like $25 on Amazon. I'm thinking of ordering it just to have. We'll see. I'm trying to talk my wife into a boat right now, so I need to cut back on my impulse buys for a little while. Like I said, we'll see . . .
 

The first "American" Dictionary wasn't published until 1806. So I assume that you would have to look at a Brittish dictionary published prior to the drafting of the constitution, for the word meanings.
 

I meant 1755.

Dr. Lobojo, I was referring to you when I asked if I could just call you "Doc". I have apparently caused confusion and will refrain from finding anymore short cuts to addressing people.
 

Rem870,
Sure you can call me doc, but I'm not really a doctor I just play one in real life. For over a quarter of a centruy I worked in a place that was totally full of Doctors mainly PhDs EdDs Mds and other types. They accidently hired me one day when they weren't thinking and I became the only non-Doc at that level of mischief. One of my nick-names was lobojo, one day my research assistant made me Dr. Lobojo and it ultimately became my off-work virtual world name. So yes call me Doc,or lobo, or lobojo, or anything else you please so long as it isn't Johnson.
 

Oil-for-food for thought:

LONDON, November 9, 2005—Crude production from OPEC's 11 members fell 240,000 barrels per day to 30.07-million barrels per day (mil b/d) in October from 30.31-mil b/d in September, a Platts survey of OPEC and oil industry officials showed November 9.



The drop largely reflected a plunge in output from Iraq, whose production and exports have fluctuated widely since the March 2003 US-led invasion as the country has struggled to rebuild its beleaguered oil sector.



“Even with a reduction in OPEC output last month, albeit mostly from Iraq, the organization actually faces an issue of cutting production when it meets next month,” said John Kingston, Platts’ global director of oil. “This is close to unbelievable, given the loss in output from the Gulf of Mexico after Katrina and Rita. Yet despite that, inventories are building, we’re coming out of the 4th quarter–which is the heaviest demand quarter–and it’s not unreasonable for the OPEC countries to see the market as heavily oversupplied. The reversal is astounding.”



Excluding Iraq, production from the ten members with notional quotas under a 28-mil b/d ceiling dipped 50,000 b/d to 28.27-mil b/d in October from 28.32-mil b/d the previous month.



Poor weather conditions in the Persian Gulf dealt a blow to Iraqi crude exports and production last month. But weather was not the only factor in lower Iraqi volumes, which have been hit by power outages, limited well maintenance, higher water levels in oil wells, and pipeline problems. Iraqi production fell to 1.8-mil b/d in October from 1.99-mil b/d in September.



Saudi Arabian production edged down 60,000 b/d to 9.5-mil b/d from 9.56-mil b/d in September. Venezuelan output, which has not recovered from a crippling oil workers' strike in the winter of 2002-2003, also eased back, by 10,000 b/d, to 2.6-mil b/d.



Small increases of 10,000 b/d came from Algeria, where foreign companies have helped boost output steadily in recent years, and Qatar.



Prices have fallen by more than ten dollars since late August when US light crude hit an all-time high of $70.85/bbl.
 

Well heck the blogmonster ate this once.
I doubt if anyone that has a retirement coming to them, be it 401k, IRA, or company paid has really paid anything extra for gas this year. If you took the time to check, the gains you made this year have been mostly due to oil profits. So go ahead and tax yourself to the poor house.