Question About Operation of Small Government

Advertising?

Maybe they've read the bill, so don't be so quick to judge them.

Don't see too many people trying to leave the U.S. for those so called 1st world countries, do you?

When all the millionaires are gone, whose taxes are you going to raise then? I think a couple of states have seen the results of raising the taxes on their millionaire residents. Even children are smart enough to recognize that when their playmates start stealing their toys, it's time to pick them up and leave. You seem to believe that wealthy people are more stupid than poor people, and this is a point that simply astounds me. Often I hear of how the smart people are those who side with the Left agenda against the Right, yet all the people who appear to be smart enough to earn money are denigrated as belonging to the Right. If the Left are so intelligent, why can't they earn enough to support themselves instead of looking for others to do it for them?

 

We may agree somewhat on that, and as for dismantling pre-existing programs, I would not have a problem with throwing all of them out and starting over with just the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, even dropping a few of the Amendments to the Constitution, and I'm not even thinking about suffrage or slavery, so don't bother going there.

 

Welcome.

Having heard so many denigrating remarks on the Tea Party movement, I just registered on a couple of their sites and now await approval so that I can view and comment on some posts. Their agenda may be broadly stated, but it's much clearer than "Change you can believe in."

 

advertising, that's all a political campaign is, most media is, most of american life is at this point

i doubt most of them can read [let the judging begin]

i'd imagine it's not easy to emigrate to civilized societies; why would they want a bunch of us?

plus, you forget the advertising; the united states is the best, most free-est place in the whole world - most of us seem to actually believe that sort of crap

they didn't leave in the 50s, when taxes were really high, did they?

actually, i'm not all that interested in raising taxes

i'd like to see the wealthy actually pay their taxes, rather than finding loopholes

and i'd like to see those taxes not be merely refunded in the form of contracting and privatization and other forms of welfare for the wealthy

 

What I said was: "Dick Army and Karl Rove who seem to be coordinating the assault"


And yes, I do know for certain that the Tea Party is funded and led by the K-Street crowd.

Here is my bottom line for this conversation so I can do something else, more constructive: You don't live here and you don't see what's happening to this nation. What happens in America affects you very little, but I have to live with the results of this mess the Republicans and corporate America created, you don't.

.

 

been thinking about this one

suppose they are millionaires merely because they are the greediest of the greedy?

perhaps with them gone, the rest of us could live normal lives?

 

That's what I thought you meant, but just wanted to be sure.

If you've read any of the bills, present and past, you'll find that they are written in ways that often leave the possibility for wide interpretation, or are specifically targeting some group.

I haven't seen a large number try, although I do know a small number personally that have.

You left out "the richest."

Things have changed quite a bit since then. I lived fairly well on $.75 an hour back then.

They're going to have to be raised at some point in the future, and for all.

There's several movements to simplify the tax system, but to do so would lessen politicians ability to repay their contributors, or funnel money to cronies.

In as much that the wealthiest still contribute the largest portion in comparison to the middle and lower classes, it's hard to justify it as welfare.

 

re obama

the saddest thing is that he got people thinking he was going to erase the mistakes of the previous 8 years

the best chance we had in 08 was john edwards, and if he'd have won in the primaries, his personal life would've ensured the election of colonel mckurtz

so, we carry on . . .

 

that's because we have the best natural resources too

left for our enrichment [well, for the enrichment of exploiters of the earth] by nature and/or god [take your pick]

without government intervention, would we still?

the region i live in would be dead empty without government irrigation and ag science projects, not to mention various $ flowing every which way

so maybe you're right, because personally i'd like to see it all go back to indians and buffalo

but politically, socially, you're dead wrong

 

flat tax?

now you really are trying to be funny, right?

 

I'd be for a flat tax if say the first $60,000 was exempt.

 

Maybe the rest of the worlds countries will start sending foreign aid to the U.S.?

I know a few millionaires and some of them look at billionaires the same way you do the millionaires.

Beat them to the punch and move to Cuba, they ran their wealthy out long ago, and now live normal lives.

 

No. A while back I read the book "The Fair Tax", I believe was the title, and was somewhat impressed by the depth of thought that went into the concept. It did leave me with a few unanswered questions, but then I was unable to find a major flaw.

 

As best I remember, the "Fair Tax" proposal provided a monthly prebate, (a rebate paid in advance) equal to the taxes that would be collected based upon the consumption of the family size at the poverty level. The payment would not be means based, the same formulated amount paid to the destitute as well as the billionaires. Of course any spending above that covered by the monthly check would mean additional taxes paid out of pocket. Therefore, anyone earning above the poverty level would be actually paying taxes based on excess spending. It's quite elaborate, so I won't even try to mention all the details. There's even a bill written, but it's received no attention.

 

And you accuse me of joking?

 

Lets hope we have enough natural resources to cover the national debt when it is eventually called due.

More likely it will end up in the hands of the Chinese, unless the Muslims accomplish their goal.

 

Individual

I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice that you are once again not addressing the questions I’ve raised.

A baby cannot be responsible, it is definitely not mature and is unable to make any informed choices and that is where you’re stumbles because your only answer to this problem so far has been ‘life isn’t fair’, a reply that just isn’t rational.

I want to try and free the potential of people that otherwise wouldn’t have that potential realised.

I’m just saying that for all the right wing libertarians talk of ‘freeing’ people from government is really seems to be all about trying to perpetuate their own grip on potential.

 

Parents are, should be, responsible for the children they bring into the world. You seem to want to hold everyone, except the parents, responsible for the children they bring into the world. Perhaps it would be better to place children born to poor or irresponsible persons up for adoption by wealthy persons to assure they can be properly cared for? Or how about a law making it illegal to have a child without first producing proof of financial ability to raise the child to maturity, presently age 26? People need to be taught that life has responsibilities, and stop thinking they have a "right" to shift their responsibilities on to others in the society based on a moralistic argument. Individuals are much more capable of determining who deserves help and who does not. Government acts in ways based on broad assumptions that allow the system to be used in ways that promote corruption. I have no problem lending temporary assistance to another or others of my choosing, because I also have the power to cease if I find it not properly used. Government seldom checks to see if their system is being taken advantage of, and even might promote misuse in order to perpetuate or grow their system.
Does that help answer the question?
Quit thinking that IQ is related to wealth, motivate others regardless of their wealth to achieve success, and quit being a harbinger of failure to those who are born to a poor family.

 

To repeat from a few posts back when you said something similar -

In no way have I said that they shouldn’t, I’m just saying that no one can choose who they are going to be born to, so the baby’s can’t be condemned or congratulated for being born into riches or poverty, it can’t even be blame for the decisions of the parents to have it.

No I don’t, I’m just pointing out that a baby can’t be blamed for the decisions of the parents to have it.

You said something similar earlier something about making it illegal for the poor to have children.

You claim to want government ‘off people’s backs’ but you’d forcibly take away the children of people you deem ‘poor or irresponsible’?

Here it is again, how would you do it forced sterilisation?

So you are going to teach them by taking away their children and/or sterilising them?

Are we beginning to see the true face of the right wing libertarian dream?

First - How do you determine a baby’s potential?

Second - Most people have not the time, energy, inclination or knowledge to ‘evaluate’ another persons worth and too often people would be motivated by bias and prejudice in their assessment.

An opinion that seems based more in bias and prejudice.

First - How do you determine a baby’s potential?

Second - Most people have not the time, energy, inclination or knowledge to ‘evaluate’ another persons worth and too often people would be motivated by bias and prejudice in their assessment.

Actually most modern governments have auditors to check up on such things, which I would see as prudent and a sign of good governance.

An opinion that seems based more in bias and prejudice.

No in fact you seem to be doing your level best not to address the criticisms that have been raised.

I haven’t but you have stated - You could make a case for financial advantage being genetic, after all it is most often the offspring who are genetically related that receive the financial windfall left to them.

Which as I pointed out at the times seems to be a case of that flawed pseudo-science of Social Darwinism a doctrine that has promoted the view that IQ is related to wealth.

I do and I also would want to try and free the potential of people that otherwise wouldn’t have that potential realised.

In what way am I being a harbinger of failure?

*

 

Individual

This seems to be yet more distraction tactics and you seem to be employing this tactic once again because you know you can’t address the flaws in your arguments.

Which once more leads me to the question of why you continue to hold what even you seem to realise are flawed ideas?