Decide R Inchief

I'd just like it noted that strict constructionists are all for what it says in the Constitution until it is politically convenient to change your mind.

I'm not interested in your talking points and evidently that's all you've got. Enjoy your thread.

Maybe I just assumed you are a Progressive? I really don't know of anytime you said you are a Socialist either... If I am wrong about this, I apologize. But on the other hand, if I am right about that... your definition of fair is you get everything free and rich people pay for it all. Your definition of fair is you pay nothing while we take 70% of their income, 90% if you support Bernie. Business exists to make money. You believe business exists to employ people. You are wrong about this. From what you say in these threads, the worst people on the planet is everyone that makes more money than you. If you ever get what you want, and rich people are taxed to the point they are no longer rich... it doesn't make you rich... it makes everyone unemployed. Just sayin' You're certainly presumptive in telling me all about what I want. I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said anything close to what you're suggesting above. Go ahead, I'll wait. Otherwise, I'll accept the apology and we can talk about the things I said instead of what you think was said.

Never mind the fact that the richer you are, the more stuff you will buy. Never mind the fact that your argument can be refuted with a 5 second google search, or a 10 minute high school economics lesson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax Never mind the fact that I don't need a 5 second Google search to know that Progressives have never been in favor of a tax increase that they themselves are required to pay. If I make 50k per year, it's very easy for me to cast my vote to raise taxes on anyone that makes over 80k per year... but if suddenly they are voting to raise their own taxes as well... maybe they will be more careful about it? Show me where I said I don't want to pay my fair share. I have said that I have an issue with people in the highest tax brackets bitching about their insanely high taxes when I have already shown you their effective tax rates are lower than they have been in decades. Warren Buffet himself has pointed out his effective tax rate is lower than his secretary's, who I can assure you makes FAR less than he does.

Rapunzel

Masked. I don't seem to have permission to view anything. I can see the threads but I get a permission denied error when clicking on one.

Never mind the fact that the richer you are, the more stuff you will buy. Never mind the fact that your argument can be refuted with a 5 second google search, or a 10 minute high school economics lesson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

Never mind the fact that sales taxes are hopelessly regressive.

News Flash! The government needs revenue to operate. Your above statement ignores the Bush cuts gutting of the tax rate at the top tier of the bracket without any spending cuts to offset the lost revenue. in fact, he lied to the American people in order to start an off-the-books war to get WMDs that didn't exist. The effective tax rates on the very top brackets have been among the lowest in 60+ years with the effect of driving deficits to record levels. To listen to the rhetoric from people like you it would seem as if the rates are higher than they've ever been!

Yes, the fact that there was shared responsibility by Clinton, a Republican congress, and general macroeconomic trends is why I called it "the surplus under Clinton" not "the surplus because of Clinton." Okay - so defense spending is a federal responsibility - no argument there. But, does that mean we should spend eleventy-zillion dollars on it? No - because that number (if it were real) would bankrupt the country. So, I will ask once again - are you serious about addressing the federal debt or not? And if it were determined that raising taxes to do so was needed, would you advocate for such? (Or do you not actually care about the debt, and just say you do, while insisting that we need more spending on aircraft carriers, etc.? Fun fact: government spending on armaments is like any government spending - it adds to the debt you sometimes rail against.) Spending on the military-industrial complex (a term coined by a Republican who must be sickened at the sight of his party today) can only be viewed as welfare in another form.

emerald

I find it amusing that even Hillary Clinton isn't Socialist enough for today's Democrat Party. I think it says a lot that you think a centrist corporatist moderate like either of the Clintons or Obama is anywhere approaching leftist. Either one is no more socialist than Eisenhower was. (Incidentally, another centrist moderate) I really don't care where you want to designate your version of center... it's all led up to 20 trillion in debt, over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and I will do all I can to stop it. We can't keep printing money to take care of an unproductive society. Time to put on your grown up clothes and act like responsible adults. Both parties only care about deficits when they are not the majority party in Congress. I point to Bush's unfunded tax giveaway to the wealthy and his unfunded war in Iraq two as recent big examples of the 'unfunded liabilities' you claim to despise. It is worthy of note the last president to turn in a budget surplus was Clinton, who is the devil incarnate in your world. I have not seen a plan from any of the candidates running that will address your above concerns, unless you count Trump's apparent plan to "renegotiate better deals" with everyone. :rollseyes:

I find it amusing that even Hillary Clinton isn't Socialist enough for today's Democrat Party. I think it says a lot that you think a centrist corporatist moderate like either of the Clintons or Obama is anywhere approaching leftist. Either one is no more socialist than Eisenhower was. (Incidentally, another centrist moderate)

I have nothing useful to add, so I'll just increase my post count.

I find it amusing that even the Pope isn't conservative enough for today's Republican Party.

We're all more stupid for having watched that.

Yeah, this is good. Do you think if I can fit it on a bumper sticker, the Democrats will finally understand that the Federal Government is not responsible for solving every complex problem? I think it's a brilliant idea. Considering your list of Trump Administration goals require that the federal government take action to address supposed problems, I'm not sure what your point is. Going down you list: Under Trump you'll supposedly get: [The Federal Government] will build the wall. [Agents of the Federal Government] will kick out the illegals. [Federal legislative actions (?)] will fix the trade deficit.* [Federal legislative actions (?)] will take back the jobs lost to China and Mexico.* [The Federal Government] will rebuild the military. [The Federal Government] will take care of our veterans. (n.b.: regardless of whether this is direct, via the VA, or indirect, via federal spending to private medical establishments, it is the Federal Government doing something) [The Federal Government] will destroy ISIS. (Unless you know of a competing non-Federal Government Air Force that we can use) [The Federal Government] will balance the budget / bring down the debt. (Again, it has to be some kind of Federal Government action in the form of spending cuts and/or tax increases, though it is hard to imagine how this can be done with the extra military and veterans spending in the previous 3 points) [The Federal Government] will renegotiate all the deals with other countries. (What other party could do it?) Maybe you view the starred legislative actions as "government getting out of the way" and thus not having them solve a complex problem (offshoring of American manufacturing, which has been going on since the 1970s). Other goals (wall construction, military expansion) do however require direct government action: private enterprises don't spontaneously generate walls along national borders or aircraft carriers without prompting in the form of government spending. If Trump was a libertarian, then sure, that might be a good line making use of Mencken's quote, but Trump is no libertarian. :clap:

Well what do you know, I was right. I know exactly what you mean... I'm agnostic Look! We agree on something!

Well what do you know, I was right.

If you turn your freedom over to the oligarchy it's gone just the same.

I fear that discussing this with you is a little like discussing the bible with literalists. Point out for me where I said I hate and/or want people who make money to be punished. I make a very good living. However, I expect that living to not be collected at the expense of all others. Furthermore, if you're not a stockholder then you are voting against your own economic self interest. There is no rational reason for this behavior short of Social Darwinism. Unfortunately, you are not alone. This book is relevant to that phenomenon. This Libertarian paradise you espouse has the side effect of allowing the oligarchy to run roughshod over all others.

That is why I included Supreme Courts in the list... it's my assertion that they have all broke the boundaries of the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to be against corporate oligarchy and limit shareholder value? Are you saying they would be abdicating a responsibility the people never gave them? If you want something like this, it should be done the right way... draw up a Constitutional Amendment, and get it passed... but that's just too hard, it's much easier to bullshit our way into super majorities and stack the courts with judges that refuse to stop it. You asked me a question, and I did the best I could to explain my position. You still have the right to not like it. Government that is truly "of, by and for the people" includes ALL people. Not just stockholders.

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say on which laws go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Therefore, under your own standard the above assertion is incorrect. You're describing a libertarian fantasy land. In the world of today, corporate oligarchy in the name of "ensuring shareholder value" would be the actual result of government abdicating its responsibility. Government is not the boogeyman. Management of the rules and regulations set up to minimize the negative effects of profit-at-all-cost capitalists is and should be the role of government. That said, I certainly would like a line-item veto provision included on my 1040 form! Setting aside the outlier of Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature (incidentally, a product of the Progressive Movement), I think we need only look to history to show us that states have certainly proven either unable or unwilling to 'take care of their state', as you suggest. Two easy examples are segregation and voting rights.

YES! You are correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to inject the U.S. Federal Government with a big government progressive platform. When Teddy left office, William Howard Taft rejected the Progressive movement and began reversing the damage. Progressives found a new home with the easily manipulated, and horribly dysfunctional, Democratic Party. Teddy didn't like that and came back to run against Taft with the new Progressive Party... nicknamed the Bull Moose Party. This split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson won with 43% of the vote. The Progressive Party dissolved shortly after, and they have been firmly encamped with Democrats, and destroying the Republic, ever since. Class dismissed. As I read the above, you'd like to repeal most of the results of the 20th century. Do you care to elaborate?

As I'm from Farkistan the request should be implied.