Birth.

Freedom is not something government provides.

And if democracy comes first, how can there be freedom? Democracy before a constitution is simply tyranny of the majority.

And a constitution without stable government is empty words.

I disagree with your statement above.  Clearly, while there are poor in America (there is virtually no Poverty regardless of that propaganda), it is not 47%.  The statistic is not being used to show who is a dead beat, but to refute the allegation that the rich are not paying their fair share.  Clearly they are as they are supporting not only the poor, but another third of the country as well.

dp

Have to disagree with this. I work, I have a real estate business, I launched a cosmetic company this year, I work for DHS part time, I write books and this year we are launching a publishing house. I pay no taxes because I work. I file my taxes and get a refund. I got back 154 dollars more than they took from me. So I pay taxes but I get it all back plus. I had to lie on my taxes to get it down to only 154 dollars. If I didn't lie the IRS was going to give me 954 more than they took from me. If I get audited then I will file an ammendment and get the other 800, if not then all is well. The point is that I am poor, lower income and almost on food stamps. (buy my book) Most self-employed people pay little or no incime tax at the end of the year because we work. It is not propaganda, and it is the poor or nearly poor. Look at me from the outside and some people think i am well off, not true, so I believe the number of 47%. If you want to change that number all you need is a flat tax of 13% and the government will make a ton of money. Too bad the people that write the tax law don't understand business. If those clowns tried to run my business I would be broke in 90 days.

Nope, because I have a "day job" with the government I am able to avoid that mess.

I don't understand your statement, please expalin.

But most of your ennemies could reach you only by sea, and that's a menace that your formal military (navy) have to deal with outside of your native ground. The only "real" ennemy that could take your territory was Mexico, and we all know what happened when you got your guns toting against them. Your heartland of the time wasn't even remotely treathened.

After, there was only outlaws and indians that would be a treath, and my earlier statemen still stands, methink. It was more efficient to let people fend for themselves than trying to provide security for everybody.

Compare to France, which has Germany and Spain right on its doorstep. They have to rely more on government rule, as an invading rival is a reality, and has been for hundreds of years.

Compare to Britain, which is on an island. They trust less their own government, as they've had natural geography to defend themselves. They did not had to put much faith into their government to prevent invading forces, but merely put faith into their own navy.

There is a lot of cultural influence that your geographical position give you, over the years, and how much you rely on the government. The most extreme case would be Russia. They have no geographic defensive feature whatsoever, so they needed to conquer land in order to defend themselves with buffer zones. So, they were forced to turn toward the government a lot more over time, and developped a culture around it.

No, you missed the nuance.  back then, most of the enemies were local.  America was at war with most of the native tribes, and they were killing citizens of the new country.  Each by itself was not strong enough to take down the new country, but collectively they could have.

I can see the misconception.  You are thinking 19th century and I was referring to 18th (and into the early 19th century).  At that time, Mexico was not contiguous nor a threat (they had their own problems).  They became a threat, really, with the Texas War of Independence, but then only to Texas.  it was not until Texas joined the union that they became an issue for the USA.

Only those that moved outside the protection (as there was still plenty of land not claimed by the USA).  For those citizens still in the borders, it was an issue.  That is not to say that every threat was met by a retaliation as the new country did not have the man power to meet them.

Hum, I seem to recall a little piece of history, where the British torched Washington DC. I believe that was called the War of 1812. Sounds threatening enough to me.

Sorry I'll step out of your fantasy land, game of "Risk" environment you seem to be talking about. Please continue, as I didn't realize I was on the board game forum. My bad.

I will not get into a debate on whose fault it was or who was on the offensive (I agree with you for the most part).  But the point was the statement by Franklin was made when the enemy was at our door, not safely 3000 miles across an ocean.  It is as true then as it is today.  We have obtained a measure of security, that was shattered by 9-11.  But the sentiment stands.  Trading freedom for security will deny you both.

No, the 47% is not in dispute.  You can equivocate about ALL taxes, but when you get specific - Federal INCOME taxes - that removes the equivocation (like SS Taxes).

But your statement "Clearly they are as they are supporting not only the poor, but another third of the country as well" only makes sense if the 47% statistic refers to all taxes.  If the 47% refers to just one tax among many, then it doesn't (by itself) support saying "The rich are supporting 47% of the country."

I read your previous statement after I had posted my response you quoted in the latest post.  So I think I understand your original "debate" statement especially with the follow up (sorry for being obtuse).

You are correct that it is not a complete support.  In other words, they do not support the retirement (that is debatable as to who does anyway), and medicare, since those taxes are paid by virtually all the 47% that work (even though most are refunded through credits to the actual poor).  But they do support all the non earmarked programs of the 47%.  So they are supporting them, just not in a child care manner. The 47% are not paying for defense, yet reaping the benefit of it.  They are not paying for Education, Energy, Congress (I would love to get out of that one as well), etc., the other 53% are.  yet they enjoy the benefits of all those programs, without paying a dime.  They are being supported by the other half.  They just pay their own part of Social Security, medicaid/care on the federal level. 

It feels, well, pretty minor.

I am charged but not in charge. Perhaps I should change that.

Less than 47% since I am not Liberal.